Coalfield Communities

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing this debate. The House will know that Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is not a coalfields constituency. Our mining tradition is far older. It goes back to the days of chalk. Its legacy today is seen in the impact of sinkholes in the local area.

Today’s debate is very much focused on the lasting legacy and impact of an era when coal was king. Although I do not represent a coalfields constituency, I certainly grew up in one. The old men with the blue scars and the hacking coughs from emphysema—or pneumoconiosis, as we now know it to be—were the background to my childhood. I feel lucky that I had a great-grandfather who, unlike many miners, lived a very long life. He started working in a pit at Cwmcarn at the age of 12 and carried on to the age of 70. He shared the impact of things such as the Universal Colliery disaster in Senghenydd on his life and the community in which he lived and grew up, and of seeing his brother die after being buried in a rockfall.

Although the industry created the enormous economic opportunities that have been described by many Members, we know that the environment was very harsh and difficult, and as we recognise in our many debates about climate change and the transition to net zero, it created a product that, although valuable and effective at generating energy, is enormously polluting.

[Mr Perkins]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. We have just had a very good debate, but it must be a considerable embarrassment to him that not a single Member of His Majesty’s Opposition thought that it was worthwhile attending to make a substantive speech. I appreciate that he is not a coalfield MP, and I appreciate that not many Conservative Members are, but does he not think that, if the Conservatives are serious about being ready to represent the whole country again, we should be hearing from some of their MPs in a debate such as this?

[David Simmonds]

As we see in all the debates that we have in this House, Members will attend to represent the interests of their communities and constituencies. I know that the same point has been made in the past about the lack of Members of Parliament from certain parties attending debates on farming and things such as that. We need to recognise that the central focus of this debate is on the historical impact and the way that we deal with that legacy. As the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, there are, to my regret, not many Conservative Members of Parliament who are dealing with those issues in their constituencies. That is a political fact. However, we will see them very active on issues that directly impact their constituencies on a daily basis.

[Adam Jogee]

I gently say to the shadow Minister that any party that seeks to lead our United Kingdom should be interested in, and committed to, issues that affect people across the UK. Irrespective of whether Members have particular challenges in their constituencies, more of the shadow Minister’s colleagues should have been here.

[David Simmonds]

I am sure the Government will wish to press that point.

In summing up, it is important, first, to recognise the impact that the end of the use of coal in British industry and energy generation has had; and secondly, to draw out of that history some lessons for what is often termed the just transition—the intended end of oil and gas as a significant player in our energy industries of the future. When I was growing up, the Thatcher Government’s engagement on investment was largely with the European Economic Community. I saw the roads being built and the blue flags appearing all over as the Government sought to bring in infrastructure investment to open up places like Cwmcarn—a valley off a valley, which is a challenge to access—and communities of coal board houses, where my sister and her husband still live to this day, so that people could access the growing industries and employment opportunities of the future. The Government at that time recognised that the infrastructure to create that access would be vital.

[Grahame Morris]

I must take issue with that. I served a number of years on Easington district council, and we were twinned with a similar mining area in North Rhine- Westphalia in Germany. When the Carl Alexander mine near Baesweiler closed, the local authority and the miners were given two years’ notice, grants were made available through the federal, local and national Government to retain the miners, and new industrial estates were built. It is interesting to compare that with what happened when our pits closed in Easington, Murton, South Hetton, Horden and Blackhall—we found out on the Friday that the pit was closing on the Monday, and thousands of men lost their jobs.

[David Simmonds]

I remember those debates, of course, as the backdrop to my experiences growing up, along with the miners’ strike and the various interventions that occurred. There is an opportunity—I will put it this way—to learn lessons from that and ensure that the new Government’s approach and future Governments’ approaches take those into account and handle those situations better.

[Luke Akehurst]

If we could move forward from the events of the 1980s, in the last Parliament, the Conservative Benches were full of Members representing former mining constituencies, including three of the constituencies in County Durham. Perhaps the reason those Members were not returned at the last general election was that Government’s sorry failure to deliver the levelling up they promised. Can the shadow Minister in any way defend the failure to economically regenerate mining areas that in 2019 had Conservative MPs for the first time?

[David Simmonds]

I am sure that all those former Members of Parliament, and, indeed, some of their Labour predecessors, would also be happy to answer for the work they did, some of which was successful and some of which was not, to bring new jobs, opportunities and educational chances to those communities. There are many things we can debate that have brought benefits to those communities. If we examine the statistics in the Library briefing on the impact and legacy in different coalfields around the UK, we see quite a different picture. There are some places where those interventions—based on the statistics—appear to have been effective because there are few, if any, super output areas listed that remain affected by those issues of poverty and ill health today, and there are other areas that have struggled to move on. We all know and understand why that is in some places. If the economy of an area has long been based on mining and natural resource, and there is no other direct employment opportunity there, something different needs to be found, and many Members have referred to the impact of that. I have touched on infra- structure as one element.

[Rachel Taylor]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[David Simmonds]

I will, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Rachel Taylor]

An observation I have made as I have listened to the hon. Gentleman is that not one single Member of his party stood up for the thousands of pensioners who were not given the justice they deserve in the mineworkers pension scheme or the BCSSS. His party claims to stand up for pensioners, and yet it did nothing and said nothing for those mining pensioners who deserved a better deal.

[David Simmonds]

If the hon. Lady refers to Hansard for debates on these matters in previous Parliaments, she will find those points being raised by Members from across the House—rightly so—with a view to moving the debate on to the decisions that have been made today.

The Clapham review of the effectiveness of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust was a key opportunity to consider the role that local government in particular plays in the regeneration of our coalfields. Clearly, that challenge exists at a number of levels. The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) referenced the large number of spoil heaps—some of which I can see from the garden of my parents’ house. A number of local authorities—and Governments, through local authorities —have sought to address that through planting and remediation to stabilise their spoil tips, for example, but there is still a job to do. As the years go by and the industries that produce those spoil tips become historical, we know that we must effectively address the risks that they continue to pose.

To conclude my remarks, I turn to the importance of learning from the work that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust undertook and from the points that many Members of all parties have made in debates about these issues over many years. We know that we are about to embark on a process. The UK has made progress in the decarbonisation of our economy since the early 1990s, when, as a leading nation, we began the major shift away from coal. In the 1950s, coal produced most of our energy; today, it contributes to none—our last coal-fired power station recently closed.

The Trades Union Congress recently passed a motion highlighting that 30,000 jobs were at risk in the oil and gas industry. We talk about the just transition—Labour Members are, in my view, justified in raising the problems that process has created—but we must lay the groundwork for it. I remember interventions during the miners’ strike, such as the distribution at my school of the EEC butter mountain. That is not an example of an effective economic intervention to address the needs of people in difficulty. If we are to have a just transition away from fossil fuels in the future, we must learn from the past mistakes of all Governments in respect of coalfields, and incorporate the lessons into effective policy for a better future for all affected communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Minister.

Local Government Finance

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association.

It has been an excellent debate, and I applaud the many Members on both sides of the House who have made insightful contributions to the discussion. Not only have they brought up issues affecting their own constituency —as, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) set out so powerfully in his speech—but Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), speaking in his capacity as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, set out a number of really important points that will affect the detail of how this plays out at local level. I am glad that the Minister touched on those points in his introduction.

As the House knows, local government in the UK spends around £40 billion of taxpayers’ money and over 800 different services are delivered by the average local authority. As a consequence, this issue touches the lives of more constituents than almost any other area of government activity. The starting point that we have to recognise is the one that was made by the chairman of the County Councils Network, who said that from the perspective of local authorities, this was the worst settlement in years. It is clear from the Minister’s introduction that he is a Minister who knows his WOECAT from his BRB from his persnuffle, but the impact of that detail matters so much.

In particular, the most significant element is the imposition of employers’ national insurance contributions in the Budget. According to the estimates of the Local Government Association, local authorities face more than £1 billion in unfunded costs arising from that alone. Harlow council, for example, has set out that this settlement represents a 21% cut in its core funding, within which it will receive £198,000 of revenue support in this year only for over £1 million of additional direct costs from national insurance contributions. That cost will rise to £1.2 million next year, with—as currently projected—no funding provided at all.

The Institute for Government has analysed the Government’s Budget overall, and when it looks at those elements affecting local government, it says that the Budget is “heavily front-loaded”—there is additional funding this year—but that the current plans set out by the Chancellor imply that there will be cuts in every year for the remainder of the Parliament, which will make it very

“difficult for…local government…to improve”.

We need to recognise that although there will be winners and losers, this is a budget settlement for local government that contains an enormous number of challenges, and there remain a number of very significant questions, which I will come to in a moment.

I welcome the point made by a number of Members about the value that we place on our local councillors. I have spoken to the Minister, and I agree with the point raised by a number of Members about restoring the access of councillors in England to the local government pension scheme. We must demonstrate the value that we place on local leadership, and that will be even more significant in the context of extensive local government reform. I know that is something Ministers are considering, and that its cost is minimal in the context of the overall local government finance settlement. As many Members have pointed out, motiving local leadership is vital to getting this right. With the reduction in the number of councillors and local politicians, in a country whose population is projected to hit 72.5 million by 2032, we must ensure that that growing democratic deficit is addressed by engaged, effective local politicians with the ability to make decisions in their area.

Let us look at where the money is going, where it is coming from and how that is changed. As the Minister knows, around three-quarters of council funding is spent on social care, and since the fair access criteria that were introduced by the last Labour Government, that is no longer a matter of local decision making. It is largely a statutory duty, where clear rules are set out in guidance from central Government about how that money will be spent, and how each resident and each constituency can help and will be treated. As a consequence, the bulk of funding going into the system is being spent on what we might describe as the “must dos”, rather than the “nice to haves”, and the fulfilment of clearly defined statutory duties.

If we cast our minds back to the last local government report of this nature under the previous Labour Government, we see a much longer report than the one before the House this evening. That report sets out the relative needs formula, which was the methodology used for the distribution of funding for all manner of different areas of local government activity. In 2010, around 25% of local government resources came from council tax, 27% came from the formula grant, which was essentially a redistribution of business rates, and 48%—very nearly half—came from specific grants, of which around two-thirds was the education budget. One of the big changes that has taken place over that period is the growth in the independence of schools and the rise of academies, and therefore a much larger share of that funding no longer sits within the local authority budget but is paid by the Education and Skills Funding Agency direct to schools. While that funding is no longer part of the council’s budget, it is still being spent locally on the same services that it always was.

A lot of debate in the House on local government has been about devolution, and one of the most significant areas of devolution regards financial responsibility. If we reflect on those same formula elements today, 52% of council spending is derived from council tax, directly under local control, and 27% comes from a grown share of business rates pooling, with a focus on incentivising councils to deliver growth. A much lower 22% comes from grant funding, as the Government sought to give local authorities over that 14-year period a much greater degree of control over their own resources. When we reflect on what that formula also tells us, as a number of Members have said, the decision to scrap things such as the rural services delivery grant reflects a criticism of the priorities set out by the previous Government.

We must also reflect that when we look at the list of the lowest funded councils in 1997, in 2010, and today, we find broadly the same set of local authorities on that list. The consequence of that is clear: no Government can cut funding that the council did not have in the first place. While most Conservative, and particularly rural, authorities did not see any benefit, or no significant benefit in funding through the indices of multiple deprivation, for the most part, the Conservative Government for 14 years maintained a significant premium of funding to areas for things such as children on free school meals going into education and in ensuring that deprivation formulas continued to play a significant part in the distribution of social care resources. The rural services delivery grant was a small step towards recognising, in the distribution of local government funding, the additional costs that were faced by places that had never seen any benefit from any Government. Members from all parts of the House—particularly Labour Members newly elected to rural areas—have said how awful it is that their local authorities are challenged by costs such as potholes and maintaining rural roads. Wait until they find out who decided to take away the rural services delivery grant, which would have provided the resources to deal with that.

The biggest challenge that all local authorities face will be dealing in parallel with reorganisation and the tight financial environment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said in the statement on devolution, it is clear that the Government—I respect the fact that they have been clear about this in their statements to the House—have made a decision in Whitehall about the form that they expect to see local government in England taking. It is also clear that they will ensure that that is implemented initially through local authorities coming forward as volunteers, and subsequently through a statutory invitation to ensure that they do.

I hope that the Minister will address a number of those points in summing up. The report is principally about the revenue support grant: local authorities do not yet know where they stand on the public health grant. They do not yet clearly know where they stand on schools funding. They do not yet clearly know the impact of Government announcements on the housing revenue account or the parking revenue account, all of which will have a significant impact. In particular, the statutory override on the dedicated schools grant for SEND remains uncertain and a significant budget pressure.

Let me finish where my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton finished: if the Government can find £18 billion to cover the cost of the Chagos Islands deal, I am sure they can find the funds to make a better fist of it for our local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen. The Minister tried to respond to his comments but he was not interested in the answers, so he will sit down and listen to my closing remarks. I want to respond to hon. Members across the House who have taken these issues very seriously.

This Government have already invested £3.7 billion in social care. We have recognised the need for investment in response to the rise in national insurance contributions —up by £515 million, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out. We have invested £1 billion in SEND and £600 million in the recovery fund. That is a snapshot of the investment that we are putting in. Local government and local services were starved of much-needed support under the last Government. That is what we are trying to correct.

[David Simmonds]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rushanara Ali]

The shadow Minister has had his chance to make his points. It is my turn to sum up, and I want to address the points that have been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

No.

We are very serious about working with colleagues both in Parliament and in local areas to tackle these very serious challenges, which local authorities need us to address after 14 years of under-investment.

[David Simmonds]

rose—

[Rushanara Ali]

I am concluding my speech. The shadow Minister has had his chance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

An exemplar contribution. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about ensuring that local authorities receive expertise and support, which is why the local audit office is so important. I know my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution will work with him and his Committee to ensure we get it right, so that local authorities get the right support to ensure their finances are carefully managed.

I thank hon. Members once again for their valuable contributions. As I hope has been clear throughout the course of the debate, the Government are under no illusion about the scale of the challenges before us. There is no silver bullet to solve them. After 14 years, the idea that within the space of seven months all the underlying issues can be resolved is for the birds. I hope hon. Members, including the shadow Minister, recognise that we have to take the issues seriously. Just turning up and scoring points will not do the job. We have to recognise that there are serious issues and challenges. Where we can work together, we must.

I am conscious that I did not give way to the shadow Minister. If he wants to work with us, I am very happy to give way.

[David Simmonds]

I am grateful to the Minister. I think most of us, certainly on the Conservative Benches—this was acknowledged with gentle humour by a number of colleagues—are determined to work together in a constructive way, because we recognise that this issue has a huge impact, but I have to ask the Minister a question. She referred to an “investment” of £538 million in respect of national insurance contributions. Does she really argue that it is an investment to raise taxes on one group of people to provide a grant to our local authorities to pay another government tax? Would it not surely be better to go for a lower tax, higher growth agenda, rather than seek to tax our way into prosperity, which does not have the best track record in economic history?

[Rushanara Ali]

Perhaps the shadow Minister did not hear the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, or my remarks, about what the Government have already invested in local government—billions. Does he want me to go over it again? There is not much time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I suggest that he goes back and listens to the speech and those announcements. He knows that, in a very challenging set of circumstances, we have invested an additional £5 billion in local government. I hope very much that we can work on areas in which we can agree, but where we cannot, let us agree to disagree.

As I have said, there is no silver bullet that will solve the difficulties that we have to address, many of which we have inherited. Today is the start, not the end, of the process of reform and renewal, but with this settlement we have begun the task of putting councils on a sounder financial footing, fixing the foundations, and strengthening the sector for the long term. This will give councils the certainty and stability that they need in order to plan, move from crisis management to prevention, and deliver the change that the country needs: higher growth, higher living standards, more jobs, more homes and more opportunities as we rebuild as part of our plan for change. We are putting more money into people’s pockets, and putting stability, investment and reform first to deliver national renewal. We are putting Government back in the service of working people. I commend this settlement to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2025–26 (HC 623), which was laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.

Resolved,

That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2025–26 (HC 624), which was laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.—(Jim McMahon.)

Holocaust Memorial Day

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a privilege and an honour as a shadow Minister, but also as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews, to close today’s debate on Holocaust Memorial Day. I share the very complimentary observations of many Members about the Minister’s opening speech. He was very clear in restating the importance not only of recalling in particular the Holocaust that took place in the second world war, targeted at 6 million Jews and people from all kinds of minority backgrounds, but of ensuring—this has been reflected in the many contributions from Members across the Chamber—that when we debate these issues, we think about the lessons we can learn from what happened then, from earlier tragedies and from events since, in order to ensure that as far as possible, we are doing what we can to make sure those kinds of events are never repeated.

There have been many moving and impactful speeches. The hon. Members for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) all made contributions—as did every speaker—that I will try to reflect in my closing speech, in particular where the points they made relate to lessons that we need to learn for the future.

It is incredibly important to hear the testimony of survivors, and I join colleagues in paying tribute to people such as my constituent, Paul Sved. He is one of those Holocaust survivors who travels the country with the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, speaking about what he experienced as a child and the impact it had on him, his family and his wider community. These are all reminders of the human stories that make the level of inhumanity that was shown in the Holocaust even harder to comprehend. It is also an opportunity to reflect that even in the midst of all that darkness, there are examples of humanity—of people in difficult situations taking steps to preserve the lives of their neighbours, and sometimes of strangers in their community.

I had the opportunity to visit the Wannsee villa, a beautiful lakeside house on the outskirts of Berlin—a place like my constituency. That house was the command centre for the Holocaust; it is where the committees of Nazi politicians, police and military met to manage the logistics. Today, it is a museum, displaying the records that were kept of all the meetings that took place. The thing that I found very striking about it as a visiting politician was the banality of that evidence and those records. It was like reading the minutes of the planning committees that I saw in a local authority. They list who attended and what they discussed, but instead of recording the details of people’s extensions and changes to the design of their home and their neighbours’ views, they record in detail the planning and execution of a Government-level strategy of mass murder. That emphasises the importance of learning from history. When we see the statue at Friedrichstraße station—the memorial to the Kindertransport—we can recall that at the end of world war two, when the Russian forces arrived in Berlin, they found 1,700 Jewish people living in that city who had been sheltered by a combination of city authorities and neighbours. Even in those dark places, there were those who were willing to help.

It is important to remember that antisemitism has much older roots. I was very struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), who talked about the blood libel. In a world that often seems very polarised, it always seems to me a great irony that even further back than that, the Islamic caliphate that ruled Spain—with which much of Christian Europe was at war for centuries—was the one place of safety in Europe for Jewish people for a very long time. Antisemitism is something that has deep roots, and it is incumbent on us to be aware of those roots if we are to deal with it effectively.

Members have spoken about the need to spot examples of similar human behaviour in more recent years. Srebrenica was described; many Members spoke movingly of their experiences of it, and insights from it. As the displays at Mr Speaker’s event yesterday set out, what happened in Rwanda was one of the most hideous genocides of the modern era. Many of us will recall seeing that tragedy unfold on the TV news, or hearing about it on the radio. That ties in with the theme of today’s debate. Rwanda is now a modern, democratic nation working with countries across Europe and the United Nations—for example, to resettle refugees. It is a good example of the fact that when terrible things happen, people may not always progress quickly to a perfect situation, but they can learn, identify lessons, and seek to make amends.

As well as an opportunity to recall what happened, this debate is an opportunity for us to reflect on what the nation and Parliament need to do in policy terms. It is important to acknowledge, for example, our nation’s commitment, through our Government, to the European convention on human rights. It expresses fundamental and ancient British values to do with the rule of law and due process, and applies to 46 nations, many of which chose to enshrine those values because they wanted to learn from the events that led up to the Holocaust, and to ensure that it never happened again.

There is always scope for debate on whether treaties and conventions are fit for the modern age, but our nation must continue to work alongside the UN, and to value international law and agreements—from those of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to those of the International Maritime Organisation—that enshrine the rules on how we treat people, such as refugees in small boats who find themselves in distress at sea. They have a bearing on how we work with other countries, as a leading nation and a leading voice in the international community, to encourage others to share our values of liberty and democracy.

When we recall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, my constituency neighbour, did in such historical detail, the events leading up to world war two, it puts into context our debates in the Chamber about defence spending. We can debate the figures, but there is clearly a broad commitment to moving towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. As my hon. Friend set out, however, we had commitments to others across Europe in 1939 that we simply could not meet in practice. Our country was able to defend itself, as the battle of Britain showed, but we should all ask ourselves—my hon. Friend posed this challenge—what would have been different if we had learned lessons and acted sooner. Would we have been able, in smaller or greater measure, to prevent the tragedy that unfolded and took so many innocent lives?

The United Kingdom is not a global policeman any more—the years of the Victorian pax Britannica are clearly long gone—but there remains scope for free nations to work together, and many of them have an honourable history in this respect. The Minister and I have talked a lot about Grenfell Tower, given our portfolios. Grenfell was sent to deal with the consequences of atrocities in the Sudan that caused serious concern across the world in the Victorian era. British troops, British forces and British diplomacy were frequently deployed, as in Benin, because of concern about the large-scale loss of life and atrocities that were destabilising communities.

Looking around our modern world, we see the Russianisation of deported Ukrainian children, who were taken from their families to another country to be changed into citizens of a different place with a different outlook. We look at what has happened to the Uyghur people and the Rohingya, and we look at the unfolding tragedy in Gaza and Israel. We may not be able to intervene directly and put a stop to those things, but the combined forces of the international community can be extremely powerful. We may not always be able to intervene early enough to prevent the worst of a tragedy, but we still have the scope to make a difference.

Many of us will be conscious of the impact of these issues on our constituents; I have heard Rabbi Aaron Goldstein at the Ark synagogue in my constituency speak about that movingly. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) joined me in a visit. It is twinned with synagogues in Ukraine, and holds services together with people whose homes are being bombed and whose synagogues are under attack. The Holocaust that we are talking about is an historical event, but its consequences and the attitudes behind it are very much alive, not just in Europe, but elsewhere in the world.

I add the Opposition’s thanks to organisations that do incredibly important work on this issue, particularly in this era of heightened tension and heightened fear of antisemitism. I applaud the fact that the Government have, through cross-party work, carried on providing the necessary finance to the Community Security Trust, which has a visible presence around synagogues in my constituency. It provides reassurance to our Jewish citizens, and their friends and neighbours, so that they can freely practise their faith and associate with members of their community without fear.

Notwithstanding some of the debate around marches in central London, I welcome the fact that in most of our communities, relationships remain good. In particular, relationships that were build up during the covid era, when people of all faiths came together with Churches and community organisations, have stood us in good stead, and people have not allowed themselves to be divided. I thank the Metropolitan police, and police forces across the country, who have responded to issues robustly, but with sensitivity. Since 2016, there has been not only long-standing, cross-party support for funding for the CST, which provides security assistance for synagogues and our Jewish community, but funding to ensure that our Muslim community enjoys additional security and protection.

All those who have testified about their experience of coming here from Holocaust-blighted Europe for a new start have described the importance of being in a place where freedom applies to everybody, and is not the preserve of a few. It is enormously important that the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, and the educational programmes that sit alongside it, continues, so that our children and future generations have the opportunity we have had to hear the testimony of those who have been through those dark periods, and the opportunity, which many Members described so movingly, to learn from history and ensure that we do not repeat its worst mistakes.

Community Engagement Principles and Extremism Definition

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on community engagement principles and extremism.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)]

National security will always come first for this Government, and we will always treat the threat of extremism with the seriousness that it requires. As the Prime Minister said this morning,

“Britain now faces a new threat”—

a threat of extreme violence from people who are driven by material online. They are often now lone individuals who are driven by a twisted desire for notoriety. It is a threat that we must contend with, alongside that from traditional terrorist groups.

The House will be aware that the Home Secretary will make a statement to the House shortly. All aspects of this changing threat will be considered in her rapid review, ordered last year, which will inform the Government’s counter-extremism strategy. The review panel is considering the current understanding of extremism, including Islamist and far-right extremism, and its work will include a focus on how best to tackle the threat posed by extremist ideologies, both online and offline. Early findings were set out in December, alongside initial measures to tackle the challenges that we face. The Home Office will provide a further update on the measures and actions arising from the counter-extremism sprint shortly.

Our Department retains responsibility for communities and cohesion policy, and the Deputy Prime Minister has convened a new cross-Government communities recovery steering group to develop a comprehensive strategy to address the underlying causes of divisions in our local communities. In particular, it seeks to address some of the causes of the disorder across the UK following the Southport tragedy last summer. We have made it clear that a new approach is urgently needed, and we have backed that with an initial £50 million from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government community recovery fund to support areas that were impacted over the summer.

[David Simmonds]

This question relates to an announcement made last March by Michael Gove, who was then Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in which he set out some new definitions of extremism, including the activities of Islamist and far-right groups, and robust non-engagement principles for the Government to apply when there were serious concerns. That is particularly relevant to the MHCLG portfolio, which covers social services departments and other organisations, youth justice and Prevent, through which public services engage at community level with a variety of organisations to gather intelligence, help people to move away from extremism, and intervene and disrupt emerging challenges, such as those posed by grooming gangs. The issues are also important for our often vilified Muslim communities, who contribute so much to our nation.

The principles having been set out, the aim was to set out a new system for structured engagement. However, in July the Chancellor announced £120 million of savings in the MHCLG from “small projects”. It subsequently emerged in answers to written parliamentary questions that an element of that was reduced funding for “legal fees” which were no longer expected

“to arise from the previous Government’s”

cross-party

“approach to extremism”.

A series of Ministers have, since then, found it very challenging to determine exactly what this means, but Ministers have told the House in answer to written questions that the March statement reflects the position of the last Government—in other words, that this Government have chosen to ditch the last Government’s policy on the non-engagement principles.

I am conscious that this is very sensitive, given the statement about the Southport case that we will hear later, but will the Minister answer some questions? Does the Department still adhere to that working definition of Islamism? Does it still have a working definition of non-violent extremism on which public bodies can rely, should they need to defend themselves when challenged? Can he tell the House why Ministers have not been—to quote from the “Ministerial Code”—“as open as possible” on this issue? Will he share with the House details of correspondence and any meetings that have taken place, and, in particular, the membership of the steering group to which he referred, so that more transparency and confidence surrounds this process?

[Alex Norris]

I do not think it will be a revelation for Members to hear that a change of Government often means a change of approach to what have been shared views and shared problems. I believe that the last Government deeply wanted to tackle extremism in all its forms across the country, and we share that desire. Where we differ is on the approach taken by the Department.

In last year’s written ministerial statement—this, I have to say, is something with which I simply cannot agree—the previous Secretary of State, for whom I have a lot of respect, chose for the Department to assume a great deal of responsibility for the issue, essentially on the part of the entire Government. I do not think that is the right approach, for very good reasons. Counter-extremism should, I believe, be the fundamental purview of the Home Office, not least because of the Home Office’s access to confidential information that is often not available to the MCHLG. The approach that we have chosen in the new Government is to have a cross-Government but Home Office-led counter-extremism sprint, which will lead in due course to a counter-extremism strategy that shapes the Government’s way forward. That is a different approach to what is, I believe, a commonly understood problem.

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the previous process as robust. Let us be honest: it was not used. The previous Secretary of State made a detailed written ministerial statement and set out a system that could have led on this issue. He named some organisations, but it was very clear in the written ministerial statement that he was not prejudging any process for those organisations, and he subsequently did not use the process. I would question the hon. Gentleman’s attachment to a previous process that the previous Government chose not to use.

On the point about openness, I have answered multiple questions from the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister. I will continue to do so, and we will be as open as we possibly can be. Similarly, with regard to the steering group, I do not think we have made that information public, but I am sure there is no problem in doing so. I will make sure that it is available.

Draft Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority Regulations 2024 Draft Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority Regulations 2025 Draft Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2025 Draft Lancashire Combined County Authority Regulations 2024

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 General Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I start where the Minister finished, with the Opposition’s thanks for the work of local government leaders up and down the country, as reflected in the geographical dispersal of the draft statutory instruments that we are debating and the proposals that we know will come forward.

We are broadly supportive of the measures outlined in the draft instrument, and you will be pleased to know, Mr Mundell, that we have no intention of seeking to divide the Committee. However, I have a couple of points and questions to put to the Minister that are relevant not just to each of the instruments, but to general interest in how the Government will approach such issues in future.

The first is how we ensure that the precept that will arise for such authorities is kept within reasonable limits. Governments of all stripes have had different approaches, whether that is referendum limits on council tax or something else. However, in London, for example, there has been a huge increase in the level of the mayoral precept over the years. Council tax payers will clearly want an assurance that those precepts will not be used to backfill a shortfall in funding from central Government for things that central Government are mandating that authorities undertake. They want to know that those precepts are genuinely under local control.

It would be helpful to understand the Government’s thinking on future council tax referendum limits and the expectations that they may have, or that they may have set in discussion with each of the new combined authorities, about how the precepting process will be handled, what it is intended to fund at a local level and how those who take decisions will be accountable both to local residents and to the councils that form part of the authorities.

The second thing I want to raise is how debts that may arise from the authorities will be handled. The Government have introduced several measures on combined authorities’ borrowing limits and freedom to borrow. We welcome that, and it is a positive step to enable them to borrow to invest locally. However, we are very conscious that a number of authorities have overborrowed in the past.

Local authorities can access several sources of debt when they need to borrow. Historically, the public works loan board was the main source of that funding, and we all saw the significant impact when its interest rate was doubled from a modest 1% to 2% under the previous Government but one. Clearly, interest rates since that point have significantly risen, but Government can still secure debt at a much cheaper rate than individual local authorities generally can, and can make that available through the public works loan board mechanism to minimise such costs. The local government bonds agency, launched by the Local Government Association—I should declare that I am a parliamentary vice-president—is an additional source of bond funding for local authorities that wish to invest in larger scale capital projects.

In debates about local government finance and restructuring, however, many Members have expressed concern about how such debts will be handled when they are incurred as part of larger central Government capital projects—connectivity, railway infrastructure and things like that—where individual local authorities along the route may be asked to borrow to part finance elements; and when they arise through investments, particularly those that go wrong, as they sometimes sadly do.

We seek assurance that the Government have done some thinking and have identified a process, or are working on doing so, to ensure that unsustainable debt levels and long-term debt that falls over into future models of combined authority—under the local government restructuring White Paper, or under future Governments —do not become inappropriately burdensome for council tax payers.

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for his support for the measures. One thing that has stood out over quite a long period is that belief in devolution mostly rises far above party politics. It is about a structural change in how the country is governed and where power sits. There may be differences about pace, perhaps, and about focus, and there will always be a conversation about resourcing, but Members across the House absolutely support the direction of travel that we are embarking on to take power away from Westminster and put it into the hands of those who know their areas best.

We talk often about precepts. I believe strongly that a precept is the most transparent way for taxpayers to hold to account those who spend public money on their behalf. The reality is that mayoral functions cost money. It costs money to establish a mayoral office and carry out mayoral functions. The more responsibilities and duties we devolve down—there are significant areas of competence in the White Paper—the more mayors and combined authorities will need to marshal to provide the staffing support and resource to deliver them.

There are two ways of doing that. Either we do it through a levy provided to each local authority—through what I would call the back door—that does not appear on people’s council tax bills and is agreed from council to combined authority; or we do it through a precept. The benefit of a precept is that it increases transparency. It is published on everyone’s council tax bill, and they know exactly what they are paying for. In terms of democracy and accountability, it makes it a lot easier for people to hold the mayor to account for the money that is being spent in their name. I accept that in broaching any idea of new taxation, we must take into consideration the fact that people are reeling from the cost of living crisis and recognise the impact of tax, but we are clear that this is not a new tax in the overall sense. This is about transparency in the tax system so that people can see where their money is really going.

The shadow Minister rightly mentions borrowing limits. We have seen examples of local authorities that have borrowed far in excess of their revenue, to the point that they are now financially unviable. We all know the local authorities in scope for that. Combined authorities will agree with His Majesty’s Treasury what their borrowing cap will be, and they will only be able to borrow within that cap, providing they have the revenue to support that borrowing liability.

I have been a councillor in Greater Manchester, and I now represent it as Member of Parliament. We were able to align locally directed money, some of which was borrowing and some of which was local authority contributions, to extend the tram system. The benefit of the tram system was that it unlocked significant private sector investment, allowed central Government to align their capital programme with what we were doing locally and, importantly, had an earn-back mechanism that allowed the ticket sale revenue to be offset against loan liability. In that sense, it is a self-financing model that can grow and grow. Ultimately, the loan will be paid off, but we will always have a tram system that people will use and buy tickets for, and that will generate revenue, create jobs and be good for the economy. Providing that the HMT cap is in place, Members should be assured that it will not be excessive.

The measure is not being introduced in isolation. We are doing a huge amount on the reform of the local government pension scheme, which I and many Members believe has untapped potential for growth in this country. It is the largest pension scheme in the UK, with £400 billion, and the sixth largest in the world. I do not think we realise the benefit of it in our towns and cities for local investment as we should. If we can unlock even a small percentage of additional investment, that could be transformational. The English devolution Bill puts a duty on mayors and their combined authorities, and on pension schemes, to work together to create a pipeline of investable products.

[David Simmonds]

Previous Governments introduced pensions pooling. There is already a London pool, for example, where 33 London local authorities and the City of London have a pooled pension scheme. Two issues always arise from that. The pension fund trustees have a fiduciary duty in law to serve the best interests of the pensioners. Their obligation is not to seek the best investment from the Government’s point of view, but to do what generates a return so that people can rely on that income when they retire. Having been involved in changing some of the regulations to allow a greater share of the pool to be invested in infrastructure, I am aware that the Treasury has always had considerable concern about that that conflict with fiduciary duty. Ultimately, if there is a shortfall, it will fall back on taxpayers in another form because of the statutory nature of the schemes.

Another issue has to do with the profile of individual pension funds. We know that the London borough of Hillingdon, which serves about two thirds of my constituency, has a much younger workforce profile than the London borough of Ealing next door. The trustees’ investment intentions are therefore based on the need to serve the longer-term interests of a much larger pool of young people who will need those pensions for 50 or 60 years ahead. Ealing’s pensioners are, on the whole, older, and therefore the investment intentions are different.

I would be interested to know what regulatory change the Minister has in mind to address both the conflict between trustees’ fiduciary duties and the Government’s intention to see this as a sovereign wealth fund, which potentially it could be; and the fact that the different workforce profiles of individual pension funds may make their pooled investment choices more challenging.

[Jim McMahon]

I will be careful not to stray too far from the subject, but given that I raised it, I will say that we are out to consultation on pension funds. The exact construction of the requirement to invest via pools rather than via individual pension funds is still subject to discussion. We accept, of course, that pension fund members and boards will always have fiduciary duties. The English devolution Bill does not require blind investment regardless of the consequences; it requires an investable product to be created. That is the test. Is it safe and secure, and does it provide a return on investment that can hold water? That is a requirement.

The investment pot is £400 billion, so even 5% of that—unlocking £20 billion of investment to UK plc—would be significant and could be game-changing. We need to keep that in context, but it must be approached with caution, given that in the end, the fund must be there for pensioners and future pensioners.

The legislation delivers the commitment made in the devolution agreements with Devon and Torbay, Greater Lincolnshire and Lancashire to establish combined county authorities, and to establish a combined authority for Hull and East Yorkshire. I commend the regulations and the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority Regulations 2024.

Draft Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority Regulations 2025

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority Regulations 2025.—(Jim McMahon.)

Draft Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2025

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2025.—(Jim McMahon.)

Draft Lancashire Combined County Authority Regulations 2024

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Lancashire Combined County Authority Regulations 2024.—(Jim McMahon.)

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

We share the Government’s ambition on local growth, but Companies House is reporting the highest level of business closures in 20 years. Will the Government commit to publishing an assessment of the impact that their national insurance rises, business rates rises and changes to business property relief are having on local growth plans?

[Alex Norris]

I have no doubt that the Opposition will have all the information they need to scrutinise the Government of the day—we always provide that with full transparency. What I will not accept is that the sand our economy was built on after the past four years, under the Conservative Government of the shadow Minister and the shadow Secretary of State, is somehow this Government’s failure. In reality, the hon. Gentlemen knows, exactly as we do, that we are fixing the mess that they left. Of course, they will have the chance to oppose us along the way, but we will get on with delivering for the British people, and they will get on with carping from the sidelines. I know where I would rather be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

St Mungo’s has reported a 27% rise in rough sleeping in London under this Government compared with the same period under the last Government. Will this Government commit to removing the ringfences that they have introduced around the homelessness prevention grant, heeding councils’ calls to give them back the flexibility they need to get rough sleepers and homeless households into accommodation and avoid the cost shunts they impose on council tax payers?

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question. The fact is that this Government are investing record amounts of funding to tackle the root causes. That requires action on prevention, and we are working with councils to ensure that we address those underlying causes. We have inherited a mess—record levels of homelessness and rough sleeping—and we are determined to get a grip on it. That means action on prevention as well as addressing the impact of homelessness and rough sleeping, and that is what we are determined to do.

[David Simmonds]

One strategy that councils use to address homelessness is to move homeless households elsewhere in the country. That can be an appropriate response, but it needs to be done in consultation with the receiving authority. Does the Minister share my concern that Labour-led Rushmoor council is using the standards procedure to attack its own members for bringing this legitimate matter of concern to public attention?

[Rushanara Ali]

The shadow Minister will be aware that the shortage of housing is driving out-of-area placements. I am very happy to come back to him on his specific example, but the Deputy Prime Minister has written to councils setting out their responsibilities and that out-of-area placements should be a last resort. We will continue to work with councils to support them as they deal with the challenge of the underlying problem, which is the housing shortage and the crisis that has been left behind. We are determined to ensure that we get a grip by providing the support they need with funding, as well as the 1.5 million homes that this Government are determined to build.

Local Government Reorganisation

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister to make a statement on plans for local government reorganisation.

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

The English devolution White Paper sets out how this Government plan to deliver on our manifesto pledge to transfer power out of Westminster through devolution and to fix the foundations of local government. This Government’s long-term vision is for simpler structures, making it clearer for residents who they should look to on local issues, with more strategic decisions to unlock growth and to deliver better services for local communities.

On 16 December 2024, I wrote to all councils in the remaining two-tier areas and neighbouring small unitaries to set out plans for a joint programme of devolution coupled with local government reorganisation. We acknowledge that for some areas the timing of elections affects their planning for devolution, particularly alongside reorganisation. To help to manage these demands, we will consider requests to postpone local elections, as has been the case in previous rounds. Where local elections are postponed, we will work with local areas to move elections to a new shadow unitary council as soon as possible. This is a very high bar, and rightly so.

The deadline for such requests was Friday 10 January. Today, my Department has published a list of all county and unitary councils who have made requests, including those who want to delay elections from 2025 to 2026. For the avoidance of doubt, this is the list of requests; it is not the final list that will be approved. We will consider these requests carefully and postpone elections only where there is a clear commitment to delivering both reorganisation and devolution to the ambitious timetable set out. While not all areas listed will go forward to be part of the devolution priority programme, we are grateful for the local leadership shown in submitting these requests, and a decision will be made in due course as soon as possible.

We welcome the large number of areas that have come forward seeking to join the devolution priority programme, reflecting our own ambition for greater coverage across England. This Labour Government were elected on a manifesto to push power out of Westminster and to relight the fires of our regions, and I am delighted that local leaders across England are sharing that ambition.

[David Simmonds]

Although it was not a manifesto commitment, the Government published their agenda for reorganising council structures in England before Christmas, and we support our local government colleagues who are clearly required to respond to that call from Government. With local elections scheduled to take place in May this year and councils already incurring significant costs arranging polling stations and electoral canvassing, and preparing to receive nominations and issue postal ballots, it is not surprising that many councils have acceded to the Government’s expectation of a delay in these polls. After all, why incur millions in costs to local council tax payers for electing people to councils that are to be abolished shortly afterwards?

However, there remains significant uncertainty about where and if those elections will be delayed. With deadlines looming for key points in the organisation of those elections, that uncertainty risks some wasted costs for council tax payers, so we on the Conservative Benches have a series of questions. We know that many of those councils are Conservative-run, and with Conservative councils charging on average £80 less per household than Labour ones and £21 less on average than Lib Dem ones, voters will want to understand the impact of the Government’s reorganisation on their council tax and on their back pocket.

May I ask the Minister, first, what assessment has he made of the Boundary Commission’s capacity to undertake the necessary reviews to ensure equal distribution of electors across the new local authorities? Can he give an indication to the House of when he will make decisions, so that local authorities will know whether they are preparing to organise elections and are willing to incur those costs or not? We know that a number of other announcements are in train, particularly the indication from the Deputy Prime Minister that areas currently setting a low level of council tax will be punished through revisions to the funding formula, so when can local authorities expect to know what impact such revisions to the funding formula will have? I look forward to informative answers from the Minister.

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those questions, and I am genuinely grateful for the spirit of consensus around the broader issue. I accept that there may be differences of opinion on pace, but we do not shy away from our ambition to see devolution experienced by the whole of England. I give a degree of credit to the previous Government for building out devolution in the north of England and the midlands, but surely we have to demonstrate that this project is not reserved for the north of England and the midlands. This is a project for the whole of England, and we are on with that.

Our determination to ensure that we deal with these structural changes early in the Parliament is clear, but that is shared by local government. It is important to say that although of course we will set the timetable and provide support on both the devolution priority programme and local reorganisation, it is for local areas to self-organise and to agree to be part of the programme. We are not mandating this; we are not forcing it. All the requests that we have had since Friday have been from areas who share our ambition.

The hon. Gentleman will know that it is sensible to take the approach that, if reorganisation is a genuine proposal—and the bar has to be high for that test—it is nonsense to have elections to bodies that simply will not exist. It is far better that we move at pace and create the new unitary councils and then hold elections at the earliest opportunity.

I am not going to get into the subject of council tax, partly because it is outside the scope of the hon. Gentleman’s urgent question. Also, he was slightly mischievous in the way that he framed his remarks. On the point about capacity, however, it might be helpful if I lay out what the process will be. Local areas will make the request. We will issue statutory invitations at the end of the month, and areas will need to self-organise. It is not for the Boundary Commission or the Government to lay down which plans come forward. It is for local areas to submit proposals to us, and at that point the Government will decide on the right proposals among what could be a number of options that come forward from local areas. Again, it will be for local areas to self-organise and make those proposals to us.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It appears that the attraction of business rates has not been sufficient to draw as many speakers to the Chamber as some debates, but I am none the less grateful to all Members for their contributions to today’s debate.

Just a few months ago, we exposed a £2.4 billion black hole in the local government budget: £3.7 billion of additional spending was announced, with only £1.3 billion of funding to pay for it. Over the weeks since the Budget, we have seen pensioners, businesses of all sizes and types, schools, landlords and tenants all facing additional costs to begin to backfill the consequences of those political choices. With the Bill before the House tonight, those tax hikes are heading for the business rates bill of companies and organisations, large and small, on high streets the length and breadth of the country.

We should not pretend that this is an essential step. Our councils are acknowledged as the most efficient part of the public sector. They responded magnificently to the consequences of the financial crash in the late 2000s, with rising resident satisfaction against a backdrop of increasingly challenged budgets, but the decisions made by this new Government, in particular loading an additional £1.66 billion of national insurance costs on to local authorities, with less than a third of that covered by the promised additional funding, has consequences in our town halls. The Bill begins to make a small step towards bridging that colossal gap, but the Government need to own these political choices. The consequences of the Bill for our businesses and schools are stark.

First, let me address the changes in the multiplier, and in particular the consequences for larger premises. Under the changes to the business rate system introduced by the Government overall, increased costs loaded on to larger premises will provide the source for any reductions for smaller businesses, unlike under the previous Government, when it was covered from general grants. As a result, these businesses, often small and medium-sized enterprises—important employers and vital sources of growth for our economy—will face higher bills.

Such businesses have been characterised by the Government as warehouses, often owned by online giants, but when we look at the detail from the Government’s own data, we see firms such as Banner, which supplies the offices of Members of Parliament with all kinds of stationery products, Tygavac Advanced Materials Ltd, and Zetex Semiconductors plc, which is an American-owned business that trades on the London stock exchange, producing products that are vital for our security and growth. Those are just examples of businesses in the Minister’s own constituency that will be hit by the changes. Scapa Group Ltd, a major healthcare provider in the constituency of the Secretary of State, will also face significantly higher bills.

We have heard Members wax lyrical about how much they value the opportunities for growth in this country, and how they value in particular different types of community assets, but 28 of the data centres that the Prime Minister speaks of as being vital to the AI agenda will be hit by the Bill, and 16 of the breweries that have supposedly benefited from a penny off the pint, including Fuller’s, Bulmers, John Smith’s and Greene King, all face significant increases in their bills. Eight zoos and safari parks, including Colchester, Bristol and Chester zoos, face significantly increased business rates bills, and 48 stadiums across the country, including Wimbledon, Twickenham and both the Manchester stadiums, all expect to see big rises as a consequence. All Labour Members who love to champion their local pub and talk about taking a penny off the pint need to remember that the consequence of the Bill is to put business rates up by, on average, £5,500 a year per pub. The list is available from Government data. It is very clear that this will be a difficult Bill for retail, hospitality and leisure to swallow, after a period of direct and specific support from the previous Government.

This change does not come from a Government that came to office saying that this was their intention or plan; it comes from a Government whose Chancellor—Rachel from accounts—went so far as to promise in 2021 that she would abolish business rates. Business owners and workers who thought they were voting for a Labour Government that would come in and abolish business rates are facing significant increases today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

We have heard categorically from Labour that private schools are businesses. They see themselves as part of the community and as charities. Now that they are seen as businesses, they will act as businesses and will have to look to raise revenue from all their sports facilities and anything else that they willingly gave away to the state system. Private schools work with the state system and ensure that there is support for the state system—that is the community basis of what schooling is about. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that defining them as businesses will be a big problem?

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend highlights a point that many of us will have heard from our local state schools: the fact that they are in sharing arrangements with private schools to access facilities. They are concerned that, as the cost drivers introduced by the Government and the Budget increase the pressure on those schools, they may lose the free or low-cost access they have.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I had a meeting with a state school in my constituency that said the changes will be damaging because it gets a grant from a private school, which will have to be cut to deal with the impact of VAT. That state school, which is in a genuinely working-class community, will be £200,000 a year worse off under this policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is terrible?

[David Simmonds]

I agree that it is terrible, but sadly it is typical of the consequences introduced into the system by the actions of the Government.

[Melanie Ward]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that state schools should not have to go with a begging bowl to private schools to ask to borrow their facilities? They should be properly funded in their own right.

[David Simmonds]

Having served as a governor in three different state schools during my local government career, I know that many state schools have facilities that they are very happy to share—some have swimming pools, some have libraries, some have adult education facilities. The sharing of facilities among schools of all kinds is normal, but the Bill introduces additional pressure that will take away access to those facilities. Isolated communities in particular, which benefit most from that access, risk losing it.

The basic fact that schools will end up net worse off demonstrates that, contrary to what has been said, this policy fails the basic test of equity and efficiency. It harms some people in our country, with no corresponding benefit to anybody else. Let me address the argument proposed by a number of Members that the consequences are marginal. We heard a lot of evidence from different people. The hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) referred to an academic who has built a career writing tracts attacking the private education sector. That is not somebody I consider to be an expert. I will take the word of mums and dads, the Independent Schools Council, institutions that represent people across our country and the House of Commons Library over the word of a single left-wing academic.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) said, “It’s not fair because schools in the state sector pay business rates.” She may not be aware that there is already an 80% mandatory business rate relief for voluntary aided, foundation and academy schools, and 100% of all state school business rates liability is paid for by central Government anyway, so no school budget is burdened by the cost of business rates, whereas the consequence of the Bill will be that every independent school is burdened by those costs.

Many of us in this Chamber will see the added value that independent education brings. Many of those experts whose opinion we value have spoken profoundly about the fact that so much of our special educational needs provision is in the private sector. I made reference in Committee to Gesher school in my constituency. I defy any Labour Member visiting Gesher to come away saying, “That is a private business that deserves to be taxed.” Such institutions have emerged—in many cases over a long time—to cater to very specific and profound special educational needs and disabilities, and they are looking aghast at the consequences of the Bill.

There are a number of reasons for that, some of which are technical. The Government’s solution is to introduce the “wholly or mainly” provision. Schools that wholly or mainly provide places for children with an education, health and care plan—by which the Government mean 50% or more—will be exempt from the provisions. The problem with that policy is that many children who have well-established, diagnosed special educational needs and disabilities do not have an education, health and care plan.

Indeed, beneath statementing, which was the term at the time, the previous Labour Government introduced a number of tiers: school action and school action plus. Children with moderate to severe special educational needs and disabilities could fall into those categories and be supported in a mainstream setting. The statementing and education, health and care plan process was only ever intended to make provision for children with the most significant and severe needs. That is already the case across the state sector. We know from the evidence of many parents up and down the land that they found provision in local independent schools, and at their own cost, for children who had not qualified or had not yet achieved an education, health and care plan. It is very clear that the Government’s solution underestimates, and falls well short of accounting for, the number of children with special educational needs and disabilities. This is a Government whose Secretary of State for Education stood at the Dispatch Box last week and talked about how much they believe in inclusion. Well, their actions in support of this Bill say otherwise.

The Bill also fails to address the needs of parents who wish to secure a place for their child at a school that has a special character. This is particularly important in rural areas, but it is an issue across the country. We all know that there are schools that have the ability to provide specialist training or coaching in a sport that a child excels in and wishes to pursue, and there are schools that have a faith or cultural identity that is incredibly important to the family.

By requiring all those types of school to pay these significantly hiked taxes, this Government are bearing down on choice in the education sector and pushing up costs for mums and dads. These are not wealthy families, but ordinary people in this country who are seeking to do the best for their child and who, in some cases, are willing to take on the responsibility of paying for their child’s education even if they could still pursue the opportunity of an education, health and care plan for them through the state system. They choose to do the right thing by their child, and this Government will be penalising them.

The amendments we have tabled seek to address the shortcomings I have described as best we can. We will also support some of the amendments tabled by other parties where they clearly fulfil our shared objectives, but as the speeches and other contributions to this debate by Conservative Members have shown, there could have been so many more amendments seeking to get this Bill right.

In conclusion, all of the hereditaments that are covered by this Bill are important to our economy and to growth, and in many cases they are vital to our communities. Since the Chancellor’s Budget, growth has flatlined, inflation has revived, borrowing costs are rising and employment opportunities are diminishing. It is not too late for this Government to choose a different path, and we invite them to do so this afternoon.

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

Before I speak to the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), I thank Members from across the Chamber for their contributions and for the constructive spirit, by and large, in which they have engaged with the Bill since its introduction. Although they are not always seen, with evidence sessions and Committee stages not always being prime-time TV viewing—it is a curse, but that is the way it is—those deliberations are nevertheless essential. The contributions that were made by Members from all parts of the House in probing and scrutinising the Bill were valuable, and I hope that all Members found them interesting.

I will begin by speaking to the amendments concerning the impact of the new multipliers. New clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of clauses 1 to 4 on businesses, high streets and economic growth within six months of those clauses coming into effect. The hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for St Albans have proposed two other new clauses. New clauses 2 and 3 would seek to impose in legislation a requirement for an analysis of the impact of the new business rate multipliers at varying points ahead of, or following, implementation of the Bill. New clause 3 also seeks to require an assessment of how the application of the new multipliers would differ between retail, hospitality and leisure businesses occupying different numbers of properties, and to compare that assessment with the impact of retail, hospitality and leisure relief from the 2020-21 financial year to the 2025-26 financial year.

We agree in principle with the points that hon. Members have raised through their new clauses. It is right that the Government consider the effects of their policies on businesses, on the high street and on economic growth, and indeed within different sectors. It is the policy of the Government that those businesses should feel a material benefit as a direct result of these measures, so let me set out how we propose to do that.

It states in the Bill that the two new retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers may not be set at more than 20p in the pound lower than the small business multiplier. The Bill also places appropriate restrictions on the higher multiplier: when it is set, it cannot be more than 10p in the pound above the standard multiplier, and cannot be applied to properties with a rateable value of less than £500,000. It is important to state that those are not the intended tax rates, but the maximum parameters to be introduced through the new business rate multipliers. As we explained during the Bill’s passage through the House, the actual tax rates will be set at the 2025 Budget, taking into account the effects of the 2026 business rate revaluation, as well as the broader economic and fiscal context at that time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

As with all tax policies, we will keep this under review, and I say that in a very general sense. We absolutely believe that the businesses that are the backbone of our high streets, town centres and communities would, were it not for these measures, go bust. They would not be viable and they would feel the heat very quickly. However, because of the measures we are taking, businesses will be able to plan with certainty for the future, knowing that they have a Government acting in partnership with them in that enterprise.

[David Simmonds]

I appreciate the Minister’s point, but clearly no Parliament binds its successors, so every Parliament must make its own decisions. A lot of Members have asked about small business rate relief. It would be helpful to have some certainty from the Dispatch Box about the Government’s intentions on that. Can he give us that certainty tonight?

[Jim McMahon]

I can certainly give the certainty that we are providing in law for a permanent relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, and we will fund that through a very targeted additional payment for properties of more than £500,000, which will primarily be the online retailers occupying big warehouses and distribution centres. It is a promise to shift from the online to the on-street, as I talked about.

Before we move on to vote on the amendment, I will make some progress. The House will know that tax policy and legislation are not subject to the same requirement for the impact assessments that accompany non-fiscal policy decisions. Nevertheless, the Treasury is committed to publishing an analysis of the effects of any multipliers at Budget 2025, which we hope will go some way to reassuring hon. Members that we will be considering the impacts of this policy carefully before the new rates are set.

The Government will continue to keep the policy and its effects under review as a matter of course, because we believe it is good practice to do that for all taxes. However, we want to make it clear to hon. Members that the Government have heard them, and we understand the importance of robustly understanding tax changes, which is something to which we have already committed. I hope this commitment to understanding the effects of the new tax rate when it is introduced will enable hon. Members not to press their proposed new clauses.

Amendment 9 would give local authorities discretion over whether the higher multipliers enabled by the Bill should be applied. The Bill would enable the Treasury, through regulations, to introduce permanently lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and to fund this by introducing higher multipliers for properties with a rateable value of £500,000 or more. As we explained in Committee, we do not have any plans to narrow the scope of the higher multipliers as doing so would reduce the funding available for the very targeted support for lower multipliers for uses that everyone in the Chamber supports.

That does not mean that local authorities will be unable to apply local discretion to rate bills. As was set out in contributions, local authorities already have wide-ranging powers for discretionary rate relief as set out in section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 where the authority is satisfied that that would be reasonable, having regard to the interests of council tax payers. We assure the House that those discretionary powers are unaffected by the Bill and remain in place. Given that local authorities will be able to use those discretionary powers to provide relief, including for ratepayers subject to the higher multiplier, the amendment is not required. I hope that assures hon. Members.

I turn to amendments 1 to 6, which would widen the scope of the lower multipliers so that qualifying manufacturing properties would become eligible alongside retail, hospitality and leisure properties. In the Bill Committee, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) spoke of the vital importance of manufacturing to the British economy and of how providing them with a permanent cut to their business rates could help them to recover.

Let me reiterate the Government’s support for the manufacturing sector as a whole. It is said that Britain is a nation of shopkeepers, but it is also a nation of innovators, creators and entrepreneurs. Our manufacturing sector helps bring many of those ideas to life, and we understand its importance. But the Government must also support our high streets—the hoteliers, restaurateurs and publicans—and that is especially important with a property tax such as business rates as those sectors rely on good locations, which in the business rates system are often valuable locations. If they did not have that targeted support, they would feel the hit very strongly.

Through the Bill, we are delivering our manifesto pledge to protect valuable town centres and high streets by enabling the introduction of permanently lower taxes for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27, ending the uncertainty of the annual retail, hospitality and leisure relief that has been rolled over year on year since the covid-19 pandemic. We have been clear throughout the process that this tax cut must be fully funded. Therefore, against the current fiscal backdrop, a widening of the scope of properties eligible for the lower multipliers might dilute the support that the Government were able to provide, or its impact might even require a higher tax rate for properties with values of more than £500,000 to fund such new multipliers. However, we respect hon. Members’ points of view and agree that our manufacturing sector should be recognised and supported.

Advanced manufacturing is one of the eight growth-driving sectors identified as part of the Government’s industrial strategy. At the autumn Budget, the Government announced £975 million for the aerospace sector over five years, over £2 billion for the automotive sector over the same period, and £520 million for the new life sciences innovative manufacturing fund. That is how the Government intend to support the innovators, creators and entrepreneurs mentioned earlier. Because we have this package in place to support manufacturing, we cannot accept the amendments, but I hope that I have been able to provide hon. Members with reassurance as to our commitment to support the sector, which I am sure the whole House recognises is vital.

I turn to amendments 7 and 8. While clause 5 will remove business rates charitable relief from private schools, the amendments would introduce new provisions or expand existing provisions in the Bill to ensure that certain private schools remain eligible for business rates charitable relief. Amendment 7 would result in a fee-paying school retaining its relief if it wholly or mainly catered for pupils with special educational needs as defined under section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014, whether or not those pupils have an education, health and care plan. Amendment 8 would result in a private faith school or a private school with a special character maintaining its eligibility for charitable relief if there were no maintained or academy school of the same faith or special character within the statutory walking distance set out in the Education Act 1996. Although amendment 8 does not indicate what may constitute a special character, we understand from previous contributions in the House that that would include schools that follow a particular method of education. Amending the basis on which fee-paying schools are eligible to retain their charitable rates relief in the manner in which the amendment proposes would undermine the Government’s intention to remove tax breaks for private schools. As we have said, the removal of the tax break is necessary to fund school support for the over 90% of pupils who are educated in the state sector.

The Government have carefully considered their approach to minimising the impact on pupils with the most acute needs. The Bill provides that private schools that are charities and that wholly or mainly—by over 50%—provide education for pupils with an education, health and care plan will remain eligible for charitable relief. As hon. Members will be aware, most children with special educational needs, with or without an EHCP, have their needs met in mainstream state-funded schools. If an EHCP assessment concludes that a child can only be supported in a private school, the local authority directly funds that place.

Where an EHCP has not named a private school, the parents or carers of the child may choose to place that child in a private school, but that is a choice made by the parents and does not detract from the assessment that the pupil’s needs can be catered for in the mainstream state-funded sector. In instances where a child’s parents disagree with the local authority’s assessment that their needs can be met in the state sector, the EHCP system is the most appropriate channel to resolve such disagreements.

The Government are aware of the concerns raised by hon. Members and others that pupils with special educational needs in private schools may lose their charitable relief. The Government believe that most private special schools will not be affected at all by the Bill. In fact, we expect any private special schools losing eligibility for private relief to be the exception; according to our assessment, they could be in the single figures. It is important that we keep it in that context.

Renters’ Rights Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

May I echo the Minister’s comments, and extend my thanks to him and his team, the other Members who served on the Committee, and the many witnesses who came in to share their views? It is clear that a lot of the discussion has been on the real-world impact that the legislation will have, rather than on political points, and in that spirit, I will set out my responses, and the rationale behind a number of the amendments that we have tabled, which will be the subject of debate and votes this afternoon.

Clearly, legislation is about striking the right balance. This afternoon, we will recognise—as we have done in our contributions to debate on this issue—the impact that the Bill will have on tenants, landlords and the stakeholders whom our amendments seek to protect. I highlight in particular the impact on students; on financially vulnerable tenants, such as those with low credit scores; on tenants who have pets; on small landlords, who are themselves vulnerable to financial shocks; and of course on other groups, such as agricultural workers and those with work-related accommodation, including NHS workers, military families and school staff, all of whom were mentioned in Committee and will, I am sure, be covered again later. All our amendments have sought to address practical issues, such as ensuring that when work is required on a property and a tenant is reluctant to allow the landlord in to carry out that work for whatever reason, there is sufficient freedom and flexibility in the legislation to ensure that the work can take place.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

The shadow Minister talks about situations in which tenants must leave a property. A constituent of mine had a terrible ordeal. She moved into a new rental property, but after three months it became uninhabitable, and she spent a further 11 weeks going in and out of eight Airbnbs. She was left thousands of pounds out of pocket because the landlord’s insurance covered his loss of rent but did not cover the accommodation costs that she incurred as a tenant. Will the shadow Minister support my new clause 22, which would require landlords to hold appropriate insurance for the purposes of paying any costs related to alternative accommodation in such situations?

[David Simmonds]

There are a number of ways to address that issue. The Minister has talked compensation, and we have tabled amendments on insurance, but clearly there needs to be an effective dispute resolution mechanism in place, so that such situations can be resolved when they arise. We were focused in particular on ensuring that there is sufficient flexibility when, for example, work must be carried out to improve energy efficiency or to address health and safety concerns such as mould, and a tenant needs to leave because the work will render the property uninhabitable.

Although there have been substantial areas of agreement on the Bill, much of which takes forward work that started under the previous Government in their Renters (Reform) Bill, we have concerns that it creates significant new problems for the availability and affordability of accommodation in the private rented sector. That sector, we must not forget, enjoys the highest tenant satisfaction of any private tenure: 82% of private renters say that they are satisfied with their accommodation.

The backdrop is challenging, and has become a lot more so recently. The Chancellor’s Budget has set inflation rising, and borrowing costs are soaring. Markets are responding to the chaos in No. 11, and that is causing a great deal of uncertainty for tenants and landlords alike. Her decisions are stoking inflation, and that is pushing up rent and housing costs of all kinds. The black hole in local government funding, which was unveiled just before Christmas, means that councils facing the twin existential threats of wholesale reorganisation and growing funding shortfalls lack certainty from the Government about the funding to deliver this enormous increase in workload.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I know that the shadow Minister cares passionately about this area, especially in the light of his local government experience. Given that financial pressures on local authorities are added to by the need to provide temporary accommodation to families facing eviction, does he agree that we should have abolished section 21 no-fault evictions sooner?

[David Simmonds]

I say gently to the hon. Lady that had Labour-run Lambeth council not recently rushed to put 200 of its own people on the streets using section 21, because it is concerned about the impact that the Bill will have on its housing situation, that would have more credibility. It is clear that this is a difficult situation in all parts of the country. There is a significant shortfall in emergency accommodation in London in particular, and a rising cost attached to it there, just as other areas of the country have a surplus of accommodation. That is all part of a complex picture. We need to make sure that everything works efficiently and effectively together, and it is absolutely right that we set out our concerns about whether the Bill goes far enough in all areas towards addressing those issues—and about whether, in some cases, it goes too far.

I touched on the impact of the black hole in local government funding. Another area that is driving significant pressure is the Government’s approach to asylum. They are granting refugee status faster, so people are being pushed out of the doors of Home Office asylum dispersal accommodation and on to local housing waiting lists. I am sure that many hon. Members in this Chamber will have been lobbied by their local authority about the impact of that additional pressure—those additional people, who under our laws are perfectly entitled to that housing—on supply in their area. All those things have a huge collective impact on the pool of available housing.

Of course, as we have seen in the news, the declining confidence abroad in our economy is reducing the number of overseas students. That makes it more important than ever to support thriving student accommodation through tenancies that address students’ needs properly—especially the needs of students who are older, have families, or are studying for higher degrees and have a fixed commitment to a location. All those requirements need to be addressed effectively in this legislation.

Does the Bill in its new form rise to those challenges? It is clear that it fails to ensure that landlords can recover their property quickly when they need to. That reduces their incentive to rent it out, especially for small landlords. If the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) needs to recover some of her property portfolio to return it to another owner, will she have the assurance under this Bill that due process is available to her? The Bill fails to ensure a flexibility and freedom of contract that allows tenants and landlords to agree a deal that suits them both. Students wanting to book accommodation for a guaranteed period of two years—or shorter or longer—and those moving to a new location for a fixed-term work contract require opportunities and flexibility that are taken away by this legislation.

The Bill takes away landlords’ opportunity to make allowances for financially riskier tenants, such as those with a poor credit record, through rent in advance or other safeguarding arrangements that give the landlord confidence that they will not lose out. That locks financially vulnerable people out of the rental market. The Bill also puts enormous obligations on local councils—one of the biggest additional sets of burdens and expectations in generations—and there is no real clarity yet on how it will be resourced, at a time when all the wider uncertainties that I have described add up to a great deal of additional cost. The Bill also fails to provide the necessary assurance that tenants who have pets and need to access insurance as part of their tenancy conditions will be able to find affordable insurance. That is dealt with in our new clause 21. More concerning still, the Bill is a missed opportunity to provide this House with a proper impact assessment, or the assurance of a future review that would give us really good evidence on which to base our decisions. Our new clause 20 would address that shortcoming, and the House will have the opportunity to vote for it shortly.

Let me give an example of where there is significant uncertainty. In some of the political knockabout, the Government have sought to blame their predecessor for court delays, while claiming that there are no delays worthy of regard in the passage of this Bill, which loads more regulation on to the sector. Both of those things cannot be true simultaneously, so let us properly assess the impact of the Bill before we legislate. There is a lot of good will—for example, on the point about tenants with pets being able to access the accommodation that they need. We do not want to find ourselves returning to this issue in the House because the legislation failed to achieve what we had hoped.

Clearly, it is the role of this Chamber to scrutinise and question, and it is the role of the Opposition to oppose when we cannot see that the legislation before us will result in an improvement in the lot of the people of this country. A pattern is emerging. The Government came after the farmers. They came after the pubs. They came after the small businesses. They came after the private schools. They came after our local councillors. Now this Bill, in its new form, comes after our tenants and our landlords. It is very clear from the number of Government amendments, which the Minister referred to, that the points we made in Committee about the many shortcomings of the Bill that need to be addressed were not lost on the Government.

I return to the point that even a Labour council—a bastion such as Lambeth, led by the Labour chair of London Councils—is rushing to use section 21 to evict its own tenants in advance of this Bill because of the impact it will have. A Labour council and a Labour Government are putting their own people out of their homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Apologise!

[David Simmonds]

I promise the hon. Member that that is exactly what I am going to do. I am going to make an apology to all those in the private rented sector. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that I have only four hours. I am afraid that I will not be able to go through all the private tenants individually, but the apology will be fulsome. I say to those in the private rented sector, 82% of whom are very satisfied with their accommodation, that I am sorry that they will be faced with the mess that this Bill will create, whether they are seeking to rent their first home or need to move to a new one.

[Chris Vince]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Simmonds]

I will not give way, because I am concluding. We on the Conservative Benches give those people the undertaking that while they may have to endure that situation until the next election, we will put it right, for the benefit of landlords and tenants alike.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is Christmas. The two wise men and the wise woman on the Government Front Bench have arrived bearing their gifts for local councils, but on closer inspection, while the goal is beautifully packaged, the box is somewhat emptier than people had been expecting.

It has been a challenging few weeks for local government. We have heard the Government’s plans to take as much of the local as they can out of local government, and it is clear that this statement will leave our local authorities facing further challenges in doing their day jobs and significant uncertainty as we go into the new year. All that comes from a Government who promised just a short time ago that they would end the bidding war, as they called it, among councils. They then promptly started a new bidding war for homelessness funding, rather than addressing it through the settlement given that it is a core statutory duty of local authorities. The consequence of the Government’s approach is that localism, on central Government terms only, represents just in London a £700 million net cut in the funding that councils will have available to deal with homelessness at a time when rough sleeping is at 27%.

Councils face uncertainty about the cost of funding elections. The Minister told us just a few days ago that he would be considering whether to cancel local elections in places facing local government reorganisation. Up and down the country in all those local authorities, our returning officers are booking and paying for the polling stations, hiring the staff and carrying out the canvassing. They need certainty as we go into the new year.

Of course, our councils face additional and uncertain challenges that were announced in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, as well as from various statements made by other Ministers, that clearly imply a significant increase in the cost of new statutory duties coming the way of our local authorities, with no clarity about how those may be funded. All of that is on top of bringing forward local government reorganisation proposals to a deadline early in the new year. It is not clear whose interests that serves, but for all those local authorities that may be considering that, it represents a significant additional cost pressure.

As many of our councillors go away for their Christmas break and try to digest the detail of the settlement over their Christmas lunch, they will face rumbling indigestion as they realise that their budget pressures will grow significantly, especially in rural local authorities, which face huge losses from the cancellation of funding that supported the additional and quantified costs of local government services in a rural environment.

I will be fair to the Minister: the £2.7 billion black hole that we spotted at the time of the Budget announcement has shrunk by around £700 million, but when it comes to council tax increases that will be announced by our local authorities in February, how much will they have to put up council tax to meet the shortfalls? How much will they have to put up council tax to cover the Government’s new approach to asylum, which is driving up the cost of temporary accommodation? When will the Government provide clarity on the dedicated schools grant override, given the impact it has on our local authority budgets? When will they provide clarity on the election preparation costs? Given that the Local Government Association has identified a £1.766 billion shortfall just from the Government’s national insurance contributions measure, when will they announce further funding to cover those costs?

Let us consider this: the cancellation of the new homes bonus means £3 million lost by Birmingham, £3.7 million lost by Buckinghamshire, £4 million from Central Bedfordshire, £5.3 million each from Ealing and Milton Keynes, £3.7 million from North Yorkshire alone, £9.5 million from Lincolnshire, £14.3 million from the rural services grant and an £18 million cut for a rural local authority in this Budget. It is clear there are tough times ahead for local authorities as they begin to look at the detail. The new homes bonus, in particular, means the places that have built the most homes are the ones that lose the benefit. If this is fixing the foundations, I would not want to stay in the tent which is the only thing they would hold up in our local authorities.

[Jim McMahon]

Here we go again. I would think that after 14 years of councils being on year-to-year watch to find out what position they would be in, the Conservatives would at least welcome the preparation now for multiyear settlements. They had 14 years to get their house in order, and they could not even line up to give councils more than 12 months’ certainty about what was coming. The one thing councils were absolutely certain about was that it was only going to be bad news after bad news. When there were crises in adult social care and children’s services and when homelessness was rising at a rate of knots, the last Government were completely missing in action—that was what councils were facing. How many councils went bust on their watch? Councils were lining up saying to the Government that they could not afford—