Clive Betts MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady had the courtesy to advise me in advance that she would have to leave shortly after 4 pm, so I think it was reasonable to allow her to speak in the debate.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Six Members wish to contribute to the debate and we have about 50 minutes, so people can do the sums on that—it is about eight minutes maximum for each speech.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  We move on to the Front Benchers, who are entitled to 10 minutes each. I hope that we can allow at least two minutes for Julian Lewis to wind up at the end. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

• 19 Mar 2026 · UK Steel Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the strategy. Sheffield’s history is inextricably linked to steel, and we want our future to be linked to steel as well. My right hon. Friend mentioned the excellent work that Forgemasters is doing to provide steel for our nuclear reactors, our nuclear submarines and, hopefully, our civil nuclear program, through small modular reactors. The strategy mentions the procurement of British steel. Will the Secretary of State set out how the Government will ensure that public bodies do procure British steel rather than just saying that they will? My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) has fought so hard for the future of Liberty in the past few months. What would the Secretary of State say to her about Stocksbridge steelworks? Will this deal ensure that the steelworks has a viable future and that jobs are retained for the whole of Sheffield?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Disability Equipment Provision · Hansard source

  More

  Order. Six Back Benchers want to speak in the debate, so I suggest about five minutes each as a guideline.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Disability Equipment Provision · Hansard source

  More

  We now move on to the Front Benchers. The Liberal Democrat and Opposition spokespeople will have five minutes, and the Minister will have 10. There is a bit of flexibility on that time, so we can be a little more generous if required.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Disability Equipment Provision · Hansard source

  More

  Minister, it would be helpful if you could allow a couple of minutes at the end for the mover to respond.

• 11 Mar 2026 · UK-based Tech Companies · Hansard source

  More

  Order. The hon. Gentleman has not been reading the media—we had some good news this morning, which has moved us forward. I just wanted to make sure everyone is up to date with the important information.

• 11 Mar 2026 · UK-based Tech Companies · Hansard source

  More

  Order. We have five speakers, which gives each of them between eight and 10 minutes, so that we can get the Front Benchers in after that. I call Chris Evans.

• 11 Mar 2026 · UK-based Tech Companies · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister make sure that he allows two minutes at the end for the mover to wind up?

• 11 Mar 2026 · UK-based Tech Companies · Hansard source

  More

  We now come on to the Front Benchers. Everyone is entitled to at least 10 minutes, but I think you can work out that you have a little bit more if you want to take it.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Post Office Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. May I raise two specific issues relating to post offices in my constituency? First, Mosborough post office, a fairly small but growing business, is on the margins of viability. Will the Minister think again about how small post offices in communities that rely on them can be supported? Secondly, the Lloyds bank branch in Woodhouse—the last bank there—has closed. Woodhouse is an old mining community. We thought it was an ideal place for a banking hub, and we had someone willing to run it: Richard Trinder, the sub-postmaster at Handsworth post office. However, the plan was turned down because the banks were not prepared to fund it The Minister mentioned discussions with the banks and the Post Office about a voluntary agreement. Will he have a look at what he might do to enforce such agreements, and change the criteria for banking hubs when they could be vital to local communities?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Schools White Paper: Every Child Achieving and Thriving · Hansard source

  More

  The Public Accounts Committee has looked at the cost of home-to-school transport. Clearly, one of the drivers is the cost of sending kids with special needs miles away from their home to very expensive private schools. The Government have announced help on the statutory overrides that have been incurred by local authorities with regard to those costs, both recently and currently. Given that the reforms the Secretary of State has announced, which I very much welcome, will take some time to come into effect, will she guarantee that local authorities will not have to rely on statutory overrides to continue to provide their statutory duties in future?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I will not go through every detail of this settlement. There is always a balance to be struck in local government settlements, and Ministers have to make their own judgments about that. It is the overall impact that I want to judge the settlement by. For me, this is a fairer settlement for those authorities with high levels of deprivation and some of the worst cuts in the years of austerity.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  There is again memory loss on the Lib Dem Benches. It was the coalition Government who made the biggest cuts to local government funding and started passing funding responsibilities over to the council tax system—that all began with the Lib Dems in the coalition Government. Why does the hon. Gentleman not apologise to the Chamber and to people up and down the country for what the Lib Dems did to them when they were in government?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I first congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government on this settlement; it is a welcome change. I also thank the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for his work in both opposition and government to get us to this better place. I am now the deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and we recently produced a report on local government funding. I want to read out our cross-party conclusions: “Local government finance is in a perilous state…Funding has not kept pace with population growth, demand for services, complexity of need, or the rising costs of delivering services. As demand for targeted services such as social care, special educational needs, and temporary accommodation has grown, there has been a significant reduction in spending on commonly used discretionary services, such as street cleaning and lighting, parks and gardens, and leisure services.” That is a truth that councils up and down the country have experienced and dealt with for many years. I congratulate councillors of all parties, in all councils across the country, for how they have performed during the years of austerity—they have continued to work, and to deliver efficiencies that some central Government Departments, as the PAC can testify, would do well to emulate.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  First, there are many more councils with Labour MPs. It might be the case that Labour MPs represent councils with higher levels of deprivation. That might be the simple explanation.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. Councils should be funded according to need, not according to political representation. [Interruption.] Before Conservative Members start, I do not know whether they are old enough to remember Dame Shirley Porter and Westminster council, and how they were stuffed with money over visitor nights, just to ensure Conservative victory at the local elections. But we will move on from that. That was a long time ago. I say to the Minister that these are big challenges that need to be addressed. We have to get to grips with them. We also have a local government finance system that is fundamentally broken. The Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee commented on that in her excellent speech. Moreover, the Select Committee in the previous Parliament made the same recommendations as her Committee did. In the modern age, how can we continue to fund local authorities using a council tax system based on valuations from 1991? It is nonsensical. It is not sustainable. Imagine asking someone how the value of their new house had been arrived at, and them saying, “Well, this is a guess at what it would have been worth in 1991, had it been built then.” This is ridiculous, and we must change it. It is also regressive. Michael Gove, the former Secretary of State, said that the system was regressive, and it is. Poorer households pay disproportionately more in council tax. It simply is not fair. In every year since 2010, council tax has taken a higher and higher share of local government funding, placing a greater and greater burden on that part of the funding settlement, which is regressive. When the Chancellor made commitments during the election campaign not to increase certain taxes, council tax was omitted. Therefore council tax has been going up disproportionately. It is an unfair, regressive tax that hits the poorest hardest. We simply have to do something about that. This comes back to the democracy point that the Chair of the Select Committee made. While this is going on, poor families have to pay disproportionately more, but in terms of local government spending, more is going on social care, homelessness and special education needs—the things that are really important, but which most people do not receive. That means that most people, particularly those on lower incomes, are paying more tax every year and getting less in services, because of the cuts to other services, as the Public Accounts Committee recognised. That is not sustainable. It undermines trust in local authorities. People say to me, “The council has put up my council tax, but I am getting less for it.” This really has to change.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  It is interesting to hear the hon. Member completely remove from his memory what happened in the 14 years of his Government. I ask him to remember back to when this began in 2010, when council tax generated about 20% of council funding, and how it has grown over the years under the Conservative and coalition Governments to deliver more than half of local government funding. How can he say that this is a problem when his Government originated that process?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  The reform needed is so fundamental that the system would not be recognisable from what we have now. That is how we have to try to move forward. We were promised business rates reform, but what we have had so far is not reform, but some minor changes. Yes, we have had good changes to try to help pubs and leisure facilities, but it is not fundamental reform. We could look at what Denmark and Australia have done to reform their whole system of council finances based on land values. That is one alternative. Let us at least have a look at it. Let us at least accept the need for change, even if we cannot agree at this point on precisely what that change should be. In bringing about that change, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we should look at giving local authorities more power to determine their own levels of taxation. We are an outlier in Europe in how centralised our local government finance system is. That is another challenge. It partly comes from the great inequalities we have between different parts of the country, which are much greater than in most other European countries. I welcome the ability for councils to introduce a tourism tax, but that is a minute step towards more say for local councils about the money they can raise. It is a welcome but very small step. I congratulate the Minister on the reforms and improvements to the existing system. Those are welcome, and my city and my constituents welcome them. However, big challenges lie ahead in making more fundamental reform to the system and giving more powers back to local councils to determine what money they can raise. The Minister will probably not stand at the Dispatch Box today and say, “We completely agree. We are going to get on with it,” but the Government should at least start thinking about it.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly do. My next point was going to be that deprivation is properly recognised in the funding settlement. The problem is that councils that have deprivation either across their area, or in part of it, have borne the burden of the cuts over many years. Under previous Governments, both coalition and Conservative, councils with the greatest need—which previously had the largest grants to reflect that need—faced the biggest cuts. This funding settlement gives the biggest increases to councils that faced the biggest cuts under the last Government; we are getting some restitution for the funding reductions that we suffered. The recovery grant is right, because councils need recovery when their funding base has been decimated, after grants that they needed were taken away from them. My one challenge to my hon. Friend the Minister is that the recovery grant lasts for three years, so there is a danger of a cliff edge in 2029, when those councils that now get it may suddenly lose it. The Minister is obviously trying to think ahead, which makes a change from previous Ministers, so let us start to think about that problem before it hits us. I welcome the settlement for Sheffield. I think the comments made by the leader of the council—which is a cross-party council—were about the council’s concerns and the challenges it faced prior to this funding settlement. The finance director of Sheffield council has said that “The figures announced in the LGFS back up the Government’s commitment to redressing the unequal cuts seen during the austerity years of the previous Government, and its aim to deliver more funding to deprived areas of the country.” I think that is a fair statement from the officer responsible for the council’s finances. In this funding settlement, Sheffield has got about £55 billion more over three years than was anticipated under the previous proposals, which sort of fills the hole. In the past, we have been making cuts to essential services, but for the first time in 15 years, we can start a budget process without immediately looking at cuts to those services. Year after year of cuts—that has been the situation. Now, the budget can be balanced without those cuts, which is a fundamental change. We can start to look at some improvements and preventive measures for the future that will bring about the sort of change we all want. I say well done to the Government for getting us to that position. I also say well done to the Government for dealing with the ringfences—not just in the Minister’s Department but across Government, whether they be in transport, health or education. There are ringfences all around that restrict local councillors’ ability to do the right thing for their communities, so it is good that the Government have moved in the right direction. The current Select Committee and previous Select Committees have called for that change, and the Government have listened. To be fair, when Michael Gove was Secretary of State, there was an agreement that this needed to happen, but not much evidence that it did happen. I think we have moved in the direction that everyone wanted us to take. This settlement is a good start. It steadies the ship after the cuts that councils with higher levels of deprivation have had to suffer, and it brings in a strong element of fairness. Now, I am going to challenge the Minister—I know she would not expect me to be completely complimentary. I come back to the point that the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), made about the need for change. This is a good start, but there is a need for radical change. We came in with a manifesto of change; we have a large majority, and with willingness, we can deliver on it. There are major issues in social care. I am still disappointed that we will not make changes to social care funding until 2029, after the review. I think we could make them more quickly. We are clearly moving on special educational needs and disabilities, but we need to move on children’s social care as well. There are things that some councils can do to help themselves; for example, Warrington council has started to build its own children’s home, so that it does not have to send children to very expensive private homes.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I think that goes for both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, as my hon. Friend will understand. This Government clearly face a serious situation, and we must say that they have got some things very right indeed. First, we have the multi-year settlement, which has been called for, cross-party, for many years—it was certainly something that we called for when I was on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and the Committee is again calling for it now. It is good that we have one; it gives councils a degree of certainty, so that they can look to the future and plan ahead. Fair funding has always been a subjective term; one side will say that something is fair funding, and the other will say that it is not. I just point out to the Opposition that Greg Clark, when he was Housing Secretary 10 years ago, promised a fair funding review on behalf of the then Conservative Government. However, we are still waiting for that review in 2024. The Opposition had their chance, but they did not take it. We now have a review to deal with the simple matter of some figures and data in the funding settlement being at least 20 years old.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is being a little unfair to the Tories. The biggest cuts under austerity from 2010 to 2024 came from 2010 to 2015 when the Lib Dems were in coalition, so perhaps they should share some of the blame.

• 5 Feb 2026 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I really welcome this plan, and the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister and right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in putting it together. I will just raise one credit and one request to go a bit further. First, when I had my cancer treatment eight years ago, I thought I knew my way around the NHS, but it is a completely confusing organisation for anyone involved in it. One thing that really helped me was having a specialist nurse appointed at the beginning. That specialist nurse got my chemotherapy ready on a Monday before I came down to London, and then on a Thursday when I came back. That sort of organisation and help is vital, so I really welcome that proposal. Secondly, when I had my stem cell transplant for myeloma, my own stem cells were harvested and used, but many young people with complicated blood disorders need stem cells to be donated. So will the Minister work with the Anthony Nolan trust—I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on stem cell transplantation and advanced cellular therapies—to ensure that more young people donate their stem cells so that other young people can have a life to look forward to?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the changes that the Minister is introducing for pubs and music venues. Can he assure me that the changes for music venues will apply to Sheffield arena, which currently, under the proposal, is being treated like an Amazon warehouse? Will he also look at an issue I wrote to him about? Handsworth Junior Sporting Club, a small local voluntary sports club in my constituency, is faced with a 60% increase in business rates. Surely that cannot be right. It needs to be looked at again.