David Simmonds MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 3 Mar 2025 · Fire Safety: Local Authority Planning · Hansard source

  More

  We note that the Government have chosen not to take forward the Grenfell report recommendation relating to certification bodies on materials safety. Given the previous Minister’s failure to reply to my questions on the new use of European standards in respect of fire performance, will the new Minister assure the House that we can be absolutely confident that the fire safety performance regulations in place are clear, robust and effective?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Energy Efficiency Standards · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has highlighted, simply putting people out of their homes is not a solution to fuel poverty. Given that the figures very clearly show that the cost of the upgrades in many cases massively exceeds the financial benefit to either the tenant or the landlord, can the Minister give the House her personal assurance that this objective is realistic and achievable?

• 3 Mar 2025 · New Housing: Access to Health Services · Hansard source

  More

  We know that through the section 106 agreement progress, the planning system is very good at levying funds for new NHS facilities, but NHS Property Services has not always been effective at building those facilities out on time. What assurance can the Secretary of State give the House that across Government there will be an appropriate focus on ensuring that NHS Property Services delivers the facilities that planning has secured?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, to discuss a matter that members of the Committee clearly find riveting. The Minister referred to fixing foundations, so it is important for the Committee to note that the decision that we are asked to take this evening reflects the work and policy of the previous Government, introduced in 2013-14, which set a direction of travel on business rates whereby a greater proportion of the growth created at local authority level would be retained locally. It is a principle on which there has been a high degree of cross-party agreement for many years that those places that put the work in and see the local impact of growth should also benefit from that financially. Although I think we would all accept that it was a work in progress at the time of the last general election, I am pleased that the Government are at least continuing to operate the same system. I hope the Minister will consider how the principles that underlie this decision making can be rolled out further in the future. Essentially, business rates retention is about saying to local authorities that, rather than acting purely as collections authorities for central Government, they main retain locally a proportion of the money that they collect through the non-domestic rates process. It is part of an infrastructure that includes the pooling arrangements introduced under the previous Government, which were designed to ensure that that benefit was not seen solely by an individual local authority but, because significant business growth often has a wider regional impact, was able to be shared across groups of local authorities. In London, for example, there are a number of pooling arrangements whereby local authorities share some of the proceeds across a wider area. The Minister set out the impact and purpose of the arrangements for top-up and tariff authorities, but I have two questions for him to consider. First, although the change to the figure is very small, the regulations amend a previous set of measures that were introduced in a round of local government reorganisation that, following the abolition of Northamptonshire county council and its constituent districts, introduced the new North Northamptonshire and South Northamptonshire local authorities. It would be helpful to know that, although the impact in this case is small, the Government will give a good deal of consideration to ensuring that, as the process of local government reorganisation that has been outlined by the Minister and his colleagues takes effect, all the possible calculations and impacts have been fully considered. We know from previous rounds of local government organisation—not just the one that is relevant here—that such changes can have a significant impact on the administration of a local authority subsequent to elections. The second question I would like the Minister briefly to address is this. We understand from the explanatory memorandum that the impact of these changes on the budgets of individual local authorities is negligible. However, it is noteworthy that most local authorities will have completed their budget-setting process in the past few weeks. Having, like the Minister, served many years in local government, I would be remiss if I did not flag that although the regulations will take effect immediately once they are passed—in effect, they come into effect tomorrow—it is good practice to ensure that local authorities have all the information before them when they make a decision. Business rates variations can have a significant impact on local authorities, especially if there are changes to pooling, or if a local authority finds itself switched from a top-up to a tariff authority or the other way round. All those things would normally be taken into account in the budget-setting process, of which the non-domestic rates are, by statute, a part. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could assure the Committee that the Department will work to ensure that, where instruments will have an impact, as these regulations do, decisions are taken so that they can legally form part of the council’s budget fixing, rather than being passed by Parliament—although it is legal for it to do so—after the budgetary decisions on which they have a bearing have already been taken.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The increased pace of Government decision making on refugee applications is discharging growing numbers of people into the responsibility of local authorities. On top of that, my constituents in the London borough of Hillingdon face an additional £1.2 million council tax cost to support Chagossians displaced to the UK by the uncertainty created through the Government’s stance on the Chagos islands. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a debate on the impact of asylum, refugee and border policy on our local authorities?

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Rental Auctions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair once again, Mr Vickers, and to have been present for this wide-ranging debate. I am sure the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) will be pleased: anyone watching this debate, and seeing so many of our colleagues over in the main Chamber debating issues around family businesses, will welcome the focus that this debate brings to our high streets, that large and important part of our economy. We are debating these issues at a time when, based on the figures across the country, growth is down, jobs, vacancies and hiring are down, investment by businesses in the UK is down and inflation is up. While there is always a political debate to be had about the causes behind those factors, it is clear that last October’s Budget had a significant impact. It is important to consider how measures such as the one at the anchor of this debate, high street rental auctions, can be used to address those challenges by local and regional authorities and by the new mayors that the Government are proposing to bring in across the country. Our high streets have faced many interrelated pressures in recent years. Members have referred to the impact of online shopping on consumer habits and the impact of the covid-19 pandemic. When our high streets and retail were to some extent closed, or significantly restricted, it drove a rapid change in consumer behaviour that we see reflected in patterns of business investment across the country. All those issues have created a challenge for our local businesses in making sure both that their prices remain competitive and that they can draw in both the staff and the customers they require. Members have also referred to the impact of out-of-town shopping centres. Although many of our high streets and local business communities have been able to change and adapt, others have found it an ongoing challenge. At the tail end of the last century, I worked in a local bank on the village high street in Pinner in my constituency. That bank is no longer there—only the Nationwide remains as a financial provider on that high street—but there are no vacant units today because other forms of business have opened up, principally in hospitality. That has been a significant change in the way that high street operates. It is a great pleasure to represent a constituency with seven local high streets; I regularly host surgeries in those hospitality businesses as an opportunity to find out what is going on, and I know that many other Members do the same. The pressures that Members have described in this debate can be seen quite starkly in the figures. In the period between March 2020 and March 2022, we saw a loss of a net total of 9,300 retail units across the country. Some were converted into residential accommodation. Government policy, over many years and from all parties, has recognised the demand for housing and the changing nature of the high street, and that has enabled the conversion of those properties, where appropriate, to provide much-needed homes. Often, because of the nature of those conversions, they have provided additional customers for the remaining premises on the high streets. However, at the same time we have seen the loss of many cherished local businesses such as those Members have spoken of, and others, particularly independent retailers, continue to struggle. The high street rental auction policy was introduced under the previous Government in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. It was one of several measures taken by that Government, and it granted local authorities for the first time a power through a new initiative designed to bring new life to persistently vacant properties. When retail units are persistently empty, sometimes there are problems with absentee landlords and it can be enormously difficult to force the issue and bring the units back into use. Rental auctions are a significant new idea, alongside the investments through the future high streets fund and other schemes designed to ensure that high streets across the country remain sustainable. There will be much debate about the impact that that policy has had, especially given the changing habits of our constituents. However, when we look at the feedback from independent organisations in particular, there is a great deal of concern that, even set alongside the benefits that this policy could bring, the overall business environment is having a significant negative impact both on the viability of high street businesses and business in general, and on retail in particular. In recent comments, the British Retail Consortium comments said that the Government’s measure to increase the rate of employer national insurance contributions—that single policy alone—is likely to lead to a net loss of 160,000 jobs over the next two years, in particular because of its impact on those large numbers of people who are in lower-paid, but flexible and part-time work. Most of us will have heard from businesses in our constituencies that they remain extremely concerned about that bigger issue. There is also concern in respect of the changes being introduced to non-domestic rates—business rates—an assessment that has been shared by a very wide group of professionals. The Altus Group, a real estate company, released some research recently estimating that the big reduction in business rates discounts for retail, hospitality and leisure firms, which go from 75% to 40% in the next financial year, will result in a 140% increase in business rates bills at individual business level for around a quarter of a million high street premises in England. To put that into real money, an average shop currently paying £3,589 in business rates will see that bill rise to £8,613 from next April. Pubs, which many Members have cited in debates here and elsewhere, would see a typical bill rising from £3,938 to £9,451 a year. All these things represent significant increases in costs imposed on local businesses. We recognise in particular the shift under way in how larger high street premises will be treated. I know some of those changes in business rates have been described as an Amazon tax, but it is clear that they will have a particular impact on places such as larger supermarkets in town centre locations, which often provide the parking and the anchor store that brings people into our towns. The Conservatives therefore remain extremely concerned at the impact that that has. I am sure the Government will challenge us and say, “Well, what is your policy?” Clearly, we are in Opposition these days, and we did not have the opportunity to set out in Government a Budget to address this wider range of issues, but we know that preserving that strong growth and that steady and high rate of employment—the 4 million more people in work when we left office, and the halving of youth unemployment—was down to our sustained focus on the economy to sustain the buoyant high streets and local employment, the growth and the living standards that we all expect. In conclusion, while this policy is important, we need to continue to see it as part of a package of vital measures that are there to sustain not just our high streets, but the commercial life of our nation. It is usually the voice of very big business that is heard in Parliament—a very large commercial concern with a public affairs team will find it very easy to make Parliamentarians pay attention to what it says—but around 70% of people employed in this country work in an enterprise with less than five staff in total. The vast majority of our constituents, the vast majority of people who work in our country, are in shops and small enterprises. We need to make sure that, while their collective voice can be difficult to translate, their interests are at the heart of our thinking and the role that those small businesses play is visible. Our neighbourhood is vital to our quality of life. There is a reason why post-war planners, setting out to build large new areas of social housing, chose to make sure that there were retail units and shop fronts on those sites, so that people had ready access to the sense of community that they support. We need to make sure that that is sustained, but sustained in the context of a world that is changing. As part of a Government and as politicians, we cannot second-guess or indeed directly change consumer behaviour through intervention, but we can support a wide range of businesses to ensure that we serve the widest possible interests of our community. For example, the shift to supermarket retail has helped to ensure that the UK has the second most affordable food, compared with household budgets, in the world. The shifting nature of our high streets means that, while there is less retail, there is more affordable hospitality and more of the good-quality, flexible and well-paid jobs that go with it. Demographic change is also significant. As the ageing population of our country looks for more hospitality close to home, it creates an opportunity for those businesses. We have seen retail units implementing schemes such as soft play, as larger numbers of children in local communities drive the changing face of local businesses and create new opportunities, benefiting those children socially and benefiting local employment. But I finish where I started. We are about to embark on a massive process of top-down local government reorganisation. We need to make sure that throughout all that turmoil, with policies such as high street rental auctions, what has been done for the high streets fund and the changes in business rates, we do not lose sight of how important our high streets and small businesses are. The consequences of the Government’s Budget can already be seen not just in business confidence and sentiment, but in the reducing numbers of jobs and vacancies, in falling investment and in rising inflation. The Government have an opportunity to listen not only to the Opposition, but to professionals and business owners, who are politically neutral but have the interests of businesses in these communities at heart. The Government have the chance to make changes in the wider interests of our nation.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I will, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Lady refers to Hansard for debates on these matters in previous Parliaments, she will find those points being raised by Members from across the House—rightly so—with a view to moving the debate on to the decisions that have been made today. The Clapham review of the effectiveness of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust was a key opportunity to consider the role that local government in particular plays in the regeneration of our coalfields. Clearly, that challenge exists at a number of levels. The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) referenced the large number of spoil heaps—some of which I can see from the garden of my parents’ house. A number of local authorities—and Governments, through local authorities —have sought to address that through planting and remediation to stabilise their spoil tips, for example, but there is still a job to do. As the years go by and the industries that produce those spoil tips become historical, we know that we must effectively address the risks that they continue to pose. To conclude my remarks, I turn to the importance of learning from the work that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust undertook and from the points that many Members of all parties have made in debates about these issues over many years. We know that we are about to embark on a process. The UK has made progress in the decarbonisation of our economy since the early 1990s, when, as a leading nation, we began the major shift away from coal. In the 1950s, coal produced most of our energy; today, it contributes to none—our last coal-fired power station recently closed. The Trades Union Congress recently passed a motion highlighting that 30,000 jobs were at risk in the oil and gas industry. We talk about the just transition—Labour Members are, in my view, justified in raising the problems that process has created—but we must lay the groundwork for it. I remember interventions during the miners’ strike, such as the distribution at my school of the EEC butter mountain. That is not an example of an effective economic intervention to address the needs of people in difficulty. If we are to have a just transition away from fossil fuels in the future, we must learn from the past mistakes of all Governments in respect of coalfields, and incorporate the lessons into effective policy for a better future for all affected communities.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

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

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

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

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing this debate. The House will know that Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is not a coalfields constituency. Our mining tradition is far older. It goes back to the days of chalk. Its legacy today is seen in the impact of sinkholes in the local area. Today’s debate is very much focused on the lasting legacy and impact of an era when coal was king. Although I do not represent a coalfields constituency, I certainly grew up in one. The old men with the blue scars and the hacking coughs from emphysema—or pneumoconiosis, as we now know it to be—were the background to my childhood. I feel lucky that I had a great-grandfather who, unlike many miners, lived a very long life. He started working in a pit at Cwmcarn at the age of 12 and carried on to the age of 70. He shared the impact of things such as the Universal Colliery disaster in Senghenydd on his life and the community in which he lived and grew up, and of seeing his brother die after being buried in a rockfall. Although the industry created the enormous economic opportunities that have been described by many Members, we know that the environment was very harsh and difficult, and as we recognise in our many debates about climate change and the transition to net zero, it created a product that, although valuable and effective at generating energy, is enormously polluting.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

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

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

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

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association. It has been an excellent debate, and I applaud the many Members on both sides of the House who have made insightful contributions to the discussion. Not only have they brought up issues affecting their own constituency —as, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) set out so powerfully in his speech—but Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), speaking in his capacity as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, set out a number of really important points that will affect the detail of how this plays out at local level. I am glad that the Minister touched on those points in his introduction. As the House knows, local government in the UK spends around £40 billion of taxpayers’ money and over 800 different services are delivered by the average local authority. As a consequence, this issue touches the lives of more constituents than almost any other area of government activity. The starting point that we have to recognise is the one that was made by the chairman of the County Councils Network, who said that from the perspective of local authorities, this was the worst settlement in years. It is clear from the Minister’s introduction that he is a Minister who knows his WOECAT from his BRB from his persnuffle, but the impact of that detail matters so much. In particular, the most significant element is the imposition of employers’ national insurance contributions in the Budget. According to the estimates of the Local Government Association, local authorities face more than £1 billion in unfunded costs arising from that alone. Harlow council, for example, has set out that this settlement represents a 21% cut in its core funding, within which it will receive £198,000 of revenue support in this year only for over £1 million of additional direct costs from national insurance contributions. That cost will rise to £1.2 million next year, with—as currently projected—no funding provided at all. The Institute for Government has analysed the Government’s Budget overall, and when it looks at those elements affecting local government, it says that the Budget is “heavily front-loaded”—there is additional funding this year—but that the current plans set out by the Chancellor imply that there will be cuts in every year for the remainder of the Parliament, which will make it very “difficult for…local government…to improve”. We need to recognise that although there will be winners and losers, this is a budget settlement for local government that contains an enormous number of challenges, and there remain a number of very significant questions, which I will come to in a moment. I welcome the point made by a number of Members about the value that we place on our local councillors. I have spoken to the Minister, and I agree with the point raised by a number of Members about restoring the access of councillors in England to the local government pension scheme. We must demonstrate the value that we place on local leadership, and that will be even more significant in the context of extensive local government reform. I know that is something Ministers are considering, and that its cost is minimal in the context of the overall local government finance settlement. As many Members have pointed out, motiving local leadership is vital to getting this right. With the reduction in the number of councillors and local politicians, in a country whose population is projected to hit 72.5 million by 2032, we must ensure that that growing democratic deficit is addressed by engaged, effective local politicians with the ability to make decisions in their area. Let us look at where the money is going, where it is coming from and how that is changed. As the Minister knows, around three-quarters of council funding is spent on social care, and since the fair access criteria that were introduced by the last Labour Government, that is no longer a matter of local decision making. It is largely a statutory duty, where clear rules are set out in guidance from central Government about how that money will be spent, and how each resident and each constituency can help and will be treated. As a consequence, the bulk of funding going into the system is being spent on what we might describe as the “must dos”, rather than the “nice to haves”, and the fulfilment of clearly defined statutory duties. If we cast our minds back to the last local government report of this nature under the previous Labour Government, we see a much longer report than the one before the House this evening. That report sets out the relative needs formula, which was the methodology used for the distribution of funding for all manner of different areas of local government activity. In 2010, around 25% of local government resources came from council tax, 27% came from the formula grant, which was essentially a redistribution of business rates, and 48%—very nearly half—came from specific grants, of which around two-thirds was the education budget. One of the big changes that has taken place over that period is the growth in the independence of schools and the rise of academies, and therefore a much larger share of that funding no longer sits within the local authority budget but is paid by the Education and Skills Funding Agency direct to schools. While that funding is no longer part of the council’s budget, it is still being spent locally on the same services that it always was. A lot of debate in the House on local government has been about devolution, and one of the most significant areas of devolution regards financial responsibility. If we reflect on those same formula elements today, 52% of council spending is derived from council tax, directly under local control, and 27% comes from a grown share of business rates pooling, with a focus on incentivising councils to deliver growth. A much lower 22% comes from grant funding, as the Government sought to give local authorities over that 14-year period a much greater degree of control over their own resources. When we reflect on what that formula also tells us, as a number of Members have said, the decision to scrap things such as the rural services delivery grant reflects a criticism of the priorities set out by the previous Government. We must also reflect that when we look at the list of the lowest funded councils in 1997, in 2010, and today, we find broadly the same set of local authorities on that list. The consequence of that is clear: no Government can cut funding that the council did not have in the first place. While most Conservative, and particularly rural, authorities did not see any benefit, or no significant benefit in funding through the indices of multiple deprivation, for the most part, the Conservative Government for 14 years maintained a significant premium of funding to areas for things such as children on free school meals going into education and in ensuring that deprivation formulas continued to play a significant part in the distribution of social care resources. The rural services delivery grant was a small step towards recognising, in the distribution of local government funding, the additional costs that were faced by places that had never seen any benefit from any Government. Members from all parts of the House—particularly Labour Members newly elected to rural areas—have said how awful it is that their local authorities are challenged by costs such as potholes and maintaining rural roads. Wait until they find out who decided to take away the rural services delivery grant, which would have provided the resources to deal with that. The biggest challenge that all local authorities face will be dealing in parallel with reorganisation and the tight financial environment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said in the statement on devolution, it is clear that the Government—I respect the fact that they have been clear about this in their statements to the House—have made a decision in Whitehall about the form that they expect to see local government in England taking. It is also clear that they will ensure that that is implemented initially through local authorities coming forward as volunteers, and subsequently through a statutory invitation to ensure that they do. I hope that the Minister will address a number of those points in summing up. The report is principally about the revenue support grant: local authorities do not yet know where they stand on the public health grant. They do not yet clearly know where they stand on schools funding. They do not yet clearly know the impact of Government announcements on the housing revenue account or the parking revenue account, all of which will have a significant impact. In particular, the statutory override on the dedicated schools grant for SEND remains uncertain and a significant budget pressure. Let me finish where my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton finished: if the Government can find £18 billion to cover the cost of the Chagos Islands deal, I am sure they can find the funds to make a better fist of it for our local authorities.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

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

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Airport Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  I remind the Minister that sustainable aviation fuel is not an answer to poor air quality, which is the main reason why attempted expansion at Heathrow has failed in the past. It is also the reason for the Chancellor’s trenchant opposition to the expansion of Leeds Bradford airport, which would affect her constituency. Having been around since the days of the terminal 5 planning inquiry, I find it clear that the business case for Heathrow expansion rests on significant costs being imposed on taxpayers. They would be expected to foot the bill for the impact on the M4 and the M25, and for the loss of a waste incinerator that provides energy for many local authorities. Can the Minister assure the House that any DCO for Heathrow that comes forward will be subject to no less rigour and no less consultation than those brought forward in the past?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour and I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, have held a number of meetings with local stakeholders and the Canal & River Trust about these issues, which affect the River Colne, which crosses our respective constituencies. Does she share my appreciation of the measures introduced by the last Government, which ensure effective monitoring? Will she join me in thanking Conservative-led Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Hillingdon councils for their work to ensure that watersports users have access to good quality, clean facilities?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Holocaust Memorial Day · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege and an honour as a shadow Minister, but also as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews, to close today’s debate on Holocaust Memorial Day. I share the very complimentary observations of many Members about the Minister’s opening speech. He was very clear in restating the importance not only of recalling in particular the Holocaust that took place in the second world war, targeted at 6 million Jews and people from all kinds of minority backgrounds, but of ensuring—this has been reflected in the many contributions from Members across the Chamber—that when we debate these issues, we think about the lessons we can learn from what happened then, from earlier tragedies and from events since, in order to ensure that as far as possible, we are doing what we can to make sure those kinds of events are never repeated. There have been many moving and impactful speeches. The hon. Members for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) all made contributions—as did every speaker—that I will try to reflect in my closing speech, in particular where the points they made relate to lessons that we need to learn for the future. It is incredibly important to hear the testimony of survivors, and I join colleagues in paying tribute to people such as my constituent, Paul Sved. He is one of those Holocaust survivors who travels the country with the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, speaking about what he experienced as a child and the impact it had on him, his family and his wider community. These are all reminders of the human stories that make the level of inhumanity that was shown in the Holocaust even harder to comprehend. It is also an opportunity to reflect that even in the midst of all that darkness, there are examples of humanity—of people in difficult situations taking steps to preserve the lives of their neighbours, and sometimes of strangers in their community. I had the opportunity to visit the Wannsee villa, a beautiful lakeside house on the outskirts of Berlin—a place like my constituency. That house was the command centre for the Holocaust; it is where the committees of Nazi politicians, police and military met to manage the logistics. Today, it is a museum, displaying the records that were kept of all the meetings that took place. The thing that I found very striking about it as a visiting politician was the banality of that evidence and those records. It was like reading the minutes of the planning committees that I saw in a local authority. They list who attended and what they discussed, but instead of recording the details of people’s extensions and changes to the design of their home and their neighbours’ views, they record in detail the planning and execution of a Government-level strategy of mass murder. That emphasises the importance of learning from history. When we see the statue at Friedrichstraße station—the memorial to the Kindertransport—we can recall that at the end of world war two, when the Russian forces arrived in Berlin, they found 1,700 Jewish people living in that city who had been sheltered by a combination of city authorities and neighbours. Even in those dark places, there were those who were willing to help. It is important to remember that antisemitism has much older roots. I was very struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), who talked about the blood libel. In a world that often seems very polarised, it always seems to me a great irony that even further back than that, the Islamic caliphate that ruled Spain—with which much of Christian Europe was at war for centuries—was the one place of safety in Europe for Jewish people for a very long time. Antisemitism is something that has deep roots, and it is incumbent on us to be aware of those roots if we are to deal with it effectively. Members have spoken about the need to spot examples of similar human behaviour in more recent years. Srebrenica was described; many Members spoke movingly of their experiences of it, and insights from it. As the displays at Mr Speaker’s event yesterday set out, what happened in Rwanda was one of the most hideous genocides of the modern era. Many of us will recall seeing that tragedy unfold on the TV news, or hearing about it on the radio. That ties in with the theme of today’s debate. Rwanda is now a modern, democratic nation working with countries across Europe and the United Nations—for example, to resettle refugees. It is a good example of the fact that when terrible things happen, people may not always progress quickly to a perfect situation, but they can learn, identify lessons, and seek to make amends. As well as an opportunity to recall what happened, this debate is an opportunity for us to reflect on what the nation and Parliament need to do in policy terms. It is important to acknowledge, for example, our nation’s commitment, through our Government, to the European convention on human rights. It expresses fundamental and ancient British values to do with the rule of law and due process, and applies to 46 nations, many of which chose to enshrine those values because they wanted to learn from the events that led up to the Holocaust, and to ensure that it never happened again. There is always scope for debate on whether treaties and conventions are fit for the modern age, but our nation must continue to work alongside the UN, and to value international law and agreements—from those of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to those of the International Maritime Organisation—that enshrine the rules on how we treat people, such as refugees in small boats who find themselves in distress at sea. They have a bearing on how we work with other countries, as a leading nation and a leading voice in the international community, to encourage others to share our values of liberty and democracy. When we recall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, my constituency neighbour, did in such historical detail, the events leading up to world war two, it puts into context our debates in the Chamber about defence spending. We can debate the figures, but there is clearly a broad commitment to moving towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. As my hon. Friend set out, however, we had commitments to others across Europe in 1939 that we simply could not meet in practice. Our country was able to defend itself, as the battle of Britain showed, but we should all ask ourselves—my hon. Friend posed this challenge—what would have been different if we had learned lessons and acted sooner. Would we have been able, in smaller or greater measure, to prevent the tragedy that unfolded and took so many innocent lives? The United Kingdom is not a global policeman any more—the years of the Victorian pax Britannica are clearly long gone—but there remains scope for free nations to work together, and many of them have an honourable history in this respect. The Minister and I have talked a lot about Grenfell Tower, given our portfolios. Grenfell was sent to deal with the consequences of atrocities in the Sudan that caused serious concern across the world in the Victorian era. British troops, British forces and British diplomacy were frequently deployed, as in Benin, because of concern about the large-scale loss of life and atrocities that were destabilising communities. Looking around our modern world, we see the Russianisation of deported Ukrainian children, who were taken from their families to another country to be changed into citizens of a different place with a different outlook. We look at what has happened to the Uyghur people and the Rohingya, and we look at the unfolding tragedy in Gaza and Israel. We may not be able to intervene directly and put a stop to those things, but the combined forces of the international community can be extremely powerful. We may not always be able to intervene early enough to prevent the worst of a tragedy, but we still have the scope to make a difference. Many of us will be conscious of the impact of these issues on our constituents; I have heard Rabbi Aaron Goldstein at the Ark synagogue in my constituency speak about that movingly. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) joined me in a visit. It is twinned with synagogues in Ukraine, and holds services together with people whose homes are being bombed and whose synagogues are under attack. The Holocaust that we are talking about is an historical event, but its consequences and the attitudes behind it are very much alive, not just in Europe, but elsewhere in the world. I add the Opposition’s thanks to organisations that do incredibly important work on this issue, particularly in this era of heightened tension and heightened fear of antisemitism. I applaud the fact that the Government have, through cross-party work, carried on providing the necessary finance to the Community Security Trust, which has a visible presence around synagogues in my constituency. It provides reassurance to our Jewish citizens, and their friends and neighbours, so that they can freely practise their faith and associate with members of their community without fear. Notwithstanding some of the debate around marches in central London, I welcome the fact that in most of our communities, relationships remain good. In particular, relationships that were build up during the covid era, when people of all faiths came together with Churches and community organisations, have stood us in good stead, and people have not allowed themselves to be divided. I thank the Metropolitan police, and police forces across the country, who have responded to issues robustly, but with sensitivity. Since 2016, there has been not only long-standing, cross-party support for funding for the CST, which provides security assistance for synagogues and our Jewish community, but funding to ensure that our Muslim community enjoys additional security and protection. All those who have testified about their experience of coming here from Holocaust-blighted Europe for a new start have described the importance of being in a place where freedom applies to everybody, and is not the preserve of a few. It is enormously important that the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, and the educational programmes that sit alongside it, continues, so that our children and future generations have the opportunity we have had to hear the testimony of those who have been through those dark periods, and the opportunity, which many Members described so movingly, to learn from history and ensure that we do not repeat its worst mistakes.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Draft Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority Regulations 2024 Draft Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority Regulations 2025 Draft Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2025 Draft Lancashire Combined County Authority Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I start where the Minister finished, with the Opposition’s thanks for the work of local government leaders up and down the country, as reflected in the geographical dispersal of the draft statutory instruments that we are debating and the proposals that we know will come forward. We are broadly supportive of the measures outlined in the draft instrument, and you will be pleased to know, Mr Mundell, that we have no intention of seeking to divide the Committee. However, I have a couple of points and questions to put to the Minister that are relevant not just to each of the instruments, but to general interest in how the Government will approach such issues in future. The first is how we ensure that the precept that will arise for such authorities is kept within reasonable limits. Governments of all stripes have had different approaches, whether that is referendum limits on council tax or something else. However, in London, for example, there has been a huge increase in the level of the mayoral precept over the years. Council tax payers will clearly want an assurance that those precepts will not be used to backfill a shortfall in funding from central Government for things that central Government are mandating that authorities undertake. They want to know that those precepts are genuinely under local control. It would be helpful to understand the Government’s thinking on future council tax referendum limits and the expectations that they may have, or that they may have set in discussion with each of the new combined authorities, about how the precepting process will be handled, what it is intended to fund at a local level and how those who take decisions will be accountable both to local residents and to the councils that form part of the authorities. The second thing I want to raise is how debts that may arise from the authorities will be handled. The Government have introduced several measures on combined authorities’ borrowing limits and freedom to borrow. We welcome that, and it is a positive step to enable them to borrow to invest locally. However, we are very conscious that a number of authorities have overborrowed in the past. Local authorities can access several sources of debt when they need to borrow. Historically, the public works loan board was the main source of that funding, and we all saw the significant impact when its interest rate was doubled from a modest 1% to 2% under the previous Government but one. Clearly, interest rates since that point have significantly risen, but Government can still secure debt at a much cheaper rate than individual local authorities generally can, and can make that available through the public works loan board mechanism to minimise such costs. The local government bonds agency, launched by the Local Government Association—I should declare that I am a parliamentary vice-president—is an additional source of bond funding for local authorities that wish to invest in larger scale capital projects. In debates about local government finance and restructuring, however, many Members have expressed concern about how such debts will be handled when they are incurred as part of larger central Government capital projects—connectivity, railway infrastructure and things like that—where individual local authorities along the route may be asked to borrow to part finance elements; and when they arise through investments, particularly those that go wrong, as they sometimes sadly do. We seek assurance that the Government have done some thinking and have identified a process, or are working on doing so, to ensure that unsustainable debt levels and long-term debt that falls over into future models of combined authority—under the local government restructuring White Paper, or under future Governments —do not become inappropriately burdensome for council tax payers.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Draft Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority Regulations 2024 Draft Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority Regulations 2025 Draft Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2025 Draft Lancashire Combined County Authority Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  Previous Governments introduced pensions pooling. There is already a London pool, for example, where 33 London local authorities and the City of London have a pooled pension scheme. Two issues always arise from that. The pension fund trustees have a fiduciary duty in law to serve the best interests of the pensioners. Their obligation is not to seek the best investment from the Government’s point of view, but to do what generates a return so that people can rely on that income when they retire. Having been involved in changing some of the regulations to allow a greater share of the pool to be invested in infrastructure, I am aware that the Treasury has always had considerable concern about that that conflict with fiduciary duty. Ultimately, if there is a shortfall, it will fall back on taxpayers in another form because of the statutory nature of the schemes. Another issue has to do with the profile of individual pension funds. We know that the London borough of Hillingdon, which serves about two thirds of my constituency, has a much younger workforce profile than the London borough of Ealing next door. The trustees’ investment intentions are therefore based on the need to serve the longer-term interests of a much larger pool of young people who will need those pensions for 50 or 60 years ahead. Ealing’s pensioners are, on the whole, older, and therefore the investment intentions are different. I would be interested to know what regulatory change the Minister has in mind to address both the conflict between trustees’ fiduciary duties and the Government’s intention to see this as a sovereign wealth fund, which potentially it could be; and the fact that the different workforce profiles of individual pension funds may make their pooled investment choices more challenging.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this measure will create not only headwinds for business, but significant headwinds for the local authorities that use the recyclable and resaleable material from doorstep recycling to subsidise the cost of expanding recycling services to all our residents? By extracting that valuable material from doorstep recycling, we risk pushing up the council tax needed to subsidise recycling services for all.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Community Engagement Principles and Extremism Definition · Hansard source

  More

  This question relates to an announcement made last March by Michael Gove, who was then Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in which he set out some new definitions of extremism, including the activities of Islamist and far-right groups, and robust non-engagement principles for the Government to apply when there were serious concerns. That is particularly relevant to the MHCLG portfolio, which covers social services departments and other organisations, youth justice and Prevent, through which public services engage at community level with a variety of organisations to gather intelligence, help people to move away from extremism, and intervene and disrupt emerging challenges, such as those posed by grooming gangs. The issues are also important for our often vilified Muslim communities, who contribute so much to our nation. The principles having been set out, the aim was to set out a new system for structured engagement. However, in July the Chancellor announced £120 million of savings in the MHCLG from “small projects”. It subsequently emerged in answers to written parliamentary questions that an element of that was reduced funding for “legal fees” which were no longer expected “to arise from the previous Government’s” cross-party “approach to extremism”. A series of Ministers have, since then, found it very challenging to determine exactly what this means, but Ministers have told the House in answer to written questions that the March statement reflects the position of the last Government—in other words, that this Government have chosen to ditch the last Government’s policy on the non-engagement principles. I am conscious that this is very sensitive, given the statement about the Southport case that we will hear later, but will the Minister answer some questions? Does the Department still adhere to that working definition of Islamism? Does it still have a working definition of non-violent extremism on which public bodies can rely, should they need to defend themselves when challenged? Can he tell the House why Ministers have not been—to quote from the “Ministerial Code”—“as open as possible” on this issue? Will he share with the House details of correspondence and any meetings that have taken place, and, in particular, the membership of the steering group to which he referred, so that more transparency and confidence surrounds this process?