Council Tax Reform

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) on securing this Adjournment debate on the important issue of council tax. I am grateful for the work and research that he and the all-party group have put into their argument for council tax reform.

The Government take seriously the issue of how councils are funded, and the impact on local taxpayers. Council tax is an important part of the funding that councils require to deliver a range of over 800 vital services. For 2024-25, council tax makes up over half of councils’ core spending power. Individual councils are responsible for setting their own level of council tax, taking into account their local circumstances. Indeed, council tax is the balancing item in the local council budget.

As my hon. Friend will know, the ability to raise revenue from council tax is determined by the number of domestic properties within a local authority area, and by the value of those properties in 1991. That means that places with a high number of more valuable properties are often able to raise more than an area with lower-value properties, despite setting the same or commonly a lower level of council tax. However, as he said, the Government have ruled out a revaluation of council tax in this Parliament. That means that we must find other ways to address the discrepancies in tax-raising ability through other means.

The last Conservative Government committed to improving and updating the way in which councils are funded, through the fair funding review, but that work was not delivered. We will make good on that commitment and implement long-awaited funding reforms through a multi-year settlement in 2026-27—the first in over a decade. We have recently consulted on the proposed objectives and principles for local government funding reform. In that consultation, we propose to update the way we account for council tax in determining local authority funding allocations, so that future allocations more effectively account for the differing ability to raise council tax income across the country.

As my hon. Friend has pointed out, that means that somewhere like Hartlepool, where the tax base is weaker because of the high number of homes in bands A to C, will not be treated the same as an authority in the south-east that has a high number of homes in bands E to H and therefore has greater council tax revenue-raising power. That will be part of a wider set of changes to improve the approach to funding allocations within the local government finance settlement by ensuring that they reflect an up-to-date assessment of need and, importantly, local resources. Those funding reforms are part of a comprehensive set of reforms for public services to fix the foundations of local government. That will be done in partnership with the sector and on the principle of giving forward notice and certainty to allow time for councils to plan for the future.

Although the Government recognise the arguments in favour of council tax revaluation and reform, there are currently no plans to reform council tax in this Parliament, as I have said. Significant changes to local government structures, governance, accountability, audit, standards and financing are taking place alongside an ambitious programme of devolution and, of course, local government reorganisation. I say that because we cannot overstate the amount of change taking place in a very short time within a system that has been left quite fragile, as my hon. Friend will know, after 14 years of mismanagement by the previous Government.

[Sarah Dyke]

Somerset council is in the position of having to raise council tax this year, but a recent external assurance review reported that a significant proportion of the council’s budget shortfall was attributable to decisions taken by the previous Conservative Administration, who recklessly froze council tax for a record six-year period. In the light of the pressures on councils across the country, will the Minister commit to giving us a timetable for reform so that councils can plan well ahead and deliver essential services?

[Jim McMahon]

That is an important point. In a sense, we can draw up a fairer and more balanced system, and build more security into it. What a system can never do is accommodate every localised decision and how it presents. In the end, there has to be local checks and balances, and that must come through the ballot box. It sounds as if voters in the hon. Member’s area have cast that judgment.

We are committed to reform and to moving at pace, but we recognise in doing that that the system is fragile. We are undertaking reform of the business rates system and revaluation, and a lot of devolution deals will come forward where intricated settlements are being worked towards, which will be important. All that, of course, rests on local government being strong and stable enough to support it. We completely recognise all the issues around adult social care, children’s services and temporary accommodation, which mean that councils are being overwhelmed. There is £69 billion available through the funding allocation this year, £5 billion of which is new money, and for the first time ever there is £600 million through the recovery grant, which is about bridging to the multi-year settlement. We have recognised the urgency and depth of the crisis that many councils find themselves in, but we are also honest in saying that it will take more than seven months to repair 14 years of harm. We are getting on with the job, and we are determined to get it right.

[Richard Foord]

Shire counties have had their settlement funding cut from more than £300 per person in 2015 to less than £200 per person now. Does the Minister recognise that counties such as Devon have huge road networks to maintain, and that that difference in funding helps to explain why roads in Devon are falling apart?

[Jim McMahon]

I think that after the last 14 years, roads in quite a lot of England are falling apart. That is why we injected another £500 million into pothole repairs this year, because we know that local people feel that issue acutely. We also recognise, as I said before, that this will take longer than seven months.

On financing, we are clear that the current formula needs to be reviewed. It is not good enough any more to keep on having a formula that is not fit for purpose, and which is supplemented by top-ups that change depending on the whim of the Government of the day. If this is a genuinely fair funding formula, it must be fair when tested. That means that wherever someone is in the country, and whatever their local circumstance, they know that those issues have been taken into account. Some of that will involve deprivation or the ability to raise tax at a local level, but some of it will involve demand on services, including rurality. We must ensure that in the review we rebuilt trust and confidence as well as sustainability, and the hon. Gentleman has my commitment that we are determined to ensure that that work is done with integrity.

We recognise the urgency to fix the foundations, and to tackle the underlying issues that we have talked about. For all the criticisms of the current council tax system—many of which are completely legitimate—it has some advantages. First, it is a settled tax that taxpayers understand, and notwithstanding the uncollected element that was mentioned earlier, pound for pound it has a high collection rate. On that basis, revenues are relatively predictable, which means that local authorities have greater certainty for their financial planning. Council tax is genuinely local. The money is collected locally, retained locally, and authorities will make decisions on the band D level based on their local requirements and delivery priorities.

[Grahame Morris]

Reforming council tax is an enormous problem and I do not underestimate the scale of the task, but does the Minister recognise that council tax is even more regressive than the poll tax it replaced? The system particularly affects my constituency, Hartlepool and the north-east, and other regions as well, where people are paying a premium for living in the poorest communities with the fewest services and facilities. Does he accept that council tax is widening inequalities in our country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

I accept that there are inherent issues with council tax, not least the way that the banding system works. Because of the inherent land and property values in less affluent places, people in a lower-band property in a poorer part of the country will pay more for public services than those in more affluent properties elsewhere. Those more affluent places can collect sufficient amounts to fund local public services, where other areas clearly cannot do that. The situation has been made significantly worse by a Government who removed that central support over a decade, so council tax is taking on a significant burden of the weight of local public services. We are keen to address that imbalance through the funding review that we are undertaking.

Members will know that local authorities have control over the discretionary working age council tax support scheme, and the council tax system also includes a range of discounts and exemptions to reflect the personal characteristics of occupiers and to support those less able to pay. These include the single-person discount, exemption for student and disregards for carers, the mentally impaired—a term I would not choose to use, but that is the term used in legislation—and apprentices. The Government will consult on the administration of council tax later this year and consider the case for modernising support in the system for those who need it.

However, I recognise the challenges that council tax creates for some taxpayers and local authorities. I therefore want to reaffirm that this Government are keen to continue working with my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool and his APPG to understand the issues in the council tax system and what options for reform are available to us.

Question put and agreed to.

Spelthorne Borough Council: Best Value Duty

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Written Statements

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

All hon. Members will recognise the importance of having well-functioning local councils which provide essential statutory services local residents rely upon. Local councils must be fit, legal and decent and this Government are aiming to fix the foundations of local government. Today I am updating the House on the statutory inspection of Spelthorne borough council and the steps I am proposing to ensure a focus on reform and recovery, alongside and within the wider context of having invited proposals for unitary local government in Surrey.

Best value inspection report

It is a matter of public record that Spelthorne borough council has significant debt leverage. Spelthorne’s debt stands at nearly £1.069 billion—as of January 2025—which is 62.2 times its total service expenditure and is the second highest level of debt for a district authority in England, after Woking.

A capital review by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) highlighted concerns around governance and decision making. Following this, on 8 May 2024 the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Michael Gove, commissioned an inspection of the council and its compliance with its best value duty. He appointed Lesley Seary as lead inspector, alongside Mervyn Greer, who were later joined by Peter Robinson and Deborah McLaughlin. Inspectors were asked to report their findings by 31 July 2024. The deadline was subsequently extended to 31 January 2025. The inspectors completed their inspection and submitted their report to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and, as statute requires, provided a copy to the council. I am grateful to the inspection team for their thorough work, and to the council and all participants for their co-operation.

The report identifies some positive features at the council, such as strong resident engagement and positive local partnerships. The report also notes that the council has already taken positive steps to make improvements, including against recommendations made in the CIPFA review, such as the suspension of the planned housing developments and cessation of further borrowing for this initiative after determining it was no longer viable. However, the report documents serious concerns across a number of areas which I consider to be against its best value duty:

On Continuous Improvement: The report describes the council as having a “poor record” of adequately addressing recommendations from external reviews and the inspectors have no confidence in the council’s ability to make the changes “without significant external support”.

On Leadership: The report highlights that the council lacks consistent leadership, strategic direction, constructive challenge and a robust corporate plan. Optimism bias clouds officers’ awareness of risks, and to some degree the council has been “blindsided” by the financial situation.

On Governance: The report concludes that the council’s “poor, late and incomplete reporting, together with a lack of audit and a reluctance to accept and act on challenge” has “severely undermined informed decision-making” and there is a culture of secrecy.

On Culture: The report describes member and officer relationships as poor and deteriorating, with both sides describing a culture of mistrust and broken relationships which are “hindering constructive discussions” on key financial, housing and asset issues. Members and officers do not share an understanding of their respective roles. Inspectors consider the council to be insular and in denial of the situation it faces.

On Use of Resources: The report concludes that a lack of long-term planning, risk management and an “overly-optimistic reliance” on property markets has led to the authority’s financial strategy being unsustainable.

Compliance with the best value duty

I have carefully considered the report and other relevant material, including findings from the CIPFA review, recent reports from the council’s external auditors, and the corporate peer challenge conducted by the Local Government Association. I am satisfied that Spelthorne borough council is failing to comply with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, governance, leadership, culture, and use of resources. I am therefore minded to exercise powers of direction under section 15(5) and 15(6) of the Local Government Act 1999 to implement an intervention package that ensures the council’s compliance with its best value duty. The proposed intervention includes the appointment of commissioners to exercise certain and limited functions as required, for five years. The commissioner team, if appointed, would consist of a lead commissioner and commissioners with expertise in finance, commercial investment and governance. The council will be directed to prepare and agree an improvement and recovery plan to the satisfaction of the commissioners. I would like the commissioners to report on progress against this plan after the first six months, and then at six monthly intervals. I need to ensure the council’s compliance with its best value duty: the commissioners’ assessments will provide assurance to residents and strategic partners. The council will also be directed to actively engage with the commissioners while reviewing and implementing any proposals for unitary local government.

Representations

I am inviting representations from Spelthorne borough council on the respective inspection report and on the proposed intervention package by 28 March 2025. I want to provide the opportunity for members and officers of the council, and any other interested parties, especially the residents of Spelthorne, to make their views on the proposal known.

I made clear in my written statement of 5 February that potential proposals on unitary local government must demonstrate how local councils have sought to work together in coming to a view that best meets local needs and is informed by local views: given the potential implications for the proposals currently being developed by councils in Surrey for unitary local government, I have taken steps to ensure that this report will be seen by all relevant parties across the area. I will carefully consider all representations and any other evidence received, before deciding how to proceed with the council.

Conclusion



The proposal to intervene in Spelthorne borough council is not taken lightly. The proposed intervention package is designed to strengthen and accelerate the improvement work needed at the council. I am confident that the proposal will address the failings identified and is necessary to ensuring the council’s compliance with its best value duty. I hope that with focus and oversight, improvement will come at pace and that it will not be necessary for the commissioners to use their powers. However, they must be empowered to do so if they consider that the required improvement and reforms are not being delivered.

I am committed to working in partnership with the council to provide the necessary support to ensure its compliance with this duty and the high standards of governance local residents and service users expect.

I will deposit in the House Library a copy of the inspection report I have referred to, which is also being published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.

[HCWS527]

Local Government: Nolan Principles

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and to attend this debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing it.

A key commitment of this Government was to strengthen the standards regime and integrity in public life. Specifically, that means a very active commitment to working together to create a fit, legal and decent local government sector that is equipped to rise to the challenge and opportunity of increased devolution of power and resources from Whitehall. Our proposals to achieve that were set out in the “English Devolution” White Paper, published in December last year, which included measures to fix our broken audit system; improve oversight and accountability; give councils genuine freedoms to work for and deliver in the best interests of their communities; and, with particular reference to the theme of this debate, improve the standards and conduct regime.

We are wasting no time in getting on with the task. The day after the “English Devolution” White Paper was published, we launched a 10-week consultation on strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England. The consultation, which closed on 26 February, sought views on reforms to the standards and conduct regime so that the public can have trust and confidence that all councils in England can be effective and well governed.

Although he did not go as far as I might, I think the hon. Member for South Leicestershire was hinting that the previous Government, in the early part of that Government—with the removal of the standards regime and the audit regime, and measures such as the removal of councillors’ pensions in England—engaged in what many of us now reflect were, in large part, acts of municipal vandalism. They took away the architecture that allowed local government to thrive. The challenge is big, but we understand that we need to take significant steps to improve the situation.

All of us here today know the seven principles of public life—honesty, integrity, objectivity, accountability, selflessness, openness and leadership—which have underpinned the ethical standards of all public office holders for the last 30 years. They are, and have been, the foundation of the code of conduct for Members of the House, the ministerial code and all who serve in local government and the wider public sector.

Doug Chalmers, the current chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, gave a speech at the Institute for Government in November last year on the 30th anniversary of the establishment of that committee. In that speech, he reflected on the three golden threads that Lord Nolan had set out that need to be delivered alongside the Nolan principles—first, the code of conduct; secondly, independent scrutiny; and thirdly, education.

As Lord Nolan acknowledged, the Nolan principles were not a code of conduct, but the values that would underpin a code. An effective code needs to clearly detail the behaviours that those in public office must observe to repay the public’s trust and confidence, as the hon. Member for South Leicestershire referred to. The principles are a foundation, but the behavioural code is not quite there. There are examples in the councils that the hon. Member mentioned, and actually in some councils right across the country, of bad behaviour being far too common. That cannot stand.

While the standards proposals that the Government have been consulting on are for whole system reform, at their foundation is the proposal for a mandatory code of conduct. We believe that a mandatory code is vital to achieving consistency across all the various types and tiers of local government. The current regime simply requires all local authorities to adopt a code that is consistent with the Nolan principles. Some take the de minimis approach of simply listing the seven principles. Others have very detailed local codes. That lack of consistency is not helpful to the system overall. It is confusing and means that we cannot have confidence that all are judged to the same standard equally across the system.

That does not happen in the devolved nations. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have mandatory codes of conduct in place, based on the Nolan principles but setting out detailed interpretation of the expected behaviours.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Where there are bad behaviours, that often results in significant legal costs to the local authority and settlement payments. The Government are giving more powers to combined authorities. Does the Minister agree that where a combined authority incurs significant legal costs and settlement payments relating to staff who have left, whether employed or interim, that information should be shared in a timely fashion with board members? If so, will he write to me to confirm that that is the Government’s position?

[Jim McMahon]

We have set out a very clear expectation about transparency and all authorities, whether they are local authorities or combined authorities, always acting in the public interest and being up front about information that they hold. That expectation is clear. I can respond in writing in more detail.

[Steve Barclay]

Can I press the Minister on that point? Does that transparency include sharing those settlement payments and legal costs with the authority’s board members? It strikes me as remarkable if those costs are not even shared with board members. He has very helpfully clarified that he expects transparency. I would like that transparency to be with the public—perhaps he can say something on public disclosure—but can he at least confirm that the information should be shared with board members?

[Jim McMahon]

I will follow up after the debate on the example that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. I commit to finding out a bit more information through the Department and will respond in writing. As a matter of principle, it is not unreasonable to expect that board members, as opposed to the wider public, are informed about matters of financial relevance to the operation of the board. That seems fairly self-evident to me. If he provides more information on the particular case, which I am not familiar with, I will certainly come back to him on that.

I am enormously grateful for the more than 2,000 responses that we received to the Government’s standards consultation. We are working at pace to analyse the results. We will think carefully about how to take into account the views that were expressed for each of the proposals that we have set out. The Government response will be issued in due course, and after its release, we will continue to work actively with local government on developing detailed implementation.

The hon. Member for South Leicestershire mentioned reorganisation, and although I completely acknowledge the examples of poor behaviour that he identifies—I have witnessed such things in some authorities, too—I would be careful not to attach local government reorganisation as an inherent risk to the standards and behaviours of councillors. I think this is cultural, and it is about a lack of framework and, honestly, slightly a result of a standards regime that has not got teeth.

There are some members who know that what they are doing is not right, and that that is not just about free speech, but about abusing the position they hold and the freedoms. We often see that relationship, where elected members who are holding court in the council chamber attack officials on the top table who have no power to respond themselves. We see that power imbalance taking place. I suspect that most elected members who are behaving in that way know exactly that their behaviour is not okay, but they also know that the standards regime has no teeth to deal with that, so what are the consequences? I would be careful not to attach that behaviour to the reorganisation point, because we want to rebuild the system from the ground up, so that every council in England—whether they are part of the 21 counties going through reorganisation or are among the rest—is subject to the same robust standards regime that does have teeth.

Let me return to the subject under debate by dealing with some of the points about not allowing the system to be used for political ends and how it has to be held up to all scrutiny at all levels. This is about having a proportionate system that can hold up to scrutiny and be tested, but it has to be mandatory. It must have sanctions that matter, including the power of suspension, the power to withhold allowances, if that is correct, and the power for premises bans, if there is a safeguarding risk at play. We have examples where councillors can be on police bail for sexual assaults, and during police bail, they can attend council meetings and attend the premises. That clearly would not be acceptable to most members of the public, but the current regime allows that, and that cannot be allowed to stand. Perhaps more controversially, the system should include disqualification in some cases for more serious breaches.

[Dan Norris]

Will the Minister address my point about interim officers, or perhaps write to me if there is not time today?

[Jim McMahon]

I will return in writing to the point about interim officers being able to move around and whether they are held to the Nolan principles as a founding principle. This debate is more about the standards regime that governs elected members in that context, and that is the consultation that we undertook.

I have no doubt that the Nolan principles will continue to be enormously influential in contributing to the effectiveness of local government. They are a prescription for the values to foster a culture of integrity and ethical behaviour. This Government are committed, at the heart of our ambition for the whole of local government, to creating a fit, legal and decent local government sector, and that is what the public have a right to expect. To be effective, local government must serve to foster vibrant local democracy. It must encourage a wide diversity of talented people to step forward to represent their local communities in that position, and we are committed to working to that end.

Question put and agreed to.

Town Deal Funding: Owens in Hastings

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this evening’s important debate, and I thank her for speaking so powerfully on behalf of her constituents. She is a passionate champion for Hastings, and is leading the charge to ensure that not a single penny of Government investment in that town is wasted. We have a number of things in common; we are both Labour and Co-operative Members of this House, but we were also both in Hastings and Rye on 8 September 2022 when the late Queen passed away. Apart from the profound sense of how important and significant that day was, what was very clear from speaking to those who are now my hon. Friend’s constituents was the high regard she was held in. I am glad that that was reflected in the result of the election.

Before I turn to the main subject of the debate, I will speak about the funding that the Government are putting into my hon. Friend’s constituency. Last week, my Department announced up to £20 million of funding and support for Hastings through our new plan for neighbourhoods. It will help build a thriving Hastings, strengthen the local community and allow residents to take their own decisions on things that affect them. We are also giving Hastings £15 million for our community regeneration partnerships, which will help provide more affordable housing in the town and fund improvements at the Hollington youth hub. Those investments come on top of the £24.3 million town deal for Hastings.

Our town deals are based on local partnerships and local decision making, and they are led by local town boards. I know my hon. Friend is a member of hers, and I know that she champions her area extremely well. I am pleased to see that the town deal in Hastings is well into delivery and is beginning to deliver results on the ground, although I hear her concerns about Owens entertainment centre, which I will turn to in more detail.

When my hon. Friend raised this issue in the House last year, I was disappointed to learn about the closure of Owens and any money wasted under the previous Government. Although the decision to invest in the project was taken by Hastings borough council and the town board, it goes without saying that it is deeply disappointing when projects fall through. I understand that the project at the former Debenhams site was due to bring the building back into use and create more leisure facilities and, importantly, local jobs. Following the closure and the company responsible going into administration in October 2024, the owner has retaken possession of the building and the space has been re-advertised for lease.

I hear the concerns of my hon. Friend and her constituents loud and clear regarding her constituents rightfully getting their money back. Although the funding comes from the UK Government, the responsibility for local town board management sits with the town board and formally with Hastings borough council as the accountable body for the town deal. I understand that Hastings borough council issued legal letters last year regarding potential action to recover the £150,000 from the towns fund that was allocated to CFEC Ltd, which ran Owens entertainment centre during this time.

I will be direct, as my hon. Friend was direct, and say that there are plenty of unanswered questions. What we do know is that the Conservatives, when they were in government, received £2 million in donations from its owner. We also know that under their watch, this now-closed amusement centre received more than £150,000 of taxpayers’ money. The simple question we do not yet know the answer to is: why? Why might this millionaire Tory donor have needed a top-up from the taxpayer to open a bowling alley? There are concession owners in the dark, ticket holders confused and, importantly, 31 staff members without a job. I am sure they would like to know the answer to that question, too. I am also sure they would like to know whether the Conservatives, given what has now come to light, have any intentions, for the benefit of the local community, of returning all or part of the donations that they received?

Following the news that CFEC Ltd had gone into administration in October ‘24, a claim was lodged with the administrators to recover the £150,000. My officials will continue to stay up to date on the situation through our town deal monitoring and regular conversations with the council.

On town deals more widely, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris) was pleased to offer an extra year for delivery recently, taking the end of the fund to March 2027. We all want to see quick results, but colleagues in this House and in councils have reiterated how challenging it has been for projects, especially with cost inflation. This Government have listened, which is why there is now an extra year of funding to get those projects over the line. My officials are working with areas where the extra year is taken up to ensure that delivery stays on track.

Let us now look at the broader picture. The last Government tied places up in knots with their short-term initiatives and funding pots, all with very different rules and timetables. Far from driving growth, that bogs places down in bureaucracy, complexity and uncertainty. Moving ahead, we will set out a refreshed approach to local growth funding in the multi-year spending review in the spring—an approach that simplifies funding, with less red tape and more local choice. This Government’s defining mission is growth, and we are determined that nowhere will be left behind. Together, we will work in partnership with people on the ground and with local authorities in Hastings and in every corner of the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Local Government: Best Value

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, has today made the following statement:

All hon. Members will recognise the importance of having well-functioning local councils which provide essential statutory services local residents rely upon. Local councils must be fit, legal and decent, and provide value for taxpayers� money. The Government will continue to work directly with a small number of councils in difficulty, and this should be done in a way that is not punitive and is based on genuine partnership to secure improvements. I would like to update the House on progress in two such cases: Thurrock council and Woking borough council.

Thurrock

Thurrock council has been under statutory intervention since September 2022. Today I am publishing the commissioners� fourth report which makes clear that the council continues to make tangible progress in its recovery and is working hard to meet its best value duty. The council has developed a corporate plan and concluded its governance review, both significant steps forward.

There is still much to do, and the changes made to date, although positive, remain fragile, and need to become embedded into the council�s business as usual activity to provide assurances that these improvements will bring about the level of transformation required. I recognise there are difficult but essential decisions to be made by the council in the coming months, including delivering Thurrock�s ambitious savings target of �18.2 million for 2025-26.

As we look ahead, and with six months before the current directions are due to end (1 September 2025), it is important to take stock of the improvement journey the council has been on and where further improvements may be required. I am asking commissioners to provide their next report in April, including their assessment of the council�s progress to meeting the best value duty. I welcome the commissioners continuing to support Thurrock council in the development of proposals for unitary local government and in their devolution ambitions.

Finally, I am announcing that I am extending the appointment of Dr Dave Smith, managing director commissioner, to 1 September 2025, and as Nicole Wood has stepped down from her role as Thurrock commissioner to become the chief executive of Essex county council, I would like to express my gratitude for the support, challenge and guidance she has provided to the council since the start of the intervention. I am minded to appoint a new finance commissioner as soon as possible.

Woking

Woking borough council has been under statutory intervention since May 2023 and today I am publishing the commissioners� fourth report. I am reassured by commissioners� comments that the council is committed to achieving the objectives that the council have worked with commissioners to set, which will radically overhaul the operation of the council. I share commissioners� concerns as set out in their report regarding the capacity of the council to deliver this programme of change and encourage the council to continue to work with the commissioners and my Department to consider how we can best enable the council to improve, for the benefit of residents. I welcome the commissioners continuing to support Woking borough council in the development of proposals for unitary local government. As Carol Culley is stepping down from her role as Woking commissioner to become executive director of finance at Birmingham city council, I would like to thank her for her commitment to Woking and the considerable skills she has brought to bear as both a reviewer and a commissioner. I am minded to appoint a new finance commissioner as soon as possible.

Conclusion

I want to acknowledge the diligent and hard-working members and officers of both Thurrock and Working who have continued to do their utmost to provide essential frontline services for residents while driving forward the necessary improvements.

The Government will play their part by repairing the foundations of the sector overall. The final local government finance settlement 2025-26, alongside funding announced at the Budget, has delivered over �5 billion of new funding for local services over and above council tax. This includes an additional �2 billion of grant through the settlement in addition to a guarantee that local authorities in England will receive at least �1.1 billion in total in 2025-26 from the new extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme, and a further �233 million of additional funding for homelessness services. Moving forward we will hardwire stability and security into the system with multi-year settlements and fewer restrictive grants. This will allow councils to focus spending on local priorities, and we will set out and measure progress on the key services and outcomes we expect local government to deliver.

I will deposit in the House Library copies of the documents I have referred to, which are also being published on gov.uk today.

[HCWS504]

Local Audit Backlog in England: Non-compliance Lists

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Written Statements

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

Effective local audit provides transparency, accountability, trust and confidence in local bodies to spend taxpayer money wisely. Close to 500 local bodies in England are required to publish their audited accounts annually.

However, the Government inherited a broken local audit system in England, evidenced by an audit backlog that peaked at 918 outstanding unaudited accounts in September 2023. More recently, the whole of Government accounts for financial year 2022-23 was disclaimed in autumn 2024, primarily due to a lack of audit assurance on local government accounts.

In July 2024, I outlined proposals to clear this unacceptable backlog and give taxpayers’ the confidence they deserve. These measures were implemented in autumn 2024 via amendments to the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 and through the Comptroller and Auditor General’s new code of audit practice. Without these measures, audits would continue to be delayed, and the local audit system would move further away from timely, effective audit, with significant additional cost to the taxpayer. The measures are supported by all key local audit system partners.

The Government appreciate the efforts that bodies and auditors are undertaking to support the drive to fix the foundations. The outcome of the 13 December 2024 backstop shows a shared commitment to restoring sound financial practice to the sector.

Backstop publication requirements

The 2015 regulations, as amended, require bodies to publish audited accounts (including the audit opinion) on their website by the statutory backstop dates below:

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The Government are working to fix the broken foundations that have left councils of all political stripes in crisis and as a result will put them on a more secure financial footing. In particular, we have already set out the objectives and principles on which we will reform the local government finance system, and held an open consultation on them. However, as we work to rebuild local government, we must keep delivering now, to ensure that councils have the certainty that they need to set budgets and carry on providing essential services.

The business rates retention system is a well established part of the local government finance system. It allows councils in England to keep a fixed proportion of the business rates that they raise locally, and hence to benefit from increases in business rates income in their local areas. The system is underpinned by straightforward principles, yet it operates via a series of necessarily complex administrative arrangements between councils themselves and between local and central Government. Those arrangements are governed by secondary legislation, which must be updated regularly for the system to carry on running in the way it was intended to do and so that councils receive what they are entitled to.

The amendment regulations before the Committee make the updates that are necessary this year. Although the changes are technical, the reasons for them are simple. Seven principal sets of regulations govern the business rates retention system, and these amendment regulations make changes to one of them—the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations 2013. Those regulations describe how councils are protected from significant falls in their business rates income via a safety net and how, in part, that is paid for via a levy on the growth in their business rates income. Three changes are needed in the regulations this year. All affect the calculation of the measure of income—known as retained rates income—against which we calculate eligibility for the safety net or requirement to pay levy.

First, we adjust this measure of income to continue taking into account authorities that have a higher level of retention. We do that each year. Under the rates retention system, there are a number of councils that in 2025-26, as in previous years, will retain more than 50% of the growth in their business rates income. In other words, they benefit from enhanced rates retention arrangements. It is important, in performing the levy and safety net calculation, that the calculation is made at the normal—50%—rates retention level for all councils. That ensures that where there are additional safety net arrangements for those councils with enhanced retention arrangements, that does not disadvantage councils that run at the 50% level. These regulations do that by adjusting a figure set out in the local government finance report for each council with enhanced retention arrangements to what it would have been had the council been operating at 50% rates retention.

Secondly, each year we amend regulations to mitigate the impact that changes in the underlying tax have on the rates retention system. This year we need to adjust authorities’ income for two reliefs: supporting small business relief and the retail, hospitality and leisure relief. These regulations will make sure that major precepting authorities—generally county councils and fire authorities —are not doubly compensated, through the levy and safety net, for a reduction in business rates income resulting from awarding those funded business rates reliefs.

Major precepting authorities will be compensated via grant for that loss. However, the grant is not automatically accounted for in their retained rates income. That income would therefore appear lower than the amount they have in year, which would affect the accuracy of levy and safety net calculations. These amendment regulations add back the value of compensation for the new business rates reliefs to major precepting authorities’ retained rates income. That ensures that the compensation is taken into account and therefore a more accurate measure of each council’s income is used to calculate levy and safety net payments.

Finally, these regulations correct a figure used to calculate the amount of small business rates relief compensation to add back to North Northamptonshire’s retained rates income, for the purpose of levy and safety net calculations. An error was made in the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 following the set-up of the council in 2021. A figure of 67.4% was included, rather than the correct figure of 67.8%. This error was recently discovered and we are taking the first opportunity to rectify it.

Several aspects of the rates retention system rely on councils submitting their certified or audited data, which we use to make calculations, including the levy and safety net calculations. Where such data is outstanding, we make interim calculations to ensure that no council loses out, or is required to provide for future payments of levy, because it is waiting for its accounts to be audited. That is the case for North Northamptonshire, whose interim calculations were based on the intended 67.8% figure.

Now that we have discovered the error, we must correct it. The rectification of the error will not affect the council’s requirement to pay levy or its eligibility for the safety net for 2021-22 or 2022-23. That is because North Northamptonshire is not required to pay any levy, nor is it eligible for any safety net for those years, a situation that the rectified figure will not change. However, the council will pay a levy from 2023-24, due to the impact of the 2023 revaluation of business rates, so changing the figure will have an impact the amount of levy paid going forward. The amendment ensures that that levy will be calculated on the correct basis, and my officials have notified the council of the change.

These technical regulations make several important updates to the administration of the business rates retention system and, if passed, will mean that councils receive the business rates income they are expecting and thus have budgeted for. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his typically constructive response. On the matter of structural reform, there is agreement that it is far better that local government has long-term security and stability, and that, as much as possible, we tie down tax that is raised at a local level with the local accountability that comes with it. That is as important for council tax payers as it is for the local business community.

We also recognise that the groundwork that was done on devolution has the business rates retention scheme hardwired into it. The financial construct of many devolution agreements was based in large part on the business rates retention scheme being able to better reflect that, when areas come together and organise for growth, they ought to benefit from the proceeds of that growth. The business rates retention system has been built up over a period of time, and I would say it has maintained cross-party support on that basis.

As I said, these are generally very technical measures, but I completely take the point that local authorities need notice to be able to prepare. Most local authorities will be preparing on the basis of the information that has come in, and the measures will not be a surprise to them. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that officials have been in regular contact with North Northamptonshire council to let the local authority know that the adjustment is coming, so that it can prepare the ground. I hope that that gives him comfort.

On the hon. Gentleman’s points about local government reorganisation, we are now at a point where the statutory invitations have been sent out to the remaining 21 counties. Interest has been high, and we expect all—or perhaps the vast majority—to submit some kind of proposal about that process. We fully accept that that will require a significant amount of resourcing, from both the Department and local government itself, and we also recognise that in bringing together a range of different funding streams for councils at different layers of government and different geographies around the country, we will have to work to ensure that the alignment of assets, liabilities, revenue and so on is taken into account. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that officials are working on that.

It would be naive of me to say that I can absolutely guarantee that there will never be an error—the fact that we are here to reconcile an error shows that errors sometimes happen in very complex calculations—but I can say that we are doing all we can to ensure that we work that through that system. If the hon. Gentleman would find it useful, I would be happy to arrange a technical briefing with officials about how we are gearing up for that.

[David Simmonds]

I am grateful for the Minister’s offer—I am sure we will take him up on that—but can he give the Committee an assurance that such technical programmes are encompassing all of those Departments that have a direct stake in local government? For example, previous reorganisations have sometimes resulted in special educational needs and disability school facilities being entirely within one of the resultant local authorities, with another having a significant general fund revenue cost—which would be visible in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—in transporting children across the border to access those schools that have, in fact, always been the traditional schools enabling that county. That can have a significant financial impact, and it would be good to know that those kinds of measures are being considered fully across Government.

[Jim McMahon]

I share the shadow Minister’s observation about the complexity of the system; it only takes a small part of it to throw quite wild numbers out in different parts of the country, because there is a lot of commonality in local government but different types of councils are affected very differently by different elements of public service pressures. County councils, in particular, are affected far more on home-to-school transport, for instance, than those in more urban areas. I completely understand that point.

I will say that we are eyes wide open as to the amount of change that is going through the system. Just on business rates, we have the business rates reset, the business rates relief work being done in terms of retail, hospitality and leisure, and the revaluation that is taking place at the same time. We then have a number of devolution agreements coming, and I am sure that retention will form part of those discussions and negotiations. On top of that, we have the more fundamental review of local government finance, where the funding formula is being looked at again.

There is quite a lot of change in the system, and I am very alive to the need to ensure both that the data is accurate and up to date and that we take local government expenditure in the round, to make sure that, in the end, every council has the resources needed, on a fair basis, to deliver decent public services. We are on with the political work, in terms of the outcome, but also the technical work, in terms of the process, to make sure that it is robust.

In conclusion, these technical amendment regulations are required to make sure that the business rates retention system operates as it should. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting them.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

6. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on levels of non-domestic rates for pubs.

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

Given the importance of business rates to both local government finance and local communities, and particularly to our high streets, our two Departments engage regularly on these matters. Pubs are eligible for the retail, hospitality and leisure relief scheme, and in the 2025-26 financial year pubs will benefit from a 40% relief on their bills, up to a cash cap of £110,000. For 2026-27, the Government intend to introduce a permanently lower rate for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, including pubs. Those rates will be set by the Chancellor in the 2025 autumn statement.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

The highest pub in the Yorkshire wolds, the Wolds Inn at Huggate, is a great success story—Mr Speaker, I would be delighted to buy you a pint there the next time you find yourself on the right side of the Pennines—but, like many pubs in my constituency, it faces a crippling rise in non-domestic rates at a time when margins are very tight. Local pubs are not just businesses but much-loved community assets, so will the Minister reverse this tax grab and start supporting the great British local?

[Mr Speaker]

If I return as a missionary, I will bear that in mind.

[Jim McMahon]

Well, if it is intended to be a tax grab on pubs, we are not doing a very good job of it, because when the permanent scheme comes in, 99% of pubs that are under the £500,000 threshold will benefit from it. We absolutely recognise the importance of our community pubs in propping up the community and giving them places to meet, and to the economy and the good jobs that they provide.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The Armfield Club in my constituency is a fantastic local boozer that is run by, and was created by, Blackpool FC supporters. Venues such as the Armfield are the beating heart of our town, providing jobs and bringing local communities together. What steps will the Minister take to ensure a bright and sustainable future for clubs such as the Armfield?

[Jim McMahon]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he is doing to champion pubs in his constituency. Like all of us, he recognises just how important they are to the economy, and probably even more so to local communities. The Government can do a lot on business rates and on things like the community right to buy, which gives the community the right to step in when pubs might face closure, as part of the package.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

7. Whether she has had discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Arbroath town plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

22. What steps her Department is taking to ensure areas with higher levels of deprivation receive adequate funding.

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

We of course recognise the challenges that local authorities face, as demand increases for critical services. That is why the final settlement for 2025-26 made available over £69 billion for local government in England—a cash increase of 6.8% in core spending power on 2024-25. The most relatively deprived areas of England will receive 23% more per dwelling than the least deprived. Of course, spending decisions beyond this year are a matter for the upcoming spending review.

[Andrew George]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. He will be aware that since the Conservatives took control of Cornwall council four years ago, they have transformed that authority from being financially sound to staring down the barrel of bankruptcy. Cornwall is a rural authority with urban levels of deprivation and a super-ageing population. What assurance can the Minister give that, through the funding formula and plans for local authorities, the Government will have due regard to the escalating costs for these local authorities, not least as a result of the national insurance contributions hike?

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Gentleman and all Members of the House have our absolute commitment that when we revise the funding formula, we will ensure that it takes into account all the matters he mentions. The multi-year settlement is intended to give stability. We have to make sure that councils are on their feet at the end of that. We recognise entirely that deprivation is a driver of cost, but so is the cost of rural service delivery.

[Kevin McKenna]

The 48th most deprived locality in England and five of the 10 most deprived localities under Kent county council are in my constituency, yet the council struggles to understand the levels of deprivation and to adequately resource those localities. Can the Minister assure my constituents that devolution and reorganisation of local government in Kent will ensure that their needs are not ignored like this in the future?

[Jim McMahon]

I will not comment on individual councils, other than to say that this is why local government reorganisation is so important. In too many parts of England, the two-tier system is not working for local people. The two-tier premium means that a two-tier system is a more expensive way of delivering public services, and most members of the public have no idea which council is responsible for delivering which service. It is therefore right that we go through this reform. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, in the end, things have to work for local people. All the matters that he covered are on our mind.

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The Minister mentions local government reorganisation. On 5 February, the Deputy Prime Minister stated:

“We are postponing elections for one year, from May 2025 to May 2026”—[Official Report, 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 767.]

but on 17 February, the Minister, in a written parliamentary question, said that

“new unitary…government will be established or go-live in 2027”

or 2028. Will the Minister confirm that these elections are not being postponed, and that they are, in fact, being cancelled for up to three years, meaning that councillors will serve terms of up to seven years? Will he also confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister may have unintentionally misled the House, and will he correct the record?

[Jim McMahon]

I can start by confirming that the Deputy Prime Minister did not mislead the House. The Opposition would do well not to muddy the waters. They know better than anybody what local government reorganisation means. Over the past few years, when they were in government, they postponed 17 sets of elections to allow reorganisation to take place. Although elections are being postponed in nine councils, 24 sets of elections will still take place this year. Let us not allow this to be whipped up into something that it is not.

We absolutely want to move at pace on reorganisation. We want to see proposals developed and presented early—the sooner the better—so that we can move to those shadow authorities, and so that local people can elect the new bodies that will deliver public services in their area and be accountable to them. To be clear, nobody will benefit—not the leaders of Conservative councils who have asked for postponement, nor members of the public—if we make the matter more confused than it needs to be.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

11. What steps she is taking to help ensure that local authority planning processes include fire safety assessments.

--- Later in debate ---

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

That is exactly the reason that there was £3.7 billion of new money for adult social care in the Budget.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

T5. Eden Portland is an exciting proposal for my community and, much like the Eden Project in Cornwall and Morecambe, it would be a hub for education and ecology. If delivered, it would boost investment and create well-paid jobs. I know that Ministers agree that this could be a real success story, so will they meet me and the team at Eden Portland, alongside colleagues from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the council, to discuss how we can deliver this exciting project?

Local Government Finance

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Written Statements

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

On 3 February 2025, the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) set out the final local government finance settlement for 2025-26. The settlement makes available over £69 billion for local government, which is a 6.8% cash terms increase in councils’ core spending power on 2024-25. The settlement reaffirms this Government’s commitment to rebuild and reform local government, and to empower local leaders to deliver that change so that the benefits are felt in every community. The additional funding made available in this settlement and the Budget will deliver over £5 billion of new funding for local services over and above local council tax.

The Government are under no illusions about the fragile state of the sector and the pressures councils are facing to deliver for residents. As a result of the 14 years of decline and instability overseen by the previous Government, we know there are large numbers of councils in significant financial difficulty. Our fiscal inheritance means that there will be tough choices on all sides to get us back on the path to recovery, and it will take time. However, we are committed to restoring stability and bringing forward reform to ensure local government is fit, legal and decent and can play its critical role in providing the services communities rely on. We have already taken steps to improve sector sustainability, including targeting money towards areas with greater need and demand for services and less ability to raise income locally at this year’s settlement with the introduction of the new £600 million recovery grant.

The financial legacy of the previous Government has resulted in a record number of councils engaging with the Government asking for exceptional financial support to help them set their budgets. We confirmed in the local government finance settlement that we have already had to consider requests for council tax increases from some councils where this was necessary for their long-term sustainability. As set out in the settlement, we only agreed to this on an exceptional basis, we did not agree to all requests, no request was agreed to in its entirety and we have only permitted additional increases where councils had lower levels of existing council tax compared to similar councils.

The exceptional financial support process has existed since 2020 to support those councils facing unmanageable financial pressures. This Government understand that fragility in the system has left some councils in difficult positions and recognise that support is required in exceptional circumstances to balance budgets. Unlike the previous Government, we have been clear that we do not believe in punishing councils and local residents where this is the case. We are taking a partnership approach to the exceptional financial support process which prioritises protecting the interests of local residents. We have already announced that, where councils deem it necessary to undertake additional borrowing to support their recovery, we will not replicate the previous Government’s punitive approach of making that borrowing more expensive through an additional 1% premium.

On 20 February 2025, my Department wrote to 30 councils confirming that we would provide in principle support to enable them to set balanced budgets. The total amount of support provided is circa £1.5 billion, around £1 billion lower than was announced last year. In some cases, requests relate to support in prior years or to reprofiling existing support agreed in previous years.

Details of the councils and support provided were published on www.gov.uk. This includes six councils whose improvement is being supported via statutory intervention. We are continuing to work with these councils and through the commissioners and panels in place to support the councils’ recovery from more severe financial issues. Support is being provided through financial flexibilities where the Government permit councils, in special circumstances, to treat revenue costs as capital costs. This is known as capitalisation and means councils can then meet those costs through capital receipts, or if necessary, borrowing, in line with the approach of the previous Government. Since capitalisation is a relaxation of normal accounting requirements, it has always been subject to agreement from the Secretary of State.

In taking these decisions, the Government have considered carefully appropriate protections for the public and the public purse—including the protection of treasured community assets. We have set out a clear expectation that where a council is considering financing capitalisation support through capital receipts, this should not be from the disposal of community and heritage assets. Retaining these treasured assets within public ownership is imperative to ensure local communities can continue to benefit from them.

While we are taking a collaborative approach, the Government have been clear on our wider commitment to effective oversight of local government and our expectation that councils deliver value for the taxpayer’s pound. That is why we are working to fix the local audit system and strengthen the standards and conduct framework for councils in England. In line with this, as part of our partnership process, we will seek additional external assurance for councils receiving exceptional financial support that will help support local improvement as well as providing an assessment on action each council is taking locally to help manage its position. I am clear that Government will continue to expect councils to make sure they are doing all they can locally to deliver for residents. We will always act where there is any evidence of failure, including in the management of public money.

We are committed to setting a new relationship with the local government sector. As part of this, we will treat all discussions with councils worried about their positions in confidence, with respect and determination to find a solution together. In making these decisions, we are committed to prioritising the needs of residents.

We also want to make sure that councils have the information that they need to conduct their business sensibly. For this reason, the decisions highlighted today were communicated to councils as soon as possible after the House had had the opportunity to consider the local government finance settlement. Given that this was while the House was in recess, we wrote to relevant MPs, the Opposition and the Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee to inform them of our decisions and confirm that we would make this written ministerial statement once the House returned.

This written ministerial statement applies to England only.

[HCWS461]

Coalfield Communities

Jim McMahon Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank all Members for a really thoughtful debate. When Members speak about their constituencies in the way they have today, we get a sense of the pride of place. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it. The level of interest in the debate, and the fact that two time limits on speeches have been introduced, speaks volumes.

I know from my own experience of growing up in and representing a constituency with a fierce and proud industrial past, built on the back of the coal that fired it, just how much pride and sense of belonging comes with that. They were jobs—of course they were—but they were more than that; they were about people and place. That identity has stayed with the generations that have come since.

Between 1985 and 1997, the closure of 150 collieries resulted in approximately 250,000 job losses. That was not just about employment; those closures meant the loss of the vital social facilities that the National Coal Board and the trade unions had provided for those communities. That is why the Government are taking concrete action to support coalfield communities and secure the future prosperity of former mining communities while honouring their remarkable heritage.

We really got a sense of that in the debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill) and for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke about community and solidarity, as well as about heritage. It is that sense of belonging that we need to respect. Quite often—I hear this strongly when I go around the country—people feel not just that Parliament is a million miles away, but that the next town is a million miles away. The isolation that people often feel economically, socially and politically is profound, and we must do far more to meet that challenge.

This Government’s defining mission is growth, and we are determined that our coalfield communities are central to it. That is why we are working in partnership to invest in and empower the nation’s coalfields, so that they can kick-start growth in their area and increase living standards for working people. We have already announced planning reforms, devolution, our plans to make work pay, and settlements to fix the foundations of local government. That will also help coalfields to build their future and realise their full potential.

[Michael Wheeler]

Does the Minister agree that economic growth is only meaningful if it takes everyone in every community with it and people in every town feel the benefits, including the towns that we have talked about today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is sat next to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt); they are both Greater Manchester MPs, and we are all very proud of Greater Manchester. We all see the red dots on the skyline of Manchattan—as we call it, very proudly—and the booming city centre that is Manchester. However, the truth is that unless the social opportunities are there and people have the confidence and skills to compete in that new market that is emerging, it can feel a million miles away. That is really important, and we do see that.

A lot has been said about the mineworkers pension scheme. We recognise that for too long, our coalfield communities have been an afterthought, which is why this Government have reversed those historic injustices by transferring £1.5 billion to mineworkers pensions. Our manifesto also promised that the truth of Orgreave would come to light. The BCSSS was also mentioned, and I can say that the Minister for trade is taking that issue up with the urgency that Members have called for in this House. It was covered in a lot of detail by my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Jo White), for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling). They all spoke, seriously and rightly, about the urgency that is required to resolve this issue. This Government have heard that message loud and clear, and I know that Ministers in other places are working on that.

[Grahame Morris]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jim McMahon]

Very briefly, please.

[Grahame Morris]

I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on the BCSSS. Before he moves off the issue of funding for growth, a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Elaine Stewart), raised the issues of fair funding and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust’s model for community wealth building. It is seeking a relatively modest £500 million in capital investment spread over five years, which it believes could create half a million square feet of new industrial space. Is the Minister minded to look at that proposal favourably?

[Jim McMahon]

We are absolutely committed to ensuring that every part of the country realises its full potential. Let us be clear: everybody in every part of the country has potential, but far too often, that potential is not met by opportunity. We will look at any projects and measures that aim to do what my hon. Friend has described in the coalfields to ensure that potential is met, and I can certainly take up that point and maybe follow up in writing.

The proud history of our coalfield communities must be matched with a proud future. Late last year, we published the English devolution White Paper, and a Bill will follow. That White Paper includes a reformed vision for the long-term plan for towns, which the autumn Budget confirmed will be retained and reformed as part of our regeneration programme. We are proud that through that plan, coalfield communities from Newark-on-Trent to Wrexham will receive a package of up to £20 million in funding and support. Furthermore, this Government are working with mayors where they are to produce local growth plans across their city regions, which sit alongside local coalfield communities, because we recognise that those are vital to our collective economic future.

That regeneration, and the long-term investment and co-ordination that are needed, were referenced by my hon. Friends the Members for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), for Leigh and Atherton, for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Elaine Stewart), for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson). They recognise that of course, we can be proud of the history of our place—we all are—but the future is important too, and if we do not put the building blocks in place to rebuild industry and pride, we will miss a trick.

As was referenced earlier, no working-class person is waiting for a handout, but we absolutely deserve a hand up. We are sick and tired of being told to wait our turn, to behave and stand in line and to know our place, hoping that somehow, tomorrow, our turn may just come. Lesson after lesson and generation after generation shows that, for all those promises, it never comes. We cannot have power, wealth and opportunity constantly being hoarded by the centre, to the exclusion of our communities that are impacted by it.

That is why devolution is so important. If we do not break away from the centralising model of command and control, and the hoarding of power and opportunity, we will never make progress with our economy, society or political power in this country. This week, we are proud to be expanding the devolution priority programme, through which more mayors will be created, with the powers and the tools that they will need, as local leaders, to do what is right for their area. They will not have to come cap in hand to central Government, in constant, wasteful bidding wars.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones), I pay tribute to the late John Prescott, a working-class voice in politics. He took up that charge—that fight—and we all recognise the work that he did. Members of the House have our assurance that we stand with our coalfield communities and the excellent Members of Parliament who have spoken today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for coalfield communities.