Local Government Finance

Debate between Jonathan Brash and Andrew Snowden

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brash]

I would say that if we want there to be trust in politics, we need to be accurate in what we say in this place, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s correcting the record.

The Minister understands exactly what I am going to say. I know how sympathetic and supportive she is in this respect, and I hope that in the coming days we will be able to deal with the issue that I am going to raise. I thank her for her support in recent weeks.

I want to be clear about what Hartlepool is facing, and about why I cannot regard the current settlement to be fair and also believe it to be self-defeating. Hartlepool now has the third highest number of children in care in England. That pressure has been made worse by other local authorities placing families in my town, leaving us with a £6 million overspend in children’s social care alone. My brilliant Labour council has already taken decisive action, halving that projected deficit in-year and establishing a robust, credible plan to eliminate it entirely. That plan is exactly what the Government say they want to see: it means fewer children coming into care, more early intervention, stronger families and better outcomes. It includes strengthened early help and family support, a dedicated edge-of-care team, a refreshed in-house foster care model, safe reunification pathways, wholesale SEND reform, enhanced support for care leavers, and better workforce planning. This is a serious, preventive change, not a sticking plaster solution.

But here is the problem: these reforms require short-term stability to succeed. The settlement does not recognise the sheer number of children in care in my constituency. It undermines prevention, which means that we are likely to see more children in care, more long-term costs, and worse outcomes. That is why I see this settlement as self-defeating. Ministers will rightly point to percentage increases in funding, but those percentages mean far less in Hartlepool than they do almost anywhere else, because our baseline is already so low. The cost of a child in care is exactly the same in Hartlepool as it is anywhere else.

When we look at it in cash terms, the reality is stark. The increase in the Government grant for Hartlepool this year is just £3 million, which is equivalent to funding around six children in care. After weeks of discussions and representations, the final settlement for Hartlepool has remained unchanged, yet down the road—this sticks in the craw for me—Reform-led Durham county council has received an additional £3.7 million this year, which means that it is reducing the amount by which it is increasing council tax. The increase in Durham’s final settlement is more than our entire increase this year. I cannot describe that as fair funding.

As we have heard from many Members from across the House, the unfairness is compounded by a broken council tax system. Hartlepool has one of the weakest tax bases in the country, with a high proportion of homes in band A. A 1% increase in council tax in Hartlepool raises a fraction of what it raises in wealthier areas, yet our residents already pay far more, both in real terms and as a share of their income, than those living almost anywhere else in the country. The settlement simply does not change that reality.

Governments of all stripes talk about core spending power, but half of that core spending power is achieved by raising council tax. That hammers the poorest communities the most, and it is a regressive tax. That is not fairness; it is entrenched inequality. To make matters worse, changes to deprivation measures and population assumptions mean that Hartlepool’s needs are being systematically underestimated. Official forecasts put our population at under 94,000, yet the Office for National Statistics data shows that it is already closer to 100,000—growth that is driven in large part by other councils discharging their homelessness duties into my constituency. Hartlepool is not asking for special treatment; we are asking for support to deal with a problem that is not of our making.

[Mr Snowden]

The hon. Member is touching on an important issue that affects a lot of councils across the north of England, including Blackpool, which neighbours my constituency. Larger metropolitan areas are effectively exporting their children-in-care problems to much cheaper areas, such as Blackpool and Hartlepool, which the hon. Member represents. Some kind of restriction on how far councils can move children who are being put into care might stop the dumping of children in care in areas where housing is cheaper.

[Mr Brash]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments, and I endorse them wholeheartedly. I have heard stories of London boroughs and Birmingham city council putting families in taxis with the threat, “Get in the taxi, or you’re homeless.” They do not know where they will get out at the other end, and they discover that they are in Hartlepool only when they arrive. It is left for our council to deal with the pressure and the additional SEND needs, and for our council to deal with the children, who sometimes end up in care. It is a disgraceful practice that should rightly be cracked down on. I know that the Minister is alive to this problem, and it needs to be dealt with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brash]

I absolutely endorse all that; part of that work needs to be taking a very close look at the funding settlement. We need to look at whether councils that may have done very well out of the settlement are still moving people out of their areas, even when they have extra finances from this Government.

[Mr Snowden]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, as he gives me a chance to respond to the Minister as well as to himself. As a former police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, I saw at first hand the impact on communities of cities miles away in effect dumping children into high crime, high deprivation areas simply because the housing is cheaper. Dealing with the damage that has on children’s life chances—let alone the impact on communities already struggling with regeneration by adding to the problems—is paramount. I would be more than happy to meet the Minister and the hon. Member to discuss how we take forward this issue not only on the Fylde coast, but across the north.

[Mr Brash]

I will take up the hon. Member on that invitation. He mentioned Blackpool, and I know that the Members who represent Blackpool and Stoke—in the top three areas for the number of children in care—would also be very interested in his offer.

Without support to deal with the gap in our in-year funding for children’s social care, the risks are clear: prevention will fail, costs will rise, and vital community services such as youth provision, libraries and community hubs will be under threat. I fully support my Labour council colleagues, who have been clear that they are not prepared to make those cuts, which would be so self-defeating in the round.

This is a moment of profound seriousness for my constituency. Hartlepool has a plan for children’s social care that is aligned with the Government’s agenda, but we now need a settlement that gives us a fair chance to deliver it. I have spoken today with our council leader and colleagues in Hartlepool, and they are distraught, despondent and profoundly worried about what the future holds—in just a matter of days, when the budget is due to be set in Hartlepool—so I appeal to the Minister for any piece of support she can give me.

Immigration

Debate between Jonathan Brash and Andrew Snowden

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I want to start by being very clear about what I believe and what I know my constituents in Hartlepool believe. Immigration, whether legal or illegal, is far too high. There is nothing right wing or indeed racist about being worried about immigration and its effect on our communities. We as a party and as a Government will absolutely be judged on our ability to solve this problem over the coming years. I know that the Minister agrees with this wholeheartedly, and we will stand by it. We will be judged on our ability to solve this problem.

The Conservative motion before us feels rather like the arsonist turning up and complaining that we have not yet put out the fire. It is a motion that I am sure the Reform party will support, if any of its Members can be bothered to turn up, given its entirely vacuous nature and total absence of any policy solutions.

I want to talk briefly about legal migration, because that hugely exercises me and many of my constituents.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Brash]

I will give way in a moment. The last Conservative Government put construction workers on their points-based immigration system. They wanted to import construction workers—the people we need to rebuild this country—while my further education college that trains local Hartlepudlians in construction skills had its funding cut by 10%. That is nothing short of economic vandalism—vandalism that for far too long threw my constituents on the scrap heap. That is the Conservatives’ legacy.

[Mr Snowden]

The hon. Member just referred to the Government as equivalent to the fire brigade turning up to put out a fire. Given the Government’s track record since coming into office, does he agree that it would be fair to say that they brought petroleum to put out the fire, not water?

[Mr Brash]

Again, after 14 years, the Conservatives turn up demanding to know why nobody has done anything about the issue in 10 months. Frankly, it is hypocrisy of the highest level.

I turn to the comments made about the Conservatives’ much-touted Rwanda scheme and illegal migration. Time and again we hear the same tired lines—“It was just about to work”, “If only we’d had a little longer, it would have solved all the problems of the small boats.” Well, they had the time. They chose to call the early general election; they could have waited. If they had truly believed in the scheme—this totemic flagship of theirs—they would have backed themselves, but they did not, because they knew it was a busted flush. They knew it was going to fail, and they rushed to the country before that failure could be fully exposed.

How did we get to this point in the small boats crisis, which is central to a lot of what we are talking about? There were no small boat arrivals recorded before 2018. Why? It was because at that time the UK had a returns agreement with the EU—anyone making that dangerous crossing could be returned—but the Conservative Brexit deal did not have a returns agreement in it. The same Brexit deal championed by Reform is the reason for the numbers we are seeing. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not in his place, championed that deal and now uses the numbers it caused as a weaponised political choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Snowden]

It did not start. The scheme was not even operational. That is like buying a car, waiting until it gets to the showroom and then claiming that only the showroom manager is driving it, so it is not worth the money. It is a ridiculous thing to say.

We hear vacuous slogans, empty words—quite apt—cooked up stats and a Prime Minister unable to answer the most basic of questions; he is now not only reduced to begging other countries to give him options to provide a safe country to deport to, but he is publicly getting slapped down by the leaders he is asking. The return hubs he is now so desperately trying to set up are only a watered-down version of the Rwanda scheme. Even more worryingly, not only have they shot themselves in the foot by cancelling Rwanda; in launching their new border security Bill, they have not realised that without a deterrent it is all just words.

[Mr Brash]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can address the point I made in my speech. Repeatedly, Conservative Members, including him, have said, “If we had only waited a little bit longer, Rwanda would have worked.” Why do you think the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) called the general election—

[Mr Brash]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why does the hon. Member think the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton called the general election when he did, when he was apparently so close to the Rwanda scheme working?

[Mr Snowden]

The hon. Member would have to ask my right hon. Friend.

The only tangible elements of the Bill are: a Border Security Commander with no powers other than writing a report and setting some objectives; and new powers to confiscate phones from people who arrive illegally, missing the fact that most of the them discard their phones to hide their identity anyway. Notably, the Bill repeals lots of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, lifting the requirement for the Government to remove people who arrive here illegally and allowing illegal migrants a path to citizenship.

Let us be clear: there should be no route to citizenship for anyone who arrives in this country illegally. France is a safe country, and to get to France—let alone the UK—people will have had to pass through many other safe countries. Everyone who arrives in small boats across the channel or in lorries from the continent is arriving from a safe country and should therefore qualify for immediate deportation. These are not asylum claims; it is illegal immigration.

As much as I would like to take up all the time in this debate—and more—talking about the ludicrously weak and counterproductive policies of this Government, by the time I finished, many more small boats would have crossed the channel. I would rather spare the Minister the time, and hope the Government spend it instead correcting some of their mistakes.

We have outlined some provisions in our Bill that would help, including: disapplying the Human Rights Act from immigration matters; a requirement to deport all foreign criminals regardless of human rights claims; the introduction of a scientific age assessment technique when an illegal immigrant is trying to pretend they are over 18; a requirement to impose visa sanctions on countries that do not take back their own citizens; and increasing the period to qualify for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10.

I live in hope, though—for the sake of our national security, the confidence of the British public in our immigration system, and to reduce the strain on our public services—that the Prime Minister picks up the phone to his opposite number in Rwanda, apologises for the disrespectful way he treated their country and begs to get the deal back on the table. However, I think it will take a few more years of repeating empty slogans, dodging difficult questions, and holding press conferences every time there is an arrest of a single person out of the thousands involved in the illegal immigration trade, before the Prime Minister realises that instead of smashing the gangs, he is making everything worse, and that it is time to pick up the phone to Rwanda again.