East Midlands: Local Authorities and Economic Growth

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this evening’s debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here to respond to the debate. As my constituency neighbour, I know he is as passionate about Nottingham, Nottinghamshire and the east midlands as I am. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my unpaid membership of two local authorities.

Ahead of important local elections across the east midlands, I am grateful to have this opportunity to lay out the importance of councils to our economy. Growth is this Government’s No. 1 priority. It will pay for our local services, our social security, from state pensions to universal credit, and our national defence. The Government are right to focus on growth. Under the last Government, we suffered a lost decade. Growth, income and opportunity were flat, and the east midlands suffered as a result. The gap between where we should have been on growth and where we are represents billions of pounds that could have been spent on essential public services.

The east midlands has been at the forefront of that decline, as a result of Conservative mismanagement. Our economy in the east midlands used to be strong, but deindustrialisation, a lack of investment and regional disparities in public spending have left us lagging behind other parts of the United Kingdom. The midlands was the industrial heartland of this nation. We have so much potential. We are the region that is most connected to the entire UK, with a distinctive mix of engineering, manufacturing, construction and sciences, but we now struggle to find the jobs, transport and opportunity that we had before. A lot of that comes from lack of investment, including a lack of investment in our local councils.

The east midlands receives the lowest level of spending per person across the United Kingdom. We receive the lowest level of capital spending and total spending. The facts speak for themselves: over the past 14 years, the east midlands was levelled down by the Conservative party. That inequity leaves our local government, our public services and our infrastructure investment billions of pounds short.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate and he is right to highlight the issues, but the growth commission set up by the mayor is key to investment and the east midlands must make the most of the freeport it enjoys, which the Chancellor announced just a few weeks ago. That gives hope and vision for the future, and it is important to underline those possibilities. With great respect to the Conservatives, they promised us a freeport in Northern Ireland but they failed to deliver it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be great if the current Government would designate a freeport for Northern Ireland? That is essential. As is shown in the east midlands, Government support is an essential component for economic growth that sows into the wealth of the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Here we go again. This is very similar to what we spoke about last week, so I will again put on record my thanks to the noble Lords for their work in pushing forward the amendments from the other place.

We welcome the business rates reform and look forward to a far more substantial overhaul of the system. However, we are deeply concerned about the proposals for hospitals. Lords amendment 1 sought to exclude hospitals and it is so disappointing that that was not accepted. In my area, in Dorset, both Poole and Royal Bournemouth hospitals would be caught by the £500,000 rateable value rule. Poole hospital has a rateable value of £2.1 million and Bournemouth’s is £3.3 million. World-famous hospitals, including Great Ormond Street, The Royal Marsden and England’s oldest hospital Barts, would all be caught up.

The Government have rightly been proud of the early delivery of extra NHS appointments, but keeping hospitals in the Bill risks real problems for local councils which might find themselves having to take difficult decisions to take the hit and not charge their hospitals the higher amount. To take away the discretion altogether, I ask Ministers please to remove the provisions from the Bill so that hospitals do not pay twice.

I share the concerns of the shadow Minister regarding the businesses that are on the cusp of the £500,000 threshold. The impact of flipping just over from the lower to the higher multiplier could be profound. So many businesses are already on the cusp, given the national insurance increases, the living wage and the impact of the Employment Rights Bill. The additional worry about tipping over into the higher threshold could see many fail to invest in their businesses for the future.

I will keep this brief, because we know where we are. We too do not agree with the taxation of education and we continue to support the Lords amendments to remove private schools from the legislation. The main reason that we feel that way is that we know that many parents of children who have additional needs choose the private sector because it is so difficult to get what they need in overcrowded schools that are falling apart at the seams. We therefore fundamentally disagree with the principle of taxing education.

The Government have made a good start on the Bill. We want to see a much more fundamental review of business rates. There is a long way to go, but we think that the amendments, if accepted, would demonstrate a Government who are listening. At a time when trust in the Government needs to be built, a Government who listen to sensible amendments would be most welcome.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Government for bringing the Bill forward, but I have to put on record some of my concerns—the Minister will not be surprised. He knows that it is never meant in an aggressive way; I put things forward in this way because it is important that my constituents have a chance to express themselves through me in this Chamber.

First, I echo the concerns of the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrats spokesperson in relation to hospitals and medical and dental schools. I have some concern over how that will trickle down, as it will inevitably, and put pressure on sectors where it does not need to be. The job of those three areas is to ensure that our hospitals can deliver the care and our medical and dental schools can produce the students with the expertise and knowledge to be the next generation of those who look after us.

My major concern, however, is about private schools. I know the point has been echoed many times, but I cannot let this occasion go without making my remarks, on which I have sought the direction of Madam Deputy Speaker and other parties. Members will be aware of the issue with private schools, and I have spoken about it on numerous times to put forward the argument for the faith schools in my constituency. Parents scrimp and save to ensure that their children can go to those schools and have the standard of education that they wish for them, and they have asked me to put that on record. The reason I persist in raising the issue is that I truly believe that some people of faith will be further disadvantaged when the Bill goes through. I know that that is not the Government’s intention, but it will be the reality, and for that reason I must put it on record.

Although the rating provisions will not apply in Northern Ireland per se, the disadvantage to our sector remains in the removal of the tax considerations, which will affect schools in Northern Ireland. That is where the issue is. For the mainland, the effect is quite clear, but schools in Northern Ireland will be affected as well. I wish to be clear that I oppose these provisions on behalf of faith-based schools on the mainland as well, because parents of children at those schools want the same as those who spoke to me.

I am a very proud member of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and I believe that that extends to parents’ freedom to educate their child with a view to how their faith is worked into that education. Lords amendment 15 has been referred to by the shadow Minister and by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). For many parents, confidence that their faith will not be dismantled in the classroom is worth the financial burden of paying into their child’s education, but that is being denied by this legislation. I believe that they all deserve the opportunity to educate their child in a way that they wish, for which they will probably pay handsomely, but these proposals will adversely affect parents’ freedom to educate their child in their religious belief.

The option to home-school is one that parents may not have considered previously, yet may now feel is the only financial option available for them. Those parents may not feel qualified or equipped to deal with the skills that are vital to home-schooling, yet believe there to be no option as they simply cannot afford to pay the uplifted fees. That is the unfair burden that falls on the shoulders of those parents.

I firmly believe that the Government disagree with almost every Lords amendment because the Lords amendments interfere with the public revenue and affect the levy and the application of local revenues. The Commons does not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient. Basically that means, “We need the money.” I have been a Member of this House for almost 15 years and an elected representative for some 40 years as a councillor and a member of the Assembly, and never, ever have I believed that money is the bottom line, and I do not believe that many right hon. and hon. Members believe that. We cannot take faith-based education out of the hands of a certain class of people to punish those high-class schools with swimming pools. Let me assure the House that Bangor Independent Christian school, with its Sunbeams nursery schools, has no pool. Regent House prep in my constituency has no swimming pool either. There are small primary schools that will have difficulty operating when these regulations come into force, and that is simply not right.

I know that the strength of the Labour Government means that this Bill will pass, but I am urging individual MPs across the House to consider who will be punished and to urge the Government to review this tax raid on education, even at this late hour. We believe in the right to live one’s faith, and we cannot tax that right out of reach. That is where this Bill has gone wrong, and has divorced itself from the reality of the people that I represent.

[Jim McMahon]

I think I addressed the majority of the points in my opening speech that have been raised subsequently, but I thank Members for their contributions. We have heard the Opposition’s concern that the multipliers do not deliver on the stated intention of the policy as announced in the Budget. We clearly do not agree with that position. At the Budget, the Government announced their intention to introduce two lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, to end the uncertainty of the annual retail, hospitality and leisure relief. Also, as I set out in my opening speech, the relief was a temporary stopgap measure. Of course, it has been extended year on year, but it does not provide the certainty that businesses require. It has created a cliff edge.

During our last session—I cannot remember when it was; it feels like it was yesterday—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) seemed to acknowledge that the cliff edge that was built in the previous system was providing uncertainty to businesses and their ability to plan ahead. He must surely welcome the fact that this new lower multiplier—this permanent relief—gives all businesses, whether they are retail, hospitality or leisure, the long-term security that they have been asking for and, importantly, in a way that is sustainable and self-financing through the business rates system.

Through the Bill, the Government are taking steps to address all the issues that have been outlined. The chosen approach is both appropriate and prudent, and the challenging fiscal environment that the Government face requires it. Any tax cut must be appropriately funded, under our commitment to sound financial management, so the Government intend to introduce a higher multiplier for all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. It is important to say this to settle some of the arguments: that will affect less than 1% of properties in England. Less than 1% will pay more, but that will fund the lower multiplier, as we all recognise. That will help our town centres and our high streets, and it is what we need to do. This approach delivers on the policy set out in the Budget, and on our manifesto commitment to transform the business rates system to make it fairer and fit for the 21st century, and to protect the high street.

Political Donations

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading the debate.

The Labour manifesto pledged to

“protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties.”

I am pleased that these important proposals are being developed. Both today’s debate and the 2021 recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life focus on foreign money entering the UK via companies and unincorporated associations, but I urge the Government, when they develop their proposals, to go further than that.

In 2009, Lord Campbell-Savours of Allerdale, who also happens to be my father, was involved in the tortuous debates in the other place before the passing of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. He and other Members worked to secure an amendment to the Government’s proposals. That amendment meant that individuals giving or loaning more than £7,500 to a political party must be resident or ordinarily resident and domiciled in the UK for the tax year in which the relevant donation or loan is made.

The Bill and the amendment were later given Royal Assent, but that clause, as with many other provisions of primary legislation, was subject to the development of commencement regulations. At the time, the Minister of State envisaged that secondary legislation would be completed not long after the summer of 2010. A general election interrupted that process. However, primary legislation is still in place, ready to be enacted—a quick win, one might say.

As has been said, the Conservatives enormously expanded the number of foreign residents eligible to donate to political parties in our country by removing the 15-year limit on British citizens overseas being able to vote and donate to a political party. Now, up to 3.5 million overseas residents can influence elections.

I am going to take on the baton handed to me by my father and his colleagues in the other place, some of whom are no longer with us, and urge the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Electoral Commission to take on the task of drafting the secondary legislation required to ensure that overseas residents who do not pay tax in this country are no longer allowed to influence the outcomes of elections with their money.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Member may not be aware that nearly $20,000 was donated from the United States to Sinn Féin’s 2017 Assembly election campaign—representing nearly one third of Sinn Féin’s spending in that election. Those who have been so exercised by political donations here have often done nothing to close the loophole that allows huge amounts of foreign money to influence politics in Northern Ireland. Nowhere else in the world would it happen that someone would be paying the bills of a foreign political party, yet that is what seems to happen with Sinn Féin. Does he agree that this loophole must be closed very quickly?

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

The hon. Member is quite right: I was unaware of that.

Under the rules set out the amendment, and made into law, these people would still be able to vote, and could even stand for election—arguably, that would be legitimate participation—but they could not spend money to disproportionately influence the outcome of elections in a country where they do not pay tax. Who runs this place should be a matter decided by those who live and pay their way here; it is they who live with the consequences of those electoral outcomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this important debate. I rise to speak on behalf of the 177 people in Bolton West who signed the petition.

Before I came to this place I dedicated more than a decade of my career to tackling bribery and corruption in all its forms across the UK, India, the UAE and the US, so I have a professional imperative to speak out on cleaning up our politics, as well as a moral one. That is why I have been campaigning on the issue week in, week out since I was elected to this place in July of last year. I was pleased to attend the launch of Transparency International’s “Checks and Balances” report in the autumn of last year, along with the anti-corruption champion, Baroness Margaret Hodge.

Having pored over the petition data in granular detail, I know that this is one of the rare issues that cuts across north and south, blue and red, and urban and rural. We all want our politics to be clean and fair so that it can deliver the very best outcomes for our constituents. For me, that is the heart of the issue that we are discussing. Our democracy relies heavily on donations to provide funding for parties and candidates to engage with the electorate.

However, recent scandals across all major parties involving donations being linked to criminal, unknown or potentially malign foreign sources have led to some of the lowest levels of public trust that we have ever seen. Only 12% of people trust political parties, and there is a corrosive view that politicians are all in it for themselves. The issue has become so severe that I argue that the very integrity of our political system is under serious threat. Our constituents will not cast their votes if they do not believe that their vote makes a difference. Without voting, of course, they lose their stake in our politics. Who can blame them? For far too long, successive Governments have failed to act on political finance reform, leaving our system vulnerable to exploitation by those who seek to subvert our much-cherished democracy.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting the Electoral Commission, which has warned that significant loopholes in our political finance laws allow money of unknown origin, and potentially foreign influence, to infiltrate British politics. Independent scrutiny bodies, including the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, have repeatedly warned about the risks posed by opaque political donations. That is why we desperately need what I hope will be a forthcoming elections Bill. I urge the Minister, in her response, to provide a clear timeline for that piece of legislation. We desperately need to close loopholes, empower regulators and protect our democratic institutions from foreign influence.

[Jim Shannon]

Continuing that line of thought, Northern Ireland will need to be part of such a new legislative ruling. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must all be subject to the same rules in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Phil Brickell]

I agree that we need to move across the entirety of the United Kingdom to clean up our politics. Time waits for no person, so we must act now. With that in mind, I would like to propose five key reforms, which I gently ask the Minister to consider.

First, and most importantly, the campaigning organisation Spotlight on Corruption has called for “know your donor” checks, which would legally require political parties to conduct thorough checks on the source of donations. If a donor’s origins cannot be verified, that donation should be rejected outright. As a former compliance professional for more than a decade myself, I know that such checks can be proportionate and risk based, avoiding excessive administrative burdens. This approach would align with anti-money laundering practices already established in the private sector and mirror existing requirements in the charity sector. If charities must conduct due diligence on their donors, why should political parties be exempt?

Secondly, has the Minister considered reducing the donation reporting thresholds to bring more donations into light? Coupled with the “know your donor” checks, I think that would improve scrutiny and put off lower-value donations from dubious sources.

Thirdly, there is a glaring loophole around shell companies. Under current rules, companies that have never turned a profit in the UK can still donate to political parties. That is an obvious weakness for potential foreign influence, and I am yet to hear a convincing argument as to why it is permitted. The solution is simple: the Government should mandate that a UK-registered company can only donate from the UK profits that it makes. That seems like a principle we can all get behind, and it would go a long way to protecting our much-cherished democracy.

Fourthly, as we have already heard, we must address the role of unincorporated associations, which provide a potential trapdoor for dark money entering our politics. Currently, candidates are not required to verify the ultimate source of donations received through these associations, effectively creating opaque slush funds. Forcing unincorporated associations to conduct better checks on the sources of the original donations would very quickly put an end to that risk.

Fifthly, despite the current political financing laws being riddled with loopholes, they are not even enforced properly. The Tories neutered the Electoral Commission and stripped it of its independence in the Elections Act 2022. What better way to return politics to service than by equipping the commission to hold all parties, including my own, to account? We could start by increasing its capacity for deterrence, by putting up its fining powers. In this era of plutocrat donors, the current paltry fines that the Electoral Commission can impose are hardly going to put wrongdoers off. As I understand it, enhancements to the regime in that respect would not even require primary legislation.

This is an existential issue for our politics. It is not about one person, one party, one donor or even one jurisdiction. Transparency International UK has found that between 2001 and 2024, nearly £115 million in political donations came from unknown or questionable sources, with £1 in every £10 donated to political parties having an unclear origin. Reflect on that for a moment. It is simply unacceptable. The early signs are positive, and I thank the Minister for her engagement with myself and colleagues on this matter already. It demonstrates that the Government understand why today’s debate is crucial. Failing to act sends a dangerous message that British democracy is for sale; we cannot and must not allow that to happen.

Local Government Finances: London

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend is right. It is important that we recognise the circumstances in which we found ourselves and that we point to the measures that this Government have taken to start to fix this endemic problem, which I will continue to explain.

Over and over again, the Tories passed the buck without passing the bucks. Our councils have had to deal with wider changes to legislation and other new duties and responsibilities, even as financial support has been repeatedly eroded. This challenge has been building and building. London’s population has grown by 900,000 in the last 15 years, with massive consequences for rising demand for services, particularly adult and children’s social care, special educational needs and disabilities, and temporary accommodation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. One of the biggest issues for all councils—London councils and other councils across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—is housing. The Government have committed to 1.5 million houses, and that is a commendable strategy to address the issue. Does he agree that, whenever the houses come through, the Government have to look at rental accommodation and price, which many people are finding it hard to manage? It is not just the provision of houses, but ensuring that people can actually rent and live in social and rented housing.

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. Member is right, but we cannot adjust the market situation without adding more houses to the stock. Once we have increased the number of houses, we can start tackling the private rented sector. We are doing so, and I hope that the Minister will expand on some of the measures that this Government are taking to bring our landlords into line and improve the quality of the private rented sector.

As a result of the problems I have described, London’s boroughs are facing an unprecedented financial crisis, one that threatens the vital public services that millions of Londoners rely on, including my constituents in Leyton and Wanstead. Our communities are strong, but we also face significant challenges, ranging from crime and antisocial behaviour to a shortage of decent, affordable homes and the need for better opportunities for young people. All those issues can only be addressed effectively if our excellent councils can invest in our future.

Many councils are now teetering on the edge of issuing section 114 notices—meaning effective bankruptcy—and those risks are increasing, because the drivers of increased costs have simply not been accounted for. Seven London boroughs, nearly a quarter of the total, require exceptional financial support for 2025-26 amounting to over £400 million, and London accounts for almost a third of the total national EFS funding of £1.3 billion. We need to seriously engage with these challenges and chart a sustainable path forward. According to London Councils, London boroughs are forecast to overspend by £800 million this year; particular pressures include homelessness at £330 million, adult social care at £200 million and children’s social care at £160 million. The cost to the public purse will be so much greater in the long run if we do not deal with this crisis now.

By far the most acute financial pressure facing London boroughs is homelessness. The scale of the crisis is staggering: London Councils assesses that one in every 50 Londoners is currently homeless and living in temporary accommodation, including nearly 90,000 children. First and foremost, this is a human tragedy. Like many other colleagues, I have been engaging with individuals and families who are suffering as a result of the housing crisis, including a very powerful visit that I had this Christmas with Crisis in central London. In addition to this human suffering, homelessness represents the fastest-growing financial risk to London’s local authorities, with our councils spending £4 million per day on temporary accommodation—a figure that has surged by 68% in just one year.

Construction Standards: New Build Homes

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered construction standards for new build homes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It is an honour to hold this debate today on the construction standards for new build homes. I will start by thanking the tradespeople who work in my constituency—the brickies, sparkies, plasterers, plumbers, joiners and groundworkers, to mention just a few. I know first-hand how hard they work and how poorly they can be treated sometimes. It is important to note throughout this debate that the quality of the work of most tradespeople is something we and they should be very proud of. The quality of new builds is an issue for many of my constituents. Having one’s own home is a dream for many people across the country, including in my constituency of Sherwood Forest. Having a safe, affordable and warm home for all is something we should all strive for.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is clear that the issue is not necessarily with the workers, but with the developers. There must be rules and legislation in place to ensure that developers cannot cut corners or ignore the guidelines, and that they supply safe properties. If that does not happen, the Government need to enforce it, with fines if necessary.

[Michelle Welsh]

I thank the hon. Member for his important intervention. I will say more about that later.

Over 70% of people in Sherwood Forest own their own home.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member will know as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that we have already made changes through the national planning policy framework, and we have our new homes accelerator programme, which is already providing thousands of homes. The Bill is about building on those powers to ensure that we get Britain building. It was his Government who did not build the houses and the infrastructure that we desperately need and who were too timid to face down the vested interests. This Labour Government are on the side of the builders, not the blockers, and we are saying, “No more.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There is nobody who does not welcome the 1.5 million houses target, and it is important that we see those homes. Part of infrastructure is electric vehicle charging systems. Many people I ask about electric cars say that they are not getting one because there are not enough charging points. Clause 43 indicates that there will be more EV charge points. Is that something the Secretary of State will share with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland? I also understand that some of the standard accessibility requirements do not meet the standards. Can she confirm that that will be changed?

[Angela Rayner]

The Bill will streamline the approval of street works needed for the installation of EV charge points, removing the need for licensing where works are able to be authorised by permits, because we recognise that people need that critical infrastructure as part of these reforms.

We have taken more action in eight months than the Opposition managed in 14 years of government. We have reversed the damaging changes made by the Tories to the national planning policy framework and have brought green belt into the 21st century. We have ended the de facto ban on new onshore wind, and we are supporting local authorities with an additional 300 planning officers. Just this month, we set out reforms to put growth at the heart of the statutory consultee system.

Many would have said, “Stop there and allow the reforms to bed in,” but Britain cannot afford to wait. We have been held back for too long by Governments without the will to drive change. This landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill goes even further and faster.

Council Tax Reform

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brash]

I absolutely agree and I will come to social care later in my speech, so I will pick up that point then.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

May I commend the hon. Member for bringing forward the debate? He is getting himself a reputation in this House for being an assiduous constituency worker. I wish him well in continuing to do the good work that we all witness.

Does the hon. Member not agree that with the cost of living crisis, working families—that is what we are talking about here—need to know that every penny of tax is wisely spent? Confidence is clearly at an all-time low. Does he further agree that greater openness and transparency as to the use of tax funds can only be a good thing throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Housing Development Planning: Water Companies

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing the debate. As I said to her beforehand, it has been a while since we were in Westminster Hall together; now we have renewed that acquaintance once again.

Housing development in Northern Ireland is a completely different ballgame, as the Minister will know—he has not answered my queries about that, because it is not his responsibility. The system is very different, but this debate gives us an opportunity to participate. I welcome this Labour Government’s commitment to 1.5 million houses, which will potentially regenerate the economy and create jobs and development. It gives people opportunity, and it is the right thing to do, but we need enough skilled workmen to be able to do that job.

To give a local perspective from Northern Ireland, water infrastructure for new housing developments there is managed by Northern Ireland Water, which is a Government body. Some people might say, “At least that way, you only deal with one person and it all gets done.” Our system is quite simple. My office deals with numerous issues each week that are under the responsibility of NI Water and I am glad to have a good working relationship with it. We do complain now and again, and we find that its reaction to our complaints is positive, and it does its best to deal with them. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) referred to the half a million hours of sewage spills in the south-west region—it gives me goose pimples just to think about that.

In addition to NI Water, we have dozens of fantastic developers looking to expand and enhance the property scene across Northern Ireland, and they will have to work closely with Northern Ireland Water on decent infrastructure, which is critical to departure. In many cases, network reinforcement and new infrastructure is needed, which can be very costly but is necessary for new and improved housing developments.

Another pivotal issue over the last couple of years has been flooding. We used to always talk about 100-year floods, but they now happen about every two to three years and have become the norm rather than the exception. The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) referred to looking to the future and what the stats suggest needs to be done.

I have dealt with many flooding issues in my constituency, and it is important that this issue is taken into consideration in terms of water supply and drainage in new housing developments. Developers must comply with many environmental regulations from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, including those relating to water pollution and sustainable drainage. I am old enough to remember a time, not too far back, where the sewerage system and the storm drain water all went into the same system. That is not the case today—nor should it be, because the capacity is not there to take it all—but it did happen in the past.

We need to ensure good communication and good working relationships with Government and non-governmental agencies, from planning to environmental and from water companies to developers. Northern Ireland Water and water companies are obligated to supply water connections to all residential properties, but there has to be good engagement. Northern Ireland Water has good capacity and a good relationship with elected representatives. Developers have the working relationship with Northern Ireland Water that they need to make it work. On the occasions when the sewerage system is unable to take a development of, say, 100 houses, the developer must take it upon himself or herself to provide for those 100 houses a system whereby the sewage can be taken away, either by lorry or whatever.

The Minister perhaps cannot answer this point, but some of the things we do in Northern Ireland, including having Northern Ireland Water as a governmental body, may just be the answer. I am not a socialist, by the way —just for the record—but some things are just right. It does not matter whether it is a socialist policy or another policy; if it is right, it is right. I gently suggest to all Members in this Chamber that maybe all the water companies need to have a new boss.

Local Government: Nolan Principles

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Nolan Principles in local government.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. This year marks the 30-year anniversary of the Nolan principles, which are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Those seven principles embody everything that we, as elected representatives, should strive for on behalf of our constituents. They are the guiding principles for anyone in elected office.

MPs and elected representatives at all levels of local government are overwhelmingly public-spirited and dedicated people who always embody the Nolan principles in their work. Having served on the Privileges and Standards Committees for the last five years, which I am honoured to now chair, I have seen at first hand that elected representatives do, at times, sadly fall short of the principles.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. Does he agree that for most honourable people, the desire to live up to the highest standards of the Nolan principles is inherent? For people who do not live by those principles, however, there must be more than a suggestion—indeed, there must be a requirement—to stand by them.

[Alberto Costa]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome intervention, with which I entirely agree. Not only should publicly elected councillors—at parish, town, local authority, district and county level—be obliged to follow those principles but, importantly, a code of conduct developed and underpinned by those principles should have teeth. What he is ultimately saying is that there must be appropriate sanctions, as there are for us as Members of this House.

For some of those Members who fall short, sometimes those are cases of minor lapses—moments of frustration or poor judgment—while other times they are severe errors, with devastating consequences for colleagues, staff and the reputation of elected office. Such errors are not unique to elected representatives; to err is human, and no human being is without flaws. That said, it is right that elected representatives, while undertaking their public duties, are held to a higher bar. That is not about their private lives, but about the work that we, and local authority councillors, do in the course of our public duties.

Town Deal Funding: Owens in Hastings

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have called this debate about Owens in Hastings, the short-lived family fun factory whose boarded-up front is a familiar and depressing sight to anyone who has walked through our town centre. We are certainly not the only town to have experienced boarded-up shopfronts, which have become all too common on high streets around the country.

The reason I am here speaking about this at 10 pm is that Owens has come to symbolise for our community much more than a mere eyesore. Under the Conservative Government’s levelling-up plans, Owens received £150,000 of taxpayers’ money. At the grand opening of Owens, it was revealed that the owner behind it was Lubov Chernukhin, a millionaire who has donated more than £2.4 million to the Conservative party. Did Ms Chernukhin, a millionaire owner, really need a top-up from the taxpayer to fund such a venture? Was that truly the best use of the money given to Hastings to improve our town? None of that makes any sense to my constituents.

It gets worse. Owens closed shortly after opening, and the deserted, boarded-up building now dominates our town centre in Hastings. The staff were laid off with no notice, and many people who supplied the business and helped with the building work have said that they have not been paid for their work. The closure of Owens, which is now covered in wooden boarding, leaves a stain on our community.

Owens has now been closed for 18 months. What has Ms Chernukhin been doing in that time? The answer is: donating vast sums of money to the Conservative party. It is a shame that no Conservative Members are here to hear this, because they might like to hear that the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who sits on the Conservative Front Bench, recently accepted a £70,000 donation from Ms Chernukhin, who is clearly not struggling for money these days. In just the time since Owens has been closed, she has donated more than £150,000 to the Conservative party.

Ms Chernukhin should donate the money she received from the taxpayer back to the people of Hastings—used well, it could go a very long way to fixing our broken paving stones and bus shelters. Lubov Chernukhin: we want our money back. Until that money is repaid in full to our community, the Conservative party should not take a penny in donations from her. Again, it is a shame that no Conservative Members are here, but I will be writing to the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), urging her not to take any more donations until that is done. When she became the Conservative leader, she said very clearly that her party would apologise for the mistakes that it had made; perhaps apologising to the people of my constituency is a good place to start.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. One of the things I see, which she perhaps sees as well—it is the thrust of where she is going—is that the town deal funding the Government offered gave great opportunities to councils. I know that they did the same in my council area, where we developed an evening dining culture and a coffee culture, but it took the council being the body ensuring that the money was spent where it should be spent. Does the hon. Lady see the good things that can come out of the town deal funding? Does she agree that we should all look at and focus on the good things?

[Helena Dollimore]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his passion about his area and about improving it. It is so true that where money is spent properly, in conjunction and collaboration with the priorities of local people, we see people really feeling a difference in their community. That is why when I speak to my constituents, it is so frustrating for them. We all know that we could have spent £150,000 so much better, which is where that frustration comes from. We are left with a boarded-up, huge building in the centre of town that we have to walk past, and we are reminded of that failure every time.

The Guardian has also reported that Lubov Chernukhin’s involvement in Owens was at least part funded by a £1.5 million loan from a British Virgin Islands company, Sunny Gulch Village Ltd. That company was previously owned by her husband, Vladimir Chernukhin, a former deputy Finance Minister in Putin’s Russia and former chairman of a Russian bank. In a 2018 court case, Lubov herself confirmed that Mr Chernukhin had maintained “excellent” relationships with

“prominent members of the Russian establishment”.

Is that really the company that the Conservative party wants to keep, and is that really a suitable donor?

There are also serious questions to answer about what due diligence was done under the last Government before taxpayers’ money was handed out in this way. The money was part of the town deal fund under the last Government. The plans for spending that money were meant to have been scrutinised by a board that was representative of the local community, but when I have spoken to local businessmen and women who sat on that board, they have told me that they were given very little information about the projects and pressured into signing them off. One asked repeatedly to see the full business cases, but was told that they could not because of commercial sensitivities. Why did the previous Government design such a process for spending taxpayers’ money with so little transparency for us, the taxpayer?

Local businesses also cannot understand why the decision was taken to subsidise a commercial venture when they themselves have had to work so hard to get their businesses off the ground, with no help from the taxpayer. Genecon, a consultancy, was paid by the town deal board to examine the business case for each project, but no research, analysis or figures have ever been shared. Did Genecon ever do that due diligence? All projects were signed off by the then levelling up Department; what checks and due diligence were done by officials and Ministers on those projects to ensure that our taxpayers’ money was being spent wisely? It seems that in the case of so many levelling-up projects, proper processes were not followed. Anyone who speaks to any charity applying today for public money will be told about all the paperwork those charities rightly have to go through. Why was the bar set so low for a venture such as Owens?

Moving forward, it is vital that the same mistakes are not made. Under this Labour Government, we have a brilliant opportunity to breathe life back into our high streets, sort out our empty units and get our local economy moving. I am really grateful to the Minister for the Labour Government’s confirmation that Hastings will be one of the 75 towns awarded £20 million in funding toward those aims over the next decade. The Government have rightly said that that money should be spent on the priorities of our community, whether that is broken pavements, broken bus shelters, or opening up important community venues such as St Mary in the Castle. I will be publicly asking my constituents how they think that money should be spent, and putting on pressure for us to spend it properly. The Labour Government are also giving our communities important new powers, such as high street rental auctions. These will give local leaders the power to take action on properties that have been left vacant for over a year, granting local businesses and community groups the right to rent empty commercial lots at market price.

Lastly, I put on record my thanks to the journalists involved in exposing this scandal. It is only because of the work of journalists at local publications such as the Hastings Independent Press, as well as at The Guardian, that we know what has gone on. Never again should taxpayers’ money be wasted in this way. For that reason, I am also referring the case of Owens to the National Audit Office, and I ask it to investigate. The lessons from Owens must be learned.