Westminster Hall

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 4 June 2025

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

Disadvantaged Communities

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

11:05

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Colleagues can look around the room and see how many people are seeking to participate in this debate. I am giving you warning that after the opening speech, there will be a time limit of two minutes. I am sorry that it is so short, but we have the alternative of not accommodating everybody, and Mr Speaker likes everybody to be accommodated.

09:31

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for disadvantaged communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the Minister for taking the time to come and listen to us, and we can see by the attendance today that this issue truly resonates in all our communities across the country. It is a tremendous honour to lead this important debate on a subject that resonates deeply with many of us here who represent places that have faced long-term social and economic challenges, including my constituency of Wolverhampton North East.

Whether we live in Low Hill or Bushbury, Heath Town or Park Village, New Invention or Short Heath, these stories will be familiar, but let me be clear from the start: I am fiercely proud of where I come from. I have said it time and again: I am not just a Wolverhampton girl; I am an Ashmore girl. I grew up in a community on the Ashmore Park estate, and I started my own family in Park Village—the very kind of neighbourhoods that we are here to discuss. Too many of our neighbourhoods—not just those in Wolverhampton, New Invention and Short Heath, but around the whole country—have been left behind and left to decline, as communities that are no longer a Government priority, where children and young people have nowhere to go, and there is rising antisocial behaviour, theft and burglaries, while the number of good, secure jobs has declined.

[David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

In Stoke-on-Trent, £11 is spent per young person per year on youth services. In inner London, the figure is £111. Meanwhile, Staffordshire police is one of a handful of forces that has fewer police on the beat than it did in 2010. Does my hon. Friend agree that when this Government look to invest, they must understand the starting point of our communities in order for any investment to have a meaningful impact?

[Mrs Brackenridge]

I certainly agree. Communities like ours have borne the brunt of these cuts, and we see this playing out on our streets, in our schools and, unfortunately, in the criminal justice system. This should never have happened. It cannot continue, and it must never happen again. That is why I am calling for a project of national renewal for our neighbourhoods, designed to work with communities.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs Brackenridge]

I will.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady is quite entitled to give way, but where Members choose to intervene, it will affect my judgment on where in the batting order they are called.

[Luke Akehurst]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that we should pay tribute to the work of the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods, led by Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top? Based on its detailed statistical research, the commission has identified 613 of the most left-behind neighbourhoods around the country—one of which is South Stanley in my constituency—where funding is essential if we are to achieve the Government’s five missions. If investment is not made in those neighbourhoods, we can never achieve our national targets.

[Mrs Brackenridge]

I agree. Hon. Members will hear more about ICON’s work in my speech, because it paints a picture of our communities.

This is a project of national renewal that is designed to work with communities, to rebuild from the ground up and to restore hope and dignity to our places. It is a strategy about the huge importance of cultural capital and social infrastructure for social connections. What makes those communities special? They are resilient, largely because they have had to be. They have felt the brunt of 14 years of austerity. They have been disproportionately affected because they disproportionately rely on good public services, which were stretched to breaking point under the last Government.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is important to recognise the interconnected barriers in such discussions? The dearth of post-16 education and poor transport connectivity blunt young people’s ambitions and further entrench the disadvantages of which she speaks in areas such as my constituency.

[Mrs Brackenridge]

I absolutely agree. I signpost hon. Members to yesterday’s meeting of the Education Committee, where we heard from a representative from the National Union of Students about the clear link with the barriers that certain young people face to get to college or school. I beg hon. Members to look at that.

What makes those communities special? As I said, they have borne the brunt of 14 years of austerity. They saw Sure Start snatched away, cuts to neighbourhood policing, record NHS waiting lists, the decimation of youth services, a crisis in special educational needs and too much more. But our communities are full of potential; they are close knit and packed with people who graft and work hard.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Child poverty rates in Florence in my constituency have reached over 60% in recent years—the highest rate across Stoke-on-Trent, which routinely scores highest for infant mortality rates. Does my hon. Friend agree that as we publish the child poverty strategy in the autumn, Stoke-on-Trent South needs sustained investment to tackle high rates of child poverty?

[Mrs Brackenridge]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who is clearly a champion for families and children in her constituency.

Our communities are burdened with deep-rooted barriers—obstacles caused by poverty, economic inactivity, inequality, educational disadvantages, poor access to healthcare and years of systematic under-investment. The scale of the challenge is clear: Wolverhampton North East ranked 73rd out of 543 constituencies in England in the index of multiple deprivation. One in three people in my constituency lives in one of the highest need neighbourhoods in the country, and they are not alone. Across England, 345 of 543 constituencies contain at least one neighbourhood in the most deprived 10% nationally. Those left-behind places are not isolated pockets; they are widespread.

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a tremendous speech. Does she recognise that some of our most deprived communities are right next to areas where we are seeing rapid growth? It is vital that a test of our £113 billion investment—a once-in-a-generation opportunity for infrastructure—must be its impact on our most deprived communities.

[Mrs Brackenridge]

Investment has to go where it is most needed. Hon. Members feel strongly about that, which is why we see such representation in this debate.

Child poverty in Wolverhampton North East tells a clear story. In 2014-15, 22% of children were living in absolute poverty. That figure now stands at 31%, which should shame us. More than that, however, it must galvanise us. Nationally, the situation is no better. In 2023-24, 18% of people in the UK were in absolute poverty after housing costs. According to the Resolution Foundation, another 1.5 million people, including 400,000 children, will fall into poverty by 2030 unless bold action is taken. Those are not just statistics on a spreadsheet; they are real lives. They are children going to school tired and hungry. They are young people who are poorer now than their parents’ generation, with less hope of buying their own house. They are families stuck in insecure housing or waiting years for mental health support. They are opportunities lost and represent an injustice at the heart of our society.

That is why the work of the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods—ICON—has been so vital. Under the leadership of Baroness Armstrong, ICON has helped to shine a light on what is really happening in the most disadvantaged areas of our country: mission-critical neighbourhoods. It reveals what people are facing, how they feel about Government and what can be done differently. Its recent polling in partnership with Public First is a wake-up call. Just 5% of adults in England believe that the Government care about “neighbourhoods like mine”: a damning verdict on decades of decisions made too far from the people they affect.

It is not just a question of neglect; it is a fact of inequality. Nearly seven in 10 people believe that the Government care about some neighbourhoods more than others: the wealthier ones, the connected ones, the places where voices carry weight. They have lower crime, higher economic activity, higher intergenerational wealth and higher life expectancy.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

On life expectancy, in my constituency, the lives of men and women in the most deprived neighbourhoods are nine years shorter than in the more affluent ones. Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the strategy has to be around narrowing those health inequalities?

[Mrs Brackenridge]

I absolutely agree. If I drive 10 minutes in my constituency, the life expectancy increases by more than seven years, which is shocking. This is not the politics of envy; it is the reality after the politics of inequality. This is about restoring people’s chances to participate in Government, making it something that is done with them rather than to them.

There is cause for hope. In January, I had the pleasure of welcoming Baroness Armstrong to the Scotlands Estate in the Fallings Park ward of my constituency. We visited the Big Venture Centre, an anchoring institution in the neighbourhood. It is an inspiring community-focused project that is changing people’s lives every single day. From the pink ladies—and men—who volunteer there to the WV10 community chefs who support healthy eating education, to the community shop helping with the cost of living, that is what every neighbourhood deserves. It was a chance to see how the findings and principles behind ICON’s work can be implemented in practice and, with the right support, that those places can thrive.

We have the insight and the evidence; action is what we now need. What we have had has clearly not worked. Let us look at education. In 2024, only 46% of disadvantaged pupils met the expected standard at key stage 2, compared with 67% of their peers. A growing divide that has set in by year 6 continues to widen in year 11 at GCSE.

After school, it gets worse. Disadvantaged young people are 65% more likely to be NEET—not in education, employment or training. If they leave school with fewer than five GCSEs they are 131% more likely to be NEET. Meanwhile, nearly three quarters of people in destitution are in receipt of social security. That tells us everything we need to know about how broken the safety net has become.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s call for a project of national renewal; I think that is absolutely excellent. I also welcome her comment that these communities are special—they are, and we need to focus our attention on them. Does she agree that the closure of Sure Start centres, including in my constituency, had a significant impact? They changed people’s lives. We have heard from so many people who have done well as a consequence of having access to those services, so it is essential that we revitalise them.

[Mrs Brackenridge]

I thank my hon. Friend. I speak from personal experience, and I will always champion the excellent work that Sure Start centres did. They were there for me, my neighbours and my community. We must learn lessons from the past.

We need strategic, neighbourhood-based investment, not competitive bidding pots that lead to the most disadvantaged areas often losing out due to a lack of capacity. So how do we respond? The Government’s recently announced £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods is a welcome step. In the words of Baroness Armstrong,

“This is a good first step in the right direction”,

but it must not be the last step. That is why I am calling today for a £1 billion neighbourhood renewal fund in this Parliament. It should be strategic, long term and locally led. We must have no more fragmented, competitive pots that pit community against community, and no more centralised decision making that misses the mark.

People in my constituency know their neighbourhoods and what they need. We need to trust them, back them and invest in them. This is a defining moment. The public are asking not for favours but for fairness. They want clean, safe streets, decent, safe homes, good schools, secure jobs and pride in the places they call home. We must turn neighbourhood renewal from a slogan into a mission. I call on the Minister to take the evidence from ICON as a road map for delivery. I call on the Government to give every community, no matter its postcode, the respect, resources and responsibility that it deserves.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. If hon. Members intervene, injury time is added, which means that not all Members will get called. If you look at the clock and the number of Members who want to intervene, you can do the sums for yourselves. It is up to you whether everybody gets called or not. If we stick to two minutes, we should be able to get everybody in. I hope that is clear.

09:47

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for setting the scene and for her enthusiasm and energy about the subject, which was evident in her speech. I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), Sir Roger, but I will keep within two minutes and not take any extra time.

There are areas across the UK that are undoubtedly disadvantaged and that must be urgently addressed. Northern Ireland still faces complex challenges across many areas of life, including health, education and poverty, not to mention underlying historical factors, so it is great to be speaking in this debate. Poverty rates in Northern Ireland are a massive problem: the Department for Communities states that 14% of working-age adults are in relative poverty and 12% are in absolute poverty.

Among pensioners, poverty increased from 13% in 2020 to 16% in 2022. I say this with kindness to the Minister: the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment grieved us greatly. There are also health and education inequalities, where outcomes are lower in disadvantaged or deprived areas.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On lower educational attainment areas, does my hon. Friend agree that young men in particular find it difficult to go back to education after leaving school, and that apprenticeships can be used to address poverty in the areas that he is describing?

[Jim Shannon]

I am happy to endorse what my hon. Friend says, and I hope the Minister will do the same.

There is no doubt that the environment in which a child is raised has an impact on the opportunities available to them and where they choose to go in life. Housing infrastructure is a huge problem.

To conclude, in a world where millions of people live in poverty, we have the means in Westminster, and therefore across all the regions, to support our people. It is important that we do that and that we also support the agencies that already do it.

09:49

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with your Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) on securing the debate. Poverty has affected the work that I have done over the last decade, and I probably would not be in the House today had it not been for some of the things I have witnessed over the past 10 to 15 years.

While I was researching for the debate, I found a report on child poverty dating back over a decade. The foreword reads:

“In the UK today, millions of children”

and

“adults are daily experiencing the crushing disadvantage that poverty brings. They are living at the margins of society, unable to achieve their aspirations and trapped”.

The report goes on to say that that is unacceptable in “today’s” society—obviously, it was written over a decade ago. It is not usual for me to quote the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), but those comments are particularly pertinent. In 2013, when the report was written, poverty in Nuneaton stood at around 18%, but it is now 33%—almost double—and in some communities it is over 50%.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

On the question of barriers to opportunity, the potential for growth in some areas is high, but access to funding and education—particularly further education—can be difficult, as it is in Cornwall. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as a result, the people who live in an area cannot always take advantage of that growth potential?

[Jodie Gosling]

I thank my hon. Friend for her valuable intervention, and I absolutely agree. One challenge is under-skilled children who have left school without the right qualifications. As a result, they experience a lag in getting qualified and being able to access opportunities.

In one of my wards, Chilvers Coton, over 65% of households—two out of three—live with one marker of deprivation. The majority of them are defined as living in deep poverty and destitution, and they are not able to meet basic needs. That is not my understanding of the word “eradicate”, and it appears that the strategy that was laid out over a decade ago actually perpetuated significant poverty, rather than eradicating it.

Poverty eats into every corner of people’s lives. It drains people and grinds them down, and it makes every aspect of life harder. The physiological and psychological impacts are profound. As poverty has soared, we have seen healthy life expectancy fall by over four years, with cardiopulmonary conditions, diabetes and preventable death statistics among those affected by poverty well above the national average. Poverty strips people of their dignity and their power to shape their lives and livelihoods and those of the people they love.

Living in poverty is a full-time job, as people juggle making sure that they can pay their debts, get their kids out, do the daily shopping—which involves having to look for the yellow stickers in the aisles—and deal with the chaos of managing arrears, evictions and sleepless nights, as they worry about how to just get through tomorrow. Despite that, the vast majority of Nuneaton households in poverty still work, with over 60% of affected households having at least one working adult.

Poverty is also wasteful. It is expensive; it costs more to live in poverty because people cannot access cheaper supermarkets and might not have the data to order online—

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I call David Chadwick.

09:53

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I sincerely thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) on securing this debate on behalf of communities that have been left behind across Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Too often, rural disadvantage is overlooked, but in Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe it is a daily reality. The constituency is grappling with the legacy of deindustrialisation and the drain of rural depopulation. The Government’s proposed changes to personal independence payments risk deepening that disadvantage, making it even harder for many to live independently, let alone escape poverty.

A parliamentary question tabled by the Liberal Democrats revealed that 90% of people in Wales receiving the standard rate of PIP for daily living are at risk of losing that support. One of my constituents, Karen Harris from Ystalyfera, put it plainly in one of my constituency surgeries, when she said that most disabled people would love to work, but that there is just no suitable work locally. She is certainly right. Across the coalfields in south Wales, we have only 44 jobs per 100 people of working age. That is why the Government must reverse their course on changes to PIP and introduce an industrial strategy that focuses on bringing good jobs to every corner of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

09:54

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for securing this debate. I started my career working for Oxfam, whose mission was to make poverty history.

Across the country, including in my constituency, we have seen what over a decade of neglect looks like: community centres gone, local shops shut down, public services underfunded and overstretched. In Tamworth, youth centres were left to crumble—they were not repaired; they were closed—so young people lost a safe space. That is what happens when investment dries up.

Since 2012, more than 760 youth clubs have shut nationwide. That is not just a number; it is a message that says, “You don’t matter.” That is how it feels in places such as Glascote Heath, Belgrave and Stonydelph. The Government promised levelling up but the most deprived areas have seen little support, and some none at all. How can we talk about levelling up while cutting back support for the people who need it most?

We are the sixth-richest country in the world but, I ask, rich for whom? In my constituency, as a union organiser for over 11 years, I saw people working long hours and relying on in-work benefits. Disabled people are now worried that their support may be stripped away while they face rising bills and shrinking safety nets. I ask the Government to rethink their approach in this area.

This issue is about more than just poverty; it is about inequity and exclusion, and how they breed division. Last summer, we saw unrest in Tamworth, communities divided, and tensions that had been building for years. Work must now get under way to rebuild, with the local authorities and the support that goes with them. Let us be honest: inequality cannot be patched over with slogans; it is fixed by investing properly in schools, housing, the NHS and jobs that people can build a life around.

09:56

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. When I was a child, my hometown was thriving, the high street was teeming and there were places to go and things to do. The British Insulated Callender’s Cables factory was at the top of my street, and employed perhaps 1,000 people. In contrast to my thriving hometown, the inner cities were in an awful state, with botched town planning, derelict street corners and subways that people did their best to avoid.

If we fast forward 30 years, things have changed utterly. In my hometown, the factory closed and the workers were all made redundant. The factory site became a retail park and took trade away from the high street, leaving the town centre having seen better days. The youth clubs are gone. The library that helped me to learn to read has been demolished.

Such places look depressed because they are depressed, but the cities are transformed. They are places of economic activity, cultural events and a huge amount of residential living. They are teeming with life. The domestic challenge is to bring up to that standard the hundreds of smaller conurbations that have seen better days—to work to reopen the youth clubs, to invest in our neighbourhoods and to bring back a sense of pride in place for the vast majority of our people.

In too many places, there are obvious, visible manifestations of austerity, but the rot goes deeper than that. State investment has fled our towns, and street drinkers and rough sleepers have arrived. In my constituency, there is one youth club in a town of 85,000 people and there are too few places for people to go to socialise, whether they are 18 or 80. It falls on this governing party to do for our towns what previous Governments did for our cities. The British public are fair and they will give us a chance to put it right, but they will not give us too many chances. If we do not put it right, they will be unforgiving in their assessment of us.

09:59

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

The very premise of my values and beliefs is that where we are born should not determine our future, yet unfortunately that is still the case in many communities across the country, including my constituency of Sherwood Forest, where even the difference between being born in the south part of the constituency compared with the north is the difference in how long someone lives. Places such as Ollerton, Rainworth and Clipston in the north of my constituency face poorer health outcomes, particularly for mental health, and lower opportunities for skills and decent and secure jobs. They are battling with long-term social and economic decline.

Other equally important areas in my constituency include Hucknall, Bilsthorpe and Blidworth. These former coalfield communities, previously decimated, are still some of the most deprived areas in the country. Almost one in 10 people in coalfield communities are in poor health, and nearly one in five are economically inactive.

For too long, disadvantaged communities have been forgotten by previous Governments, often leaving it to the communities to step in for themselves. For example, the Social Action Hub in Rainworth has made it its mission to improve the life chances of, and increase sustainable opportunities for, the most deprived and marginalised in our society.

If we are to tackle child poverty, it must start in the most disadvantaged communities, and it starts at the very beginning of a child’s life. It has a huge impact on where they go in life and how they make it out of poverty. We must go back to an early intervention strategy that runs through every single children and young people’s service.

10:01

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I was not expecting to be called to speak, Sir Roger, as I made an intervention, but I will make some additional points.

I have already paid tribute to ICON, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) having reinforced the point about mission-critical neighbourhoods. Given the level of deprivation in neighbourhoods such as South Stanley in my constituency, which is ranked 41st most in need out of 34,000 super output areas in the Government’s growth mission, it is unsurprising that my constituents tell me that they feel left behind and that our area is not getting the targeted investment it needs.

I welcome today’s announcement about major investment in transport infrastructure, but we need to recognise the limitations of that when it comes to deprived communities that are more isolated and away from major conurbations. Too often, big infrastructure projects benefit the core cities, not isolated towns and villages like those that make up North Durham.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I am proud to represent wards such as Newgate, Carr Bank and Ransom Wood—mission-critical neighbourhoods as identified by the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods—and I welcome the signs that the Government are increasingly focused on those places. Does my hon. Friend agree that the spending review must make mission-critical neighbourhoods an absolute priority?

[Luke Akehurst]

I absolutely agree. We need investment in social infrastructure, such as parks, leisure centres and community centres, that will deliver rapid economic improvements and change how communities look and feel. Communities need to be at the heart of the decisions, cutting through the bureaucracy and red tape, and they must decide themselves what will make a real difference in their areas.

After the recent local council election results in County Durham, I spoke about people feeling impatient for change, including economic regeneration, good-quality jobs and the new local infrastructure that they have needed for not just years but decades. The Government are starting to deliver many great things through the plan for change, but we will deliver on their missions faster if we target deprived and mission-critical neighbourhoods —areas with the most concentrated problems in economic activity, health, educational achievement and crime. It is economically, fiscally and morally right to target those neighbourhoods, and it would be a clear demonstration of this Labour Government’s social democratic values.

10:03

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Disadvantage comes in many forms, and today I want to talk about child poverty. I grew up in poverty caring for two disabled parents. It took me a very long time to say that, and every time I do my mum will text me afterwards to say that she loves me, she is sorry and she did her best. No mum should ever have to text their son that. Enough is enough, and I want this Labour Government to stamp out child poverty.

There are five quick solutions that we could take forward. The first is nothing less than the resurrection of Sure Start. We know the benefits and impacts: a recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report found that access to a Sure Start centre significantly improved children’s educational outcomes and reduced hospitalisations; children with Sure Start access in their early years were less likely to have depressive and anxiety disorders in their later years; and the impacts were remarkably long lasting.

Let us do as the 1998 comprehensive spending review did and commit to 250 Sure Starts in the most disadvantaged communities, within a pram push of a person’s home. Let us resurrect our town and district centres by, wherever possible, filling empty shops with spaces where we can co-locate and integrate services once and for all.

Let us think again about our libraries. Some 800 have closed in recent years and the number of librarians has been slashed. Let us reinvigorate our libraries as a place for the imagination to develop and roam, and let us centre Sure Start right there.

Let us involve the integrated care boards. They have a duty to tackle health inequalities and can do that work. [Interruption.] Time is short; I am going to be fast.

We need to invest in playgrounds, which are more likely to have been cut in deprived areas. We need to tackle the two-child benefit cap. I am glad to see that the Labour Government are looking at that again; it would have a significant impact overnight. We need to consider bus travel for children and younger people. Let them have free bus travel so that they can access opportunities. Let us, once and for all, stamp out child poverty.

10:05

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.

State failure can come in many different forms. When he was Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said,

“we must restore the sense that this is a country that can rectify injustice, particularly when carried out by institutes of the state.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 668.]

He was referring to the infected blood scandal, but lack of investment is a different form of state failure, and the sentiment therefore still stands. The state has failed so many of our communities. We must restore the sense that this is a country that can rectify injustice.

This is not a new idea. In 2009, the Labour Government launched the Total Place initiative to improve the delivery of local public services and to increase the focus on communities. Frontier Economics analysis shows that a £2 billion investment in mission-critical neighbourhoods would deliver £2.4 billion in fiscal benefits to the Treasury. We reduce the cost of failure by investing in these communities.

I am the chair of the coastal parliamentary Labour party, and co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on coastal communities, alongside my good friend and ally, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). The ICON report highlighted yet again the need to invest in our coastal communities. Of the 613 mission-critical neighbourhoods in the report, almost half are on the coast. The 25 neighbourhoods identified with the highest need in all of England are all coastal—every single one.

Part of the reason why we have missed out on funding in Thanet and in other coastal areas is that the deprivation in coastal communities is often hidden by the upper-tier local authority statistics—forgive me for being a bit of a data nerd on this. East Thanet is one of the most deprived areas in the south-east, but because it is in Kent it is lumped in with Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks. The existing Treasury orthodoxy has meant that coastal communities have often missed out on vital funding.

I was encouraged by reports that the Green Book is being reformed in ways that will allow communities that have been overlooked for investment for decades to finally share in funding. If done right, that could be transformational for unlocking potential and economic growth in coastal communities.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. I notice that the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) is standing. Under the rules, I am afraid we are not allowed to call Members who were not here at the start of the debate. That is not a criticism; I fully understand that Members quite frequently have good reason for coming in late. Now the hon. Member has been here for long enough, I am more than prepared to allow him to intervene on another Member, should he choose to do so.

10:08

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

I have sat through many similar debates about communities that have challenges. They are often cathartic but also a Top Trumps of misery in which we each seek to parade around the acute nature of the challenges we face in our communities, not because we want to say how challenging things are in our communities, but because the funding situation the last Government implemented basically meant that unless we could demonstrate that we were the poorest of the poor, the most disadvantaged of the disadvantaged, or in some way an outlier from statistical norms, we got nothing. The barrel was left empty or, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), we had to go through the ignominy of begging bowl politics.

We were put into competition with our nearest neighbours, and ended up trying to deprive them of what they needed so that we could get a little more of what we needed. That often led to a lack of joined-up working among communities whereby we could have had structural and societal change in the places we all call home and love and represent. Instead, we ended up trying to demonstrate why Stoke-on-Trent should get something and Derby should not, because we are slightly poorer than Derby is. That has to fundamentally change, because the systemic problems that we face in our communities—which derive from poverty, if we are being entirely honest—are going to be solved only if we are able to come together collectively, with a national programme of investment that targets the root causes of those problems and allows communities to have the skills, resources and opportunities to build themselves up.

There is a catalogue of concerns in Stoke-on-Trent: we are first for fuel poverty, routinely in the top 10 for child poverty and food bank usage, and in the last year our Lord Mayor had to raise £50,000 to pay for kids to have beds in our city. That is a symptom of a struggling society—one that was let down by the last Government and one that I hope, under the leadership of the Minister and the new Labour Government, we can start to turn around. We owe it to a generation to tackle poverty head on, so that we do not have more debates about how disadvantaged we all are.

10:10

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for her impassioned speech, which I very much associate myself with.

Salford is the 18th most deprived authority in England, and that deprivation is juxtaposed against immense growth: gleaming tower blocks, the highest productivity in Greater Manchester and 11,000 businesses—an 85% increase since 2010. So why is the growth that we have created not benefiting everyone? The Government should ask themselves that question.

Although many of the strategies the Government have outlined so far—from housing through to our employment rights programme and the neighbourhood plan—are all very welcome, the Government can take immediate measures now, while they are waiting to develop their anti-poverty strategy, to help to alleviate the suffering that many families in my constituency face. First, it is welcome that the Government have suggested they will look again at the cut to the winter fuel allowance, but the detail must be fleshed out urgently to avoid the anxiety that many pensioners face in my constituency.

On child poverty, only this week a report by Loughborough University showed that at least a quarter of children are in poverty in two thirds of areas across the UK. Experts found an extremely high correlation between child poverty and the two-child benefit limit. It is clear that the Government’s priority must be to scrap the two-child benefit cap and, ultimately, lift 470,000 children out of poverty overnight.

Thirdly, on disability poverty, although it is welcome to have programmes to assist people into work where it is possible, cutting people’s support is not the way to incentivise that. It will push 250,000 people into poverty, and I urge the Government to rethink their proposals.

10:12

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) on securing this debate. I appreciate the points that she raised, but I have to say that I have concerns about the outcomes of the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods.

I speak today as the Member of Parliament for Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, but also as a voice, alongside other MPs, for the people of Cornwall’s remote coastal neighbourhoods—communities that are proud, resilient and hard-working but all too often overlooked. If we are truly to succeed in our mission to fix the foundations of left-behind neighbourhoods, we must start by recognising the unique challenges faced by places such as Cornwall.

The commission identified 613 neighbourhoods across England that are at risk of falling behind on the Government’s five missions for national renewal, yet only one of those is in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, despite my constituency’s profound socioeconomic deprivation. I worry that the commission’s conclusions do not reflect the levels of poverty in remote coastal areas such as Cornwall. Without targeted support, these communities risk being left behind in terms of health, education, housing and economic opportunity.

Our neighbourhoods face deep-rooted, overlapping challenges, and we see that every day. Wealthier pensioners who retire to Cornwall from up country are masking underlying deprivation, while at the same time increasing the pressure on health and social care. The housing market is severely lacking in affordable homes and is distorted by second homes, Airbnbs and migration from people moving from up country, pricing out local families and workers.

There is a chronic workforce shortage in essential services, from teachers to care workers, as a result of our remoteness and high cost of living. We also have a seasonal economy that stretches public services beyond breaking point for four months of the year, with no recognition in funding to meet our needs. This is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet; it is about the future of our towns and communities, and our shared manifesto commitment that no neighbourhood should be left behind.

10:15

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

My constituency has enormous potential, but it has been held back by the last 14 years of austerity. That represents a shameful neglect of not just my community, but the country. It is the duty of this Government to fix that. The industries that sustain reliable work for so many have long disappeared, with nothing to replace them. Without investment in communities like mine, the Government cannot meet their missions. Crucially, that investment needs to make a difference now.

It is not good enough to pump more money into just the cities in the north of England; our towns need support too. It is certainly not good enough for the headlines about Government plans for growth and investment to be dominated by plans to expand airports in the south-east of England. Blackpool North and Fleetwood deserves better. The Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower is the right one, but it must mean investment in places like Blackpool North and Fleetwood.

Fleetwood, once a thriving port, has been the victim of a managed decline over many years. We can take advantage of the offshore wind in the Irish sea, providing operations and maintenance for decades. Like so many of the country’s ports, ours needs investment to rebuild its capacity. We have one of the highest tidal ranges in the world, giving us the opportunity to harness the power of the sea to generate clean electricity. A tidal barrage would also work as flood defences, stopping flooding on farmland, and supply us with a much-needed access road, which would benefit the whole Fylde coast.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Nowhere is this issue more stark than in my constituency, where we have 34 critical neighbourhoods—more than any other constituency. They cover every part of the town, with 98% of its population living in them, including my own family. Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact of this issue is felt daily across Blackpool, in my constituency and hers? Does she also believe that this Labour Government finally have a chance—and have a responsibility—to turn the tide for coastal communities like ours?

[Lorraine Beavers]

I do.

We have a disused railway line. Were it to be reopened, it would finally give Fleetwood the connectivity that it has so badly lacked for decades. I am heartened by reports that the Chancellor will be rewriting the rules that have diverted investment away from constituencies like mine, but the effect needs to be felt by my constituents here and now.

I hope the Government will do what 14 years of the Conservatives failed to do, and give towns like mine hope once again. That is what I stood to do. That is why we are in this place. We came here to serve our people and rebuild our communities. Let us get on with delivering the future we promised.

10:18

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

People in Rumworth, Farnworth, Little Hulton, Great Lever, Walkden, New Bury and Kearsley are proud and hard-working, but they have been left behind. Rumworth is the 10th most deprived ward in the United Kingdom.

These problems resulted from 14 years of Tory austerity. We have seen youth centres shut, local services disappear and councils stretched to breaking point. Despite that, local groups are helping young people to build their futures, and faith groups and charities are running food banks, warm spaces and support services. Groups such as Urban Outreach, Wharton and Clegg’s Lane church, and Farnworth and Kearsley food bank go beyond handing out food; they help with debt, benefits and homelessness and even help ex-offenders.

The challenges that the people face are all connected: a lack of childcare and transport, homelessness and many other issues. That is why I support ICON’s call for, first, a national neighbourhood renewal strategy with local voices at the centre and, secondly, a commitment in the spending review to fund areas such as Rumworth, Farnworth and Little Hulton. Farnworth is receiving investment through the Government’s plan for neighbourhoods, which is very welcome, but we also need to rebuild local services that were lost through austerity. People in Bolton South and Walkden are not asking for a handout; they are asking for fairness.

10:20

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

I welcome the Government’s renewed focus on place-based policy through their plan for neighbourhoods, and the commitment of £1.5 billion to tackle deprivation through long-term investment, rather than bungs and short-term sticking-plasters. The plan rightly recognises that some communities have borne the brunt of economic decline for far too long, and that we cannot deliver growth unless we uplift those places too.

I welcome the transparency and accountability of a data-led, mission-based approach, and I have long believed that trust is built when policy is not simply delivered to people, but brings them along with it and explains why we are doing what we are doing. However, although I am greatly encouraged to see 11 mission- priority neighbourhoods identified in my mid-Cornwall constituency, I am concerned that none is classified as mission critical.

Anyone who spends time in Cornwall knows that, beyond its picture postcard beauty, parts of our region still suffer from some of the lowest living standards in western Europe. For example, St Austell, although not a crime hotspot by national standards, faces severe deprivation and challenges, from antisocial behaviour, weak public transport, poor per pupil funding, poor investment in healthcare, poor integrated care board funding and 10-year lower life expectancy than in other parts of the UK.

Cornwall has a crucial role to play in our clean energy ambitions and in helping Britain to become a clean energy superpower, but that potential will fall flat without real investment. I therefore urge the independent commission to do two things: be more transparent about how scoring decisions were made, particularly when certain neighbourhoods were not deemed mission critical, and reflect better in the methodology the rural disadvantage that colleagues have described. Rural deprivation can be just as entrenched in areas like Cornwall as in urban areas.

Finally, I urge the Government to unlock more investment to ensure that that mission-priority status transforms into targeted funding, turning Cornwall’s once-in-a-generation promise into progress.

10:22

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for securing this important debate; she is a huge champion for disadvantaged communities in her constituency.

I am proud to represent the beautiful constituency of Scarborough and Whitby. However, away from the tourist lens, we have deprivation. My constituents suffer high rates of chronic illnesses like heart disease, and have lower life expectancies. In Scarborough, life expectancy for people living in Ramshill, where child poverty is prevalent, is 10 years less than it is for those living in Ayton, a mere 10-minute drive away.

Despite that, my constituents struggle to access healthcare, and even emergency care, in a timely manner. Since the closure of Scarborough hospital’s stroke service in 2020, patients suffering strokes are sent directly to York, which is well over an hour away—if they have access to a car. Hon. Members will know that the first 60 minutes after a stroke occurs is known as the golden hour: the faster someone can be treated, the more likely they are to survive and recover. Despite that, one constituent told me that their partner’s emergency journey to York, in a blue-lit ambulance, took 90 minutes. That is the everyday reality for people in disadvantaged coastal communities.

The chief medical officer warned in 2021 of a crisis in coastal healthcare, but we still have no national strategy to combat it. So this is my plea to the Government: we need a cross-departmental strategy to deliver better access to healthcare in our disadvantaged coastal communities, and we need it now.

10:24

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for securing this debate. I will focus specifically on the urgent need for more social housing and on the duty of both national and local government to ensure that there are safe, decent homes for vulnerable people in deprived communities, such as those in Cann Hall and Cathall in my constituency.

Far too many of my constituents live in unsafe, overcrowded and unsuitable conditions. One family—a father, his wife, their four children and a baby on the way—are stuck in a one-bedroom flat riddled with mould. The children sleep on the floor. The family have been bidding for a home for years, but in Waltham Forest the wait for suitable housing can stretch for over 14 years.

A single mother in my constituency, who is caring for neurodivergent children, lives in a flat with no safety locks on the windows or the front door. Her youngest once tried to climb out of the window and was hospitalised. The mother is now suffering with exhaustion; the stress is relentless. Another family, raising a disabled child, are dealing with persistent mould, noise and antisocial behaviour in temporary accommodation. There is no outdoor space, no stability and no long-term solution.

These are not isolated cases; they are the result of a chronic failure to build and maintain decent housing, especially for those who need it most. I welcome the Government’s commitment to raising standards through the Renters’ Rights Bill and the decent homes standard, but without proper funding our councils cannot meet their statutory duties. Outdated funding formulas fail to reflect multiple occupancy or the real population pressures in outer London.

We all want to see the biggest expansion of social and affordable housing in a generation, so let us start with communities such as Avenue Road and Montague Road in Waltham Forest, where 465 new social homes have been promised and not yet delivered. The upcoming spending review must prioritise housing as critical national infrastructure. Behind the statistics are real people and real families who have been failed by a decade of inaction.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Congratulations. As a result of everyone’s self-discipline, we have accommodated 19 Members and an additional eight interventions. That must be something of a record. It also means that the Front Benchers now have adequate time to respond properly to the debate. Well done.

10:26

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

I think we would all agree that it is a basic human right to have a decent place to call home, a neighbourhood where one feels safe, an opportunity to earn a decent living, access to healthcare and a clean environment. If people have those things, they can thrive and, together, form communities that then flourish. If we empower people to take decisions locally, those communities will make choices that lift up the people in them and protect their local environment.

However, under the last Government, it was made harder for communities to take those decisions. Their resources were slashed and they were forced to compete with each other, with towns set against each another in bidding wars through short-term, race-to-the-bottom policies. The Liberal Democrats are disappointed that the Labour Government plan to take decisions away from communities, using the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to remove local authorities’ power to have a say in planning. We are worried about how proposals for local government reorganisation may move decisions on local services further away from people and their neighbourhoods.

The proposal to provide three-year settlements for councils is reassuring, but only if the funding covers the true cost of providing the services people need—not knowing three years out that the council will be forced to reduce its services is not helpful. Although the 2025-26 settlement offered some additional funding, in many councils—particularly those with high levels of social care spending—the Labour Government’s jobs tax, which increased employers’ national insurance contributions, was not fully reimbursed. The same was true of the packages for fire authorities, and the issue was particularly problematic where high levels of on-call firefighters were on the payroll, meaning that those authorities were seriously disadvantaged.

Turning to the mission-critical neighbourhoods, it is absolutely right that there is a Labour focus—sorry, a laser focus, although I appreciate that there is a Labour focus—on lifting them up and drawing them into every part of society, not just to improve people’s lives, but because if those places are economically active, healthy and safe, the rest of us benefit too.

I want to focus on two main issues for communities: housing and transport. We all know that, for years, people around the country—and not just in those neighbourhoods—have given up. They have given up on the chance of owning a home or of even renting a decent place to call home. They have given up on the opportunity to bring up children and have a meaningful career.

In many rural areas, which may not make up the most deprived areas, there are pockets of extreme poverty that are completely forgotten. There are farmers whose children underperform in schools and are loaned their school uniforms; they live in homes that have not been updated for 60 years.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talked about communities being overlooked because they are contained within wealthier communities. My constituency is in the outer London borough of Sutton, which, by London standards, is on the wealthier end. We have two distinct communities in St Helier and Roundshaw, and those estates absolutely need more support, but they consistently get overlooked because of the way that local government funding works. First, it is on a borough-wide basis, so when the deprivation scores are added up, they are not entitled to much. Secondly, the indices used are extremely outdated and fail to take account of the true cost of housing.

Housing prices in London and the south-east have skyrocketed over the last 10 years, and the indices do not take that into account, which means the average Londoner is now worse off than the average person in many other regions of the country, once we take housing costs into account. Does my hon. Friend agree that whatever reforms we make to better target resources at disadvantaged communities, we must ensure that local government funding formulas take housing costs properly into account?

[Vikki Slade]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—there are micro-communities within communities that look wealthy from the outside, and I will come on to some local examples.

In rural and coastal areas, employment opportunities are incredibly limited, as the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) said, with seasonal jobs in limited sectors of agriculture and hospitality. The homes have been snapped up by those fortunate enough to own two or more properties, as we heard from Members representing various areas of Cornwall. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to see the loophole closed on holiday lets, to ensure that they pay council tax, and it is why we want to see the introduction of a separate planning use for both holiday lets and second homes in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, so that we can secure the homes we need for our teachers, carers and police officers, and our farmers are better able to use their assets on their properties to support agricultural workers, so that we can provide food security.

The Government’s move away from the rural services grant has been devastating for so many communities and needs to be urgently rethought. As stated by the Dorset Community Foundation last year in its “Hidden Dorset” report:

“On the face of it Dorset is a beautiful, vibrant county but scratch the surface and underneath there are areas that are among the most deprived in the UK.”

There are 17,100 children in Dorset living in absolute poverty—not relative, but absolute poverty—and I am sure the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) will know where some of those communities are. This is in a place that is not considered a mission-critical area.

The plan for 1.5 million homes is laudable, but the Government must refocus on having the right homes in the right places. The lack of focus on social homes is deeply disappointing, especially for a Labour Government, and I encourage the Department to commit to at least 150,000 homes for social rent, as the Liberal Democrats have. We already have a large number of homes lying empty—1.2 million—and the Liberal Democrats have heard little about what is being done to bring them back into use.

Today’s announcement on transport is great news for some communities, but many are still being forgotten. People living in most of the south-west—and it would appear from the latest announcement that the south-west stops at Bristol—have no access to trains, and where they do have a bus, it only comes a couple of times a day. How exactly are those who cannot afford a private car supposed to get to work? Those aged 16-plus cannot get to school or college. One constituent in Bere Regis in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole had to give up an apprenticeship because there was simply no way to get there. Families living on the minimum wage cannot spare the budget to pay for driving lessons—of course, it is not possible to get a driving test either—or insurance, which can run into thousands of pounds.

Will the Government correct the injustice created when the age of participation was increased by ensuring that home-to-school transport is funded to 18 and accepting Lib Dem proposals to create a young person’s bus card, giving under-25s significant discounts on bus fares? Rural areas are most in need of the bus fare cap, so we hope it will be extended, as journeys are often long and require two or more routes to be used, not just in England but across the United Kingdom—including rural Wales, where, oddly, a project between Oxford and Cambridge was badged as an England and Wales project, potentially costing Wales millions of pounds.

Finally, I want to align myself with the comments made by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East. We must eradicate child poverty. I share the frustrations of others that the strategy has been delayed, and I hope this means that we will have a much more meaningful document which includes the removal of the two-child benefit cap. These children have done nothing to find themselves in the position of having multiple siblings, and I hope the Government will grasp the nettle and deliver real change for our forgotten neighbourhoods and our next generation.

10:34

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, once again, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) on securing this debate and bringing in many Members, who have articulated clearly their concerns about a variety of issues across their constituencies.

We all recognise that relieving poverty is one of the oldest and most central functions of our country’s local authorities; it has been enshrined in their duties since their inception. Many Members have referred to programmes of the past—under the last Labour Government, the coalition Government and the Conservative Government —and this debate, fundamentally, is about how we tackle this most effectively. There is no view that these issues are not important; it is simply a question about the most effective way of bringing about that relief, which we all wish to see. Indeed, levelling up, which was fundamentally about all these issues, was a key policy priority for the last Conservative Government, although it was one which, I have to acknowledge in all humility, we did not succeed in delivering in all the ways we wished to. None the less, there were some successes.

When we debate these issues in a political context, we always need to remember that it is not simply a matter of funding, as important as that is. In Wales, for example, the Government have had the benefit of an £1,800 premium over the rest of the UK in public spending. Wales has had a Labour Government for 25 years, and these issues are consistently worse in Wales—where I grew up—than they are in England. So how we spend the money to address these issues is almost as fundamental as the quantum of that spending.

[Gareth Snell]

I have always found the hon. Gentleman to be a diligent shadow Minister, and I appreciate him taking this intervention. He mentioned levelling up, and Stoke-on-Trent was one of the cities that genuinely got one of the larger allocations. The challenge was that it was mainly capital, so it allowed us to build things, but it did not allow us to have the revenue stream to staff those things to provide services. Would he welcome any move by this Government—I suspect that this is coming—to put more into revenue funding to support communities, rather than giving them the capital for big shiny things that look nice but do not actually improve the lives of people in our communities?

[David Simmonds]

That is a really good example of where the “how” matters. The theory, which was certainly built into the funding formula under the last Conservative Government, and indeed, the coalition Government, was that growth in housing numbers, which many Members have spoken of as important, came with the new homes bonus. So that was additional revenue funding coming into the local authority as a result of that growth. The theory was that the infrastructure spending would be followed by growth in revenue as a result of those locally made decisions. Clearly, I understand that the Minister’s Department has taken the decision to cancel that as part of the funding formula, and she will no doubt set out what the Government’s new strategy will be. But what the hon. Gentleman describes is a really good example; it is no good having one without the other.

When we look at the ICON report and other consistent reports about this issue over the years, they highlight the significance of businesses as the backbone of any local community. The availability of work, in particular, is critical not just to the economic wellbeing of a community, but to the physical and mental health of those who live there. There is ample evidence, from the UK and all around the world, of the benefits that that brings. As we all know, it is a statistical fact that no Labour Government have ever left office having reduced unemployment—it is always higher when they leave office than when they take it—and the early-warning signs so far are not good. None the less, I hope that the Government will succeed in that agenda.

[Tom Hayes]

This Labour Government have seen 500,000 people added to employment since the election in July, which is a point that we should reflect on. But does the Conservative party commit to ending child poverty? Is that an explicit goal of the Conservative party under the current leadership?

[David Simmonds]

Ending child poverty has been a long-term commitment of the Conservative party. Reference has been made, positively, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the work that he did with the Centre for Social Justice, which enshrined that as a policy agenda during the years of the coalition Government. Again, this comes back to the question of how we most effectively achieve that. Evidence from across the country shows that growing up in workless households is one of the things that creates intergenerational poverty. The opportunity to grow up in a household where somebody works, even if it is only part time to begin with, is a fantastic boost to a child’s life chances. There are many other points within that.

[Ms Billington]

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to accept responsibility for the significant increase in child poverty caused by the two-child benefit cap that was introduced by the last Tory Government?

[David Simmonds]

As Government Members are discovering, having voted to retain the two-child benefit cap as part of the Budget process last year, government is about making very difficult choices. The question becomes: is it fair for those who do not have children and who work in lower-paid jobs to pay additional taxes to cover the costs of other families? All of us who are parents need to face that choice, and I wish the Government luck with resolving that issue as they begin to think about it.

When we look at how Government resources are deployed across the country, it is very clear in our public spending figures—I commend the House of Commons Library for the excellent research papers that it produced on this—that spending is overwhelmingly focused on the relief of poverty. I commend the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) for his contribution. We see in health and social care, for example, that Blackpool has around £2,000 more per capita in public spending than Yorkshire. Governments and local authorities of all parties have prioritised those issues, and that is reflected in spending on all manner of public services. However, we also need to acknowledge that government is about choices and how we go about allocating resources. What we prioritise and the way we spend that will make a significant difference.

On creating opportunity and supporting the long-term delivery of healthcare, I ask the Minister to reflect on whether the cancellation of the level 7 apprenticeships programme, which is what trained specialist nurses for the NHS, has been a good step in creating opportunity for adults who can train to do more higher-paid work, or whether that will—as the NHS and other bodies have highlighted—result in a significant negative impact on the pipeline of specialist nursing and medical staff. Will the Minister reflect on whether the national insurance contributions increase, which leaves councils a net £1.5 billion worse off—a £1.5 billion cut in local government spending by the Labour Government—will contribute to addressing the agenda that many Members have set out?

The winter fuel payment has been touched on. The Prime Minister has hinted that a U-turn is coming; it is clear that many Government Members will welcome that. The same applies to the two-child benefit cap and the Government’s plans around disability. Under the previous Government, there was a programme, which I think the current Government are continuing in a different form, to enable those with a disability who want to work more hours to have that opportunity. But we will all have seen in our inboxes the level of concern that has been triggered among members of the public. Ultimately, it is for Members opposite to decide how they deal with pensioner poverty, the impact of cuts to disability benefits and the impact of the two-child benefit cap, as they are now in government.

There is the fact that rough sleeping has seen a remarkable increase, particularly in England and in London specifically, under this Government—there has been a 27% increase, according to St Mungo’s, since they took office—and there have been widespread reports about the impact of a significant reduction in house building under this Government. Building 1.5 million new homes was always going to be a challenge—I think we acknowledge that across parties—but a recent Guardian investigation highlighted that there has been a collapse in house building since this Government took office.

We are seeing the implementation of all these other policies, which are a choice made by Labour Members and their Government. Will all of those choices help to address and ameliorate the issues that Members have so passionately and eloquently set out? I would argue that that is not the case, and that the negative downward trends in the economy will see more households and families facing significant challenges. I would also argue that the fact, as widely reported, that all of the growth in the UK economy is due to rising household bills—in particular, higher energy costs under this Government—will be a significant headwind for the reduction and addressing of poverty, and that the toxic combination of rising unemployment, debt and taxes will create significant headwinds when it comes to addressing the issues that Members are rightly and passionately concerned about.

[Alison Hume]

The shadow Minister is speaking quite eloquently about the failings, as he sees them, of the Labour Government, who have been in power for 10 months. Does he not accept that the communities that many hon. Members have talked about are disadvantaged because of the profound failure of the past 14 years?

[David Simmonds]

In a word, no. I do not accept that. I do not believe for a moment that we address challenges of long-term poverty and disadvantage in a short-term way, but the purpose of this debate is to ask whether the decisions being made are taking us in a positive direction of travel that will benefit those we are here to talk about or whether they will have a significant negative impact.

I have set out the evidence: the loss of the winter fuel payment, the cuts to disability support, the two-child benefit cap, and the measures in October’s Budget, which all Government Members voted for, that saw every single Department except the NHS receive no extra funding for the duration of this Parliament. Our councils are net £1.5 billion worse off as a result of the unfunded rise in national insurance. All of that will bear down on the capacity of our public sector and public services to respond.

The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) talked passionately about housing. I will share an example. My local authority has seen a significant impact, in that 20% of applications for housing are now from approved asylum seekers and Chagossians displaced to the UK by the Government’s deal. All these decisions—I have set out quite a small subset of them—have an impact in the real world in our communities, and it is my contention that that impact is now pushing poverty to a greater degree and making life more challenging for many people in our country.

I will finish with this point—

[Michelle Welsh]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. No.

[David Simmonds]

I note your look, Sir Roger.

Much was made in last year’s Budget of a supposed £22 billion funding gap, which was swiftly debunked by those more expert in that field than I am. That is about 1.6% of total spending by the British Government; it is a very small amount in the national figures. I am sure Government Members will have noted that the Government borrowed £20 billion last month alone, to fund the amount by which their spending is exceeding their capacity to raise money. That is £20 billion added to debt by this Government in a single month. I am sure Members will accept, having seen the impact that debt has in local communities, that that is not taking our country in a positive direction.

10:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for securing this important debate on a topic close to my heart. The impassioned speeches from hon. Members show their commitment to tackling disadvantage across our country.

In my role as Minister for homelessness and rough sleeping, I am constantly reminded of the challenges faced by those who face multiple disadvantage. Poverty remains a persistent barrier, affecting not just incomes but, as we have heard, life expectancy, educational outcomes and overall wellbeing. There is a gap of more than 18 years for both men’s and women’s healthy life expectancy between the most deprived and least deprived areas in England. Many residents in the most disadvantaged communities also experience insecure housing and homelessness, poor physical and mental health, and limited access to high-quality public services.

It is a scandal that we inherited more than 127,000 households, including over 160,000—now 165,000—children, living in temporary accommodation. It is also a scandal that 4.5 million children were in poverty in the year to April 2024. Just to remind the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), that was the culmination of 14 years of Conservative government and leadership—or lack of leadership—on this agenda. Those outcomes are the consequence of austerity and economic mismanagement under the previous Government.

We have heard impassioned speeches from hon. Members, but we had to sit through a shocking and disappointing speech by the shadow Minister, who is in denial about the failures of his Government. I remind everyone that during his party’s time in government we saw five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors and economic mismanagement. We saw the Liz Truss mini-Budget fiasco crash the economy, interest rates go up, people’s living standards go down, and double-digit inflation. The shadow Minister has amnesia about the 14 years of Conservative government. I had hoped that in this debate we could build alliances to tackle the multiple disadvantage that people face in our country; instead, he fails to face up to what his party did in government.

Our Government’s mission, and our commitment to the British people, is to put this country back on a path to success and to support the most disadvantaged in our country. When we talk about breaking down barriers to opportunity, we mean ending the scandal of children being held back by poverty before they have even begun. When we say we will build an NHS that is fit for the future, we mean making health equity a reality, not just an aspiration, so that someone’s postcode or income does not determine their life expectancy. And when we commit to delivering economic growth, we are committed to creating jobs and driving up productivity in every part of the country.

Our mission to break down barriers to opportunity is rooted in the belief that every child, no matter where they are born and no matter their parents’ income, should have the chance to thrive in life. Millions of children are growing up in poverty, and in classrooms around the country children are turning up hungry. That is not by accident; it is because of the failure of the previous Government over 14 years. It is shameful that the shadow Minister talked down this country and spoke about Labour, which has been in government less than a year, rather than taking responsibility for failure under his Government.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The Minister is making an excellent speech. She said earlier that we had had five Prime Ministers and seven Chancellors—I think there were about 10 Lord Chancellors. Does she agree that the reason for all the problems is that the past 14 years were always about the Tories’ own psychodrama, as opposed to running the country?

[Rushanara Ali]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Furthermore, billions of pounds were wasted in personal protective equipment scandals, contracts for donors and much else.

We are determined to address the issues affecting people across the country. We are building family security. It is essential to ensure that every child has a safe and loving home, and that is why we are committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable homes and to delivering 1.5 million homes. Earlier this year, we committed to injecting £2 billion from 2026-27 to build up to 18,000 new affordable and social homes by the end of this Parliament.

[Ms Billington]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rushanara Ali]

I would like to make some progress, because I want to make a number of points about what this Government are doing.

We believe that everyone deserves to live in a safe and decent home. We have already invested in homelessness funding, which the Budget increased by £233 million to a total of £1 billion. That was a recognition of the mess that was left behind after 14 years of Tory government, when homelessness and rough sleeping skyrocketed. The previous Labour Government cut homelessness and rough sleeping by two thirds; the Tory Government increased it. We are having to clean up their mess.

We are investing in post-16 education, because children and young people from deprived backgrounds have been left behind and we are determined to tackle that. We are also introducing a youth guarantee for all young people aged 18 to 21 in England to ensure that they can access quality training and education opportunities to help them find work. We will publish an ambitious child poverty strategy, working across Government through an inter-ministerial group of which the Deputy Prime Minister and I, along with other colleagues, are members. We are taking action to make work pay and ensure that people are earning more; we have already increased the minimum wage.

Truly addressing the unique challenges faced by the most disadvantaged communities requires targeted and sustained support. My Department’s recently launched plan for neighbourhoods will turn the tide on decades of decline in our most deprived communities. It provides £1.5 billion of funding to 75 communities across the UK to tackle deprivation and turbocharge growth, ensuring that every area joins the decade of national renewal that we committed to in our plan for change. That funding will help revitalise local areas, support growth and fight deprivation at its root by zeroing in on three goals: thriving places, strong communities and taking back control. We will also unlock investment opportunities in every region through local growth plans. The interventions and investments developed through them will build on local sector strengths to boost productivity.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East, I thank Baroness Hilary Armstrong for continuing to make the case for our most disadvantaged neighbourhoods and communities. I remember her work in the last Labour Government, and I agree wholeheartedly with her that our plan for change must be rooted in neighbourhoods.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East for securing this debate. This Government are taking action to support the most disadvantaged communities as part of our long-term plan to deliver a decade of renewal by investing in our healthcare system, helping people get into employment and fixing the mess that the previous Government left behind. I look forward to working with colleagues across parties to take further action to tackle the disadvantage faced by people across our country, particularly in the most deprived communities. I know how much devastation is caused by those who face multiple disadvantage, because my constituency in the east end of London has the highest child poverty in the country. I am committed to working with colleagues to address these challenges and I am grateful for their commitment to tackling this issue, which is demonstrated by the excellent turnout at this debate.

10:58

[Mrs Brackenridge]

I thank every Member who attended the debate. I am sure the Minister will heed our voices, because we speak for and serve our communities.

It is really disappointing that not one Conservative Back Bencher attended the debate. I will not get drawn into the denial that I heard from the shadow Minister. We have heard powerful voices from post-industrial towns, proud coastal communities and struggling rural communities. They are full of pride but desperately in need of targeted intervention. That is why I am calling for a project of neighbourhood renewal.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Environment Agency: East of England

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the performance of the Environment Agency in the East of England.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I have secured this debate to highlight concerns about the operational performance of the Environment Agency in the east of England. This reflects both my time as the Secretary of State overseeing the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the run-up to the general election and numerous interactions with it in my capacity as a constituency MP.

As we are meeting the week before a comprehensive spending review, it is perhaps prudent to start with the usual excuse given by organisations for poor operational performance: a lack of people or funding. According to the Environment Agency’s own annual outcomes, its full-time equivalent staff increased in the last Parliament by 21% from 10,791 in 2019-2020, at the start of the Parliament, to more than 13,000 in 2023-24. Over the same period, its expenditure has gone up from £1.4 billion to £2.2 billion, so it has significantly more people and funding, while at the same time showing a remarkable lack of transparency or accountability to Ministers or Members of Parliament, and a remarkable lack of willingness to take enforcement action against those causing the worst levels of environmental damage.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman. It is an absolute scandal: the Environment Agency seems happy to pursue farmers and landowners with a zest and enthusiasm, yet big businesses and other people seem to be left to the side. Is it not time that the Environment Agency supported farmers and helped them when they need it, rather than chasing them and not others?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point, and he is correct. It seems that the Environment Agency is very happy to go after what it may perceive to be easier and more law-abiding targets, but as the most serious environmental harm is caused by serious criminal gangs, there is often a reluctance to take on those organisations in the way that it does an individual farmer. That is why this also points to a need for a much more fundamental reform of the Department’s relationship with its arm’s length bodies, as well as its accountability to Ministers, regardless of which Government is in office.

This debate is focused specifically on the east of England, and I want to give three examples of where that operational performance really illustrates concerns across the boards with environmental damage being caused. Before doing so, given that I have been the Secretary of State, I thought it relevant to touch on a national example to show that this is not simply a constituency or local issue. With that in mind, let me inform the House about Hoad’s wood, which is a site of special scientific interest and an area of outstanding natural beauty that has been covered—as you probably know, Sir Roger—in more than 35,000 tonnes of illegal waste.

We might have thought that a SSSI would be a priority case for the Environment Agency, and one where it would be most certain to take action. However, so concerned was I as a Minister that I had to take the very unusual step of issuing a ministerial direction. No ministerial direction had been issued in the Department in the preceding seven years before I arrived as Secretary of State, so this was an unusual but necessary step to compel the EA to take action on a SSSI. Again, I think that speaks to some of the issues. Even so, the situation has dragged on, with contractors not appointed until November last year, work not beginning until March and completion not expected until at least 2026. That points to some of the issues with the most valuable sites, never mind more routine sites.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

I will give another example from Kent. In Tunbridge Wells in my constituency, the River Grom often has very high levels of ammonia due to sewage being dumped in the river. When that is reported to the Environment Agency, it claims a lack of funds, does not send its own investigators and often passes the matter to Southern Water, which is perhaps to blame for the problem in the first place. Does that not contribute to a lack of democratic oversight of our environment?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Member absolutely catches the point raised earlier about the lack of accountability and transparency, and the highlights fact that, although the EA has had more money and resource, it is not targeting priority cases or long-standing issues, while often telling Members of Parliament that they are priorities. I will come on to that, because there is a wider issue of which the Minister needs to be aware: the slowness to act and lack of accountability.

Turning to the east of England, and my own constituency in particular, let me give three examples that cover a range of scenarios. The first is the dumping of more than 122,000 tonnes of waste at Saxon Pit in Whittlesey between October 2017 and February 2018. The EA’s initial response was to say that it was totally unaware of 122,000 tonnes of waste being dumped—but, regardless of whether the EA had been asleep at the wheel, we would expect it to then act. In its initial response, the EA said that the operator must dispose of all the non-conforming waste by 10 October 2018; yet seven years on the waste remains in situ. The EA also promised prosecutions, because this was such a serious case. I will quote just one of many letters that I exchanged with the EA over this period. In 2021, the then-chief executive Sir James Bevan promised that

“Saxon Pit is being treated as a priority”.

The EA’s investigation took a further 14 months to complete, but in June 2022 it said that a

“final set of interviews…will take place shortly”.

In October 2022, the chief executive asked me to,

“be assured that my teams are prioritising this work over other competing criminal inquiries”.

Three years ago, the EA said it was prioritising this serious case, with more 122,000 tonnes of waste, over other cases. It was a priority case. Yet three years on, and seven years on from the incident, we still have no prosecutions. To go back to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said a moment ago, what cases is the EA prosecuting with its additional resource, if it is not prosecuting at Saxon Pit?

I thought that the Minister might reflect, “Perhaps that was simply an issue of the past Government. Perhaps things have changed—the Environment Agency has perhaps changed its approach.” I therefore thought it would be helpful to give a second example, from the last year: a very serious pollution incident at King’s dyke, in Whittlesey, the same town as Saxon Pit. I have seen internal papers from the Environment Agency that show that it described the problem, and reported it to the Department, as a category 1 pollution incident. For those not familiar with the term, a category 1 pollution incident is the most severe level, involving a

“serious, persistent…or extensive impact…on the environment, people…or property”.

The BBC reported that an estimated 900 fish were killed in close vicinity to an Anglian Water overflow pipe, and that the pipe had discharged for 23 hours due to a suspected pump failure. When I spoke to Anglian Water and the Environment Agency, no other credible reason was given for the serious incident. I was then told that water samples had been taken and would be quick to establish whether the overflow pipe was the cause of the category 1 incident. I was told on 10 October 2024 that the lab tests were under way, that it would take a week for them to determine the cause, and that an internal decision would be taken on enforcement in November.

November then became December. December became January. We kept chasing, and we were told, “No, it’s no longer January; it’s May.” We chased again in May, and were told September. This is an issue that Ministers say—and I do not doubt for a minute their sincerity—is an absolute priority for the Government. We have the most serious level of pollution incident, a category 1, which happened in September, yet the Environment Agency says it will not tell the public of Whittlesey the cause of it for at least a year—even though I suspect that, internally and within the Department, it is already known whether Anglian Water was the cause and whether, therefore, a criminal investigation should follow. I do not believe that is a sufficient level of transparency or accountability.

Let me give a third example. As a former Minister, I thought I would try to pitch these examples in a way that is constructive across the House. One debate that the Minister may recall was led by one of her parliamentary colleagues, the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker). In it, he raised cross-party concerns—indeed, there were a number of the Minister’s colleagues present, though it was one of her colleagues on the Front Bench—around the environmental damage of incinerators. That is something that many charities usually more closely aligned with the left of politics, such as Friends of the Earth, have raised concerns about, but it is also an issue that many on the Government Benches have highlighted, and one that I have consistently raised myself.

We now know that DEFRA’s own analysis suggests that there is enough national capacity for incineration. As more waste is recycled, the requirements for incineration come down. A BBC report highlighted the serious damage caused by these incinerators and by waste being burned because of anaerobic digesters. Most of that is now plastic, and it is the dirtiest way to generate power. No one would have thought a Government committed to the environment would want to see more incinerators being built. Incineration is on a par with coal as the dirtiest form of energy generation, yet we still do not have clarity from the Government on whether environmental permits will remain in force for incinerators that have not yet been built.

One of those is in Wisbech. To put this incinerator in context, it is so big that one half its size in the neighbouring constituency was turned down—so they doubled it in size to make it a national scheme and take it outside local planning. It is sited 700 metres from the largest school in the district, accessed solely by single carriageway roads, with a chimney bigger than Ely cathedral in the flat landscape of the fens. The Environment Agency, in issuing a permit, says it does not consider any of the environmental harm of transporting waste from six different counties to this small market town, because the permit only applies to the curtilage of the site itself. I simply ask, given the cross-party support on this issue, whether that decision by the Environment Agency is fit for purpose.

I will add one further point. Is it not very odd that the decision to grant an environmental permit was made during the general election purdah period, a time when organisations are not supposed to take controversial decisions? I hope the Minister will follow up on that, because I know that many of her own Government colleagues are concerned. Where incinerators have not yet been built, we should not be embedding the environmental damage that so many charities and environmental groups, and so many of our own colleagues have expressed concern about.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member represents North East Cambridgeshire; as the Member for South West Norfolk, I share a border and very similar geography with him, and I recognise many of the concerns he raises about pollution. Does he share my concerns about the EA’s performance on the time taken to issue permits, licences and other permissions? In our part of the world, that is a real barrier to growth and prosperity for businesses, because the performance is so poor—it takes months, if not years, for businesses to get approvals from the EA.

[Steve Barclay]

I do share them. Just for the Minister’s benefit, the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will be materially affected by the Wisbech incinerator in terms of transport; when the developers doubled its size in order to take it out of the local planning process, they created a different problem of how to get sufficient waste to run it. Therefore, it has to take in waste from further and further afield. As Wisbech is a market town, accessed by single carriageway roads—the A47 is single carriageway into Wisbech—bringing waste through my neighbour’s constituency will cause huge traffic there, as it will in many other constituencies across the eastern region.

A BBC report highlights the severe environmental damage that would be caused by the proposed incinerator, but the hon. Gentleman also highlights a wider point about lack of transparency. As in the King’s dyke fishing example, as a constituency MP one chases on behalf of constituents to get them some answers, yet organisations feel they are unaccountable.

That brings me to my final point. It will not surprise the Minister that, as a member of the last Government, I quite frequently raised my constituency concerns—before I was in the Department—with relevant Secretaries of State, and I know that they raised those with the EA; yet, as we see with Saxon Pit, it still failed to take prosecution action over seven years while saying to people locally, “It is a priority case.” As Secretary of State myself, I found the organisation so unresponsive that I had to take the unusual step of issuing a ministerial direction. In fact, I issued two in my six months in the Department, where none had been issued in the seven years before. I fear that Ministers now need to look at the accountability to democratic control of not just the Environment Agency, but Natural England—not least given the three interventions we have heard from colleagues across the House.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I have an issue in my constituency down White Stubbs Lane, where we have raw sewage going over the road. The Environment Agency is unaccountable, hardly wanting to meet with MPs or engage. It told me during the purdah period, “We can’t meet with you, because there is a local election going on,” which is absolute nonsense. It should engage with MPs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is completely unaccountable and needs fundamental reform and change?

[Steve Barclay]

It does need fundamental reform. I became Secretary of State very close to the general election, but one of my first acts was to issue an instruction to take more rigorous enforcement action more generally on water pollution. I know that current Ministers want to see a more robust set of actions.

I come to my final point. Not least given the Government’s majority and where we are in the parliamentary cycle, there is an opportunity to look at the Department’s relationship with its arm’s length bodies. The Department of Health and Social Care is going through that exact process with NHS England. I encourage the ministerial team to reflect on that, not least for when in some years’ time they are explaining how, if there is lack of action, that sits with some of their priorities. Irrespective of that, as we heard in interventions from across the House, the EA’s lack of transparency and accountability on its operational performance needs to be addressed. I encourage the Minister to focus some time in her busy schedule on doing that.

11:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) for securing today’s debate and everyone else who has contributed to it. Listening to all the points that the right hon. Gentleman made about serious issues in his constituency, I wonder from the outset if it might be helpful to have a meeting with the EA area director to go through each of them in turn. I was told by the EA ahead of this debate that it is very happy to meet him, and me.

I welcome the mention of the increased funding that we have given the Environment Agency. We have increased the budget for environmental protection by £17 million, and the charge income has increased to £513 million for this year. Each week, I get an operational briefing on some of the major significant issues around the country, and Hoad’s wood has been mentioned. I have been told that waste removal should start this month. If that does not happen, I am more than happy to pick up that point.

More generally, on regulation, regulators and how things work, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we came into government, we commissioned the Corry review to look at all the different regulators within the environmental space and see where there is potential, where there has been overlap of responsibilities, how effectively they are working and what might need to change. Just yesterday, Sir Jon Cunliffe published his interim report on the water sector and how it works. It is really interesting; there is a whole section on how regulation works or does not work effectively in some areas, and there is a genuine call for all Members of Parliament from all parties to feed back on that interim report before the final recommendations. The right hon. Member may be interested in that chapter on regulation.

I find the people I work with at the Environment Agency to be really keen to do well and passionately committed to their jobs. The people who deal with this mess on the frontline are really committed. When the Secretary of State did the water investment tour, he visited Cambridgeshire to attend a water scarcity roundtable on 13 March. Hopefully, we will both be visiting the area again soon.

In my role as Minister, I meet Environment Agency representatives every month, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows from his time in the Department. I talk to them about things that are happening nationally, and our priorities and how they fulfil them. I also ensure that the agency is equipped to carry out its functions effectively.

Ahead of this debate, I asked for an update on what is happening on Saxon Pit. I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration about the amount of time that criminal investigations take. I know that from my time in opposition as well as my time in government that these things can feel protracted, but as it is a criminal investigation, it might be helpful to have a more confidential meeting about it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept my being vague.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that dealing with water pollution, such as the category 1 incident at King’s dyke, is a serious and important issue for the Government. At DEFRA, looking at how we deal with such incidents is a priority, which is why we have increased enforcement funding. I have been told that the situation at King’s dyke is progressing well, but we can have a more detailed conversation about both incidents with the area director, given that they involve criminal investigations. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to take me up on that, I would be happy to have that conversation.

The Environment Agency generally publishes its progress on different aims. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and I have spoken before about his concerns about sewage in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and I have had similar conversations. There is a lot to sort out and a lot to clean up, but I am always happy to pick it up if the hon. Member for Broxbourne does not feel that he is getting the engagement that he needs from the Environment Agency. Whenever I talk to EA representatives, they tell me that they are really keen to meet MPs, especially new MPs, and to build a relationship with them, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to take that up. If he does not feel it is forthcoming enough, I am more than happy to pick that issue up.

The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire will have to forgive me, because waste incinerators are not in my brief and I have only a vague knowledge of them. To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, I understand that he had to recuse himself from any involvement in the decision making, which I completely respect. Once I talk to a ministerial colleague, I can give the right hon. Gentleman a more detailed briefing on waste incinerators.

We are setting clear conditions for new energy-from-waste plants; they must be efficient and support net zero and our economic growth mission before they get backing. We are keen to make DEFRA a driver of growth and to ensure that it is not seen to be holding up planning permission and consents. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying in relation to this particular incinerator, and I will get back to him in more detail. As Minister, my general feeling from speaking to Environment Agency colleagues has been positive. I know that there is frustration with processes and bureaucracy—we all know that, especially the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire from his time in government. The wheels can sometimes feel like they move quite slowly.

[Terry Jermy]

The Minister and I have talked on many occasions. I do not envy the scale of the challenge that she has, particularly in relation to pollution. She and I have talked about internal drainage boards, which is another issue that is shared across constituencies. In relation to permits and licensing, we are proud to have a growth agenda as a Government. Does the Minister recognise that focusing on encouraging the EA to improve its performance in that regard could help to unlock growth in many areas in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk and improve growth opportunities for businesses? I appreciate that there is an awful lot to do in the Department, but can that issue be given some focus as well?

[Emma Hardy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, one of the things that comes up in our monthly meetings is how we can improve the issuing of permits and make it quicker. He is completely right, and I hear not just from his constituency but right across the country that there are problems with how quickly permits are issued. I completely hear and accept his point.

We are committed to working in collaboration with the Environment Agency, and with all hon. and right hon. Members, to continue to advance its performance in the east of England and across the rest of the country. We want to continue to support communities in protecting them against pollution and against the horrific example of Hoad’s wood and the other two examples that the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire gave. As I say, I am happy to have a more detailed conversation about those two particular issues from his constituency.

[Lewis Cocking]

The Minister speaks warmly about having meetings with the Environment Agency. It is all well and good having a meeting, but I do not want to go into a talking shop. I feel like the Environment Agency uses the meetings to say, “We’ve ticked that box and we’ve met that MP; that issue is done,” but it does not action anything. We want to see real action for our constituents because they are really fed up with these issues, which take a terribly long time to solve.

[Emma Hardy]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he is completely right: constituents want to action when they see pollution incidents. Of course, if he is not satisfied with the outcome and he feels that action has not been taken to the standard that he wants following the meeting, I am more than happy to pick that up. I will finish on that point.

Question put and agreed to.

11:26

Sitting suspended.

Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine in the Chair]

14:30

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of changes to business rates relief on high street businesses.

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am deeply privileged to have secured this debate.

When we think about the communities that we represent, we so often think about the centre of those communities—the town, village or city centres that truly define the communities that are our constituencies. That is certainly no different in my constituency. Even in some of the very small villages such as Salt or Great Chatwell, the main centre is sometimes the pub, which is the hive of community interest—I would recommend any of the pubs in my constituency to the Minister, if ever he wanted to visit them. They bring the community together. The larger towns and villages, such as Stone, Great Wyrley, Cheslyn Hay or Penkridge, have thriving high streets and centres that are vital for the people who live there. Centres give towns density and, critically, create employment for so many people in my constituency and all our constituencies.

The Government’s changes to business rates relief have already had a significant impact on so many businesses, not just in my constituency but right across Staffordshire, the west midlands and England itself. The change in relief, which was 75% but has been reduced to 40%, has had a material impact on the way that people run their businesses.

We are all aware that the initial rates relief was introduced at the height of the pandemic to help businesses. However, businesses, especially on our high streets, have taken time to recover from the pandemic, which saw a shift in the way that many people buy their goods, in people’s shopping habits and in the way that we use our town, city and village centres. The rates relief was vital to so many businesses, shops, pubs, hotels and people in adjusting to the new reality that they found themselves living in.

In my constituency, the hospitality industry contributes £70 million in gross value added and employs just short of 3,000 people. If it was a single employer, we would be talking about it all the time, but of course it is not one employer—it is many small family businesses. They may be individuals employing two or three people. They may be limited companies, although often they will be sole traders or partnerships. They are the backbone of England and of our economy, and they are feeling the pain of the changes that the Government introduced.

Many people in my constituency and across the country listened when Labour said, in opposition, that relief would be coming and that there would be changes, but they were not expecting those changes to cost them more money. Let us look at the analysis of the impact on a typical shop in terms of business rates. A typical shop has seen its bill climb from £3,589 to £8,613. For a typical restaurant, the bill has climbed from an average of £5,051 to £12,122. I appreciate that, in the Treasury’s view, those are not even rounding errors—they are not something that it should be concerned about or even think about—but for a business or an individual trying to work out how they will pay their employees’ wages, order in more stock or pay themselves a wage that month, that really matters. It impacts those who are in business and dampens the aspirations of those who wish to start one.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

April’s retail, hospitality and leisure relief reduction left Samantha, a shopkeeper from Langport in my constituency, with a £2,000 business rates bill, on top of a £5,000 bill, despite the fact that she was potentially eligible for exemption. She consequently faces losing her shop. When I spoke to her recently, she told me that the system has ended her livelihood. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to reform rates and exemptions to boost local high streets’ viability?

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need reform. Such closures affect her constituent and many others, but these are not just businesses; they are someone’s hopes, dreams and aspirations to create something better and build a better life for themselves and other people. According to the Campaign for Real Ale, 125 pubs have already closed since 1 April. That is 125 communities that have lost something that they may never get back. It is 125 families—and many more, if we take into account the families of the many people working in those pubs—who have seen their livelihoods disappear.

We cannot just dismiss this problem. I thank the Chamber engagement team, which, in preparation for this debate, did a number of surveys asking for the views of people from across the country about the impact of business rates on their businesses. It is interesting to hear those stories. Lorraine, who has a hospitality business, said:

“It is time our industry had some real help. We had nothing left to give. I predict even more closures in the next two years.”

Karen, who runs a salon and health club, said:

“The rates are more than my rent and with the wage increases and massive hike in rates, I can’t survive. I’m on borrowed time.”

This is about not just those people, but the many people they employ. Rachel, who has a beauty salon, said:

“I used to employ 18 people and now only employ four, so it’s effectively made me shrink the business.”

James, who runs a hospitality business, said:

“The reduction in relief has led me to reduce my workforce by 33%.”

There are business out there that last year were perhaps thinking about expanding—maybe taking on another pub or opening another shop—but that is no longer viable. Most business owners—who, like the people employed, are working people—are the last ones to get paid. They take the risk, and the Government do not seem to want to encourage them, let them grow or give them the opportunity to succeed. They just make it harder.

This issue is not just about businesses; it is also about communities. Although there can be no finer high streets than the ones in my constituency—[Interruption.] Now we are getting into a real debate, but I will stand firm. However, there is nothing sadder than seeing an empty shop that was previously occupied. That is not just about the demise of a particular business; it brings down the whole high street.

We see so many businesses being impacted in multiple ways. We see the impact of the changes in business rate relief; we see the impact of the changes in national insurance, and not just in terms of the rate but in terms of when it starts to get paid; and we see the cumulative impact of changes to employment law. We want businesses to take on people and to make it as easy as possible for them to take on new starters. Sadly, it is becoming harder and harder for them to do so.

The reality is that young people are some of the most impacted. Almost half of those working in hospitality in my constituency are aged between 16 and 24. I appreciate that the Government may take the view that their jobs are not important ones and that they will go on to something else, but I think that it is vital that we provide opportunities for young people at the start of their careers. Hospitality and retail are vital for that, whether the jobs are full time or part time. The impact of the changes to rate relief means that fewer young people are in a position where they can get the jobs they need to get on in life.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

The right hon. Member is making a very important point. This issue is important across the whole socioeconomic spectrum. I had a relatively privileged upbringing, but my first job was washing dishes in a hotel. That job taught me what hard work is. The lessons that we learn in those types of jobs last throughout our lives.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Member makes a very valid point. This issue is about ensuring that there is as much opportunity as possible for all people, whatever their background. We should not be dismissive of such jobs—I am sure that the Minister is not—but they are the jobs that have been squeezed out by the changes to rate relief.

The Minister knows that I am one of his biggest fans; indeed, I am a great admirer of him. I see him as a rising star. While the Chancellor hides, he is wheeled out. He is truly an impressive figure at the Treasury. I am not sure whether it is due to the diminished status of the Chancellor that he is looking taller, but he is certainly one of the rising stars of the Labour Front Bench. I actually enjoy reading some of his many comments. He is a very thoughtful and accomplished Minister. I imagine that he is a joy to work with and that his civil servants value him greatly.

However, I will just read out some of the things that the Minister has said in the past:

“As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has set out, if Labour were in government, we would scrap and replace business rates, and shift the burden away from hospitality and retail businesses on the high street, which continue to shoulder a heavy burden compared with those that operate primarily in the digital economy.” —[Official Report, 31 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 318WH.]

I do not think that there is a Member in this Chamber who would disagree with the Minister on that. I think everyone in the debate today would say, “All power to the Minister’s elbow, and we look forward to him announcing how that will be done.”

Most businesses I have spoken to have found that they are paying more today than they were just a year ago. When in opposition, the Minister was busy making many comments, including:

“A Labour Government will help to breathe new life into our high streets by calling time on the outdated model of business rates, so that British businesses in all parts of the country can play their part in creating economic growth and the jobs of the future.” —[Official Report, 13 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 262WH.]

Sadly, at the moment, the Government are doing quite the reverse. Every small business in my constituency has been impacted by higher rates, not lower ones.

There is concern about what this will look like in the future. There is nervousness that even the reduced reliefs that have been put in place will have gone altogether. I very much hope that when the Minister responds, he will be able to give us every assurance that efforts are being made to deal with the impact of the change in business rates relief on businesses not just in Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, but across England. I hope he will give them some comfort that the Government do not just say things in opposition, but do them in government.

We have a sorely outdated model of billing businesses. I know the Treasury loves nothing more than the rates system, because it is one of the easiest ways to collect tax, but there are concerns that, whether or not under pressure from President Trump, when it comes to changing how digital services taxes will be done, the Treasury might come for more money from small businesses, the high street and family companies. I hope the Minister can clearly set out that that will not be the case. I appreciate that he will not wish to steal the Chancellor’s sandwiches for any future statements, but I hope he can say clearly that there will be help coming for so many businesses right across the country, and that we will support those job creators.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate, and ask them to keep their speeches to within four minutes so that everyone can get in.

14:48

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine; I believe this is our first time together in this situation, and I hope it is the first of many. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing this important debate. All of us in the Chamber today agree that high street businesses are at the heart of our communities. They not only offer goods and services, but provide valuable jobs, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. They support local families and create vibrant and connected town centres, yet they are under unprecedented threat. Across the country, businesses are being quietly but relentlessly squeezed out of our once-thriving town centres.

My constituency of Surrey Heath is often perceived as affluent, but that perception has arguably bred a dangerous complacency. Recently, I hosted a meeting of local businesses—a cross-section of local business owners from the health sector to hospitality, retail and financial services. The message I received was absolutely clear: the current business rates system, and particularly the changes to business rates relief, is creating considerably anxiety and uncertainty. The scaling back of business rates relief is compounding the pressures that businesses already face: rising national insurance, increased wage costs and inflationary pressures. Removing or reducing relief schemes at this time risks an existential tipping point for many high street retailers, especially smaller, family-owned and not-for-profit businesses.

In market towns such as Camberley in my constituency —and I am sure this is shared across all the constituencies represented today—the strains on the high street are already visible, with boarded-up shopfronts, dwindling footfall and declining confidence among business owners. As these local businesses close their doors, the risk is that residents will lose further faith in town centres and high streets and turn increasingly to online alternatives, accelerating the decline that I think all of us here wish to stem. While some exceptional businesses continue to thrive despite those challenges and headwinds, and they deserve recognition for that, many more are struggling under the cumulative weight of financial burdens, with reduced business rates relief tipping the balance from viable to vulnerable.

Business rates are paid in good faith, with the expectation that they will support the local environment, funding clean streets, better infrastructure and stronger town centres, but the reality is very different. To use the example of my constituency, in 2025-26 businesses in Surrey Heath will contribute over £30 million in business rates, yet less than £1 million of that—only 2.5% of all the business rates levied—will be retained in the local area, as a result of the tariffs charged by central Government, leaving local high streets without the investment they desperately need.

We need a reformed system that reflects the economic realities of all the regions of our country—not just the most deprived, but also those that may appear prosperous on paper but face deep-rooted structural challenges. I urge the Government to rethink not only their approach to business rates relief but the system of business rates altogether. It cannot be right that struggling local councils such as mine in Surrey Heath, which are teetering on the edge of section 114 notices, are expected to levy rates from local businesses, with local residents and business owners reasonably expecting that those funds will be used to enhance the local community and business environment, only for 97.5% of those funds to be spirited away by national Government. Even if we accept the need for some redistribution, surely that cannot be right, fair or just.

16:58

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing this really important debate.

I have previously spoken in the House about my background as a small business owner—specifically, a furniture retailer—and I know that business rates represent a massive percentage of the cost of running a small business. For many years, I have thought that we should get rid of business rates. It is a very outdated model, preferred by the Treasury because it is an easy model for collection, but it is destroying our high streets. When I was a retailer, we had an online presence. Post pandemic, more and more people are used to buying online, which means the heart and soul of our communities is being hollowed out. What was once a vibrant high street where people came to do their weekly shop and interact with one another is now somewhere to make a quick trip for necessities.

I have spoken before about my views on parking charges, which differ from those of the Lib Dem-run councils in my constituency. Parking charges are part of the formula for a successful high street. I will continue to feed in my view that we need to incentivise the best behaviour possible, with free parking for an hour for the high street, so that people can have their coffee or tea, pick up their dry cleaning, speak to their friends and pop into the library to return books. Those are the intangible things that we risk losing from our communities.

Taxes have been discussed. I will be a little bit political, because I know the Minister is well versed in politics in support of high streets. When we are discouraging entrepreneurs from creating businesses, we are fundamentally damaging the structure of the tax base. It is all well and good supporting employees, but we are still waiting for the definition of an employee. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge said, business owners are employees as much as employers. We should support them by saying, “We want you to take the risk of setting up a business with your life savings,” to employ people and give someone that first job, and I fear this Government are failing in that. We all look forward to the spending review and future Budgets that will hopefully not U-turn but nudge policy positions in a way that supports wealth creation.

I am lucky enough to represent the great constituency of South West Hertfordshire. I have some really amazing high streets, such as Rickmansworth, Kings Langley, Chorleywood, Croxley Green, Leavesden, South Oxhey, Moor Park, Abbots Langley and many more. But what I have seen over the past five years, especially post pandemic, is an increase in vacancies, and it is taking longer for those vacancies to be occupied. That deters shoppers in my community from going to their local high street, and instead they click and buy from online retailers for convenience, which I am as guilty of doing as anyone else.

My plea to the Minister is to create the policies that incentivise great and best behaviour. He will have support from across the House for being brave. With the majority that this Government command, they can start the tax system again with a blank sheet of paper and ask, “What is it that we are trying to achieve?” One of the frustrations that I had when I first got elected in 2019 with our 80-seat majority was that we could have carried out a once-in-a-generation reform of our tax system, especially business rates. If the Minister works closely with the Chancellor to do that, he will have my support.

14:56

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing what is probably the most important debate we could have to rejuvenate our town centres. As some hon. and right hon. Members have touched on, town centres are not just a series of business transactions but the centres of our community, where people go to meet friends or to be part of a place where they can do familiar things. It is the social glue that is created by town centres that is so important; once that is lost it does not come back.

In every town centre there is a mix of retail, leisure and hospitality. We have to get the balance right between those three things, because often someone will come in for one of the legs of the stool, as it were, but stay to do something else—thus they stay longer and have more touchpoints with their community. Business rates are the foundational tax rate that affects those three things. If business rates are not right, we are not incentivising the right mix in the community—because business rates affect those three things slightly differently—and we are undermining the support that those three things give to the idea of the town centre being a social glue. I am not going to talk about all three things, but I will talk about hospitality.

I start with Fuggles bar, which is around the corner from my house in Tunbridge Wells. Fuggles is great; it is run by Alex and has an extraordinary selection of craft beers, including local ones brewed in the constituency, and a number of gins, so I occasionally visit. Alex employs about 18 people. A number of Members have spoken about business rates relief being cut from 75% to 40%. That single change, announced at the Budget, has pushed up the cost of Alex’s business rates by 50%. To that we must add a number of other costs that have risen at the same time, such as national insurance, and before that, energy costs.

An independent bar that employs 18 people, many of them part time—as we know, the NI increase hit many businesses that were employing part-time people in particular—finds it really hard to stay afloat. Alex is a member of the Tunbridge Wells hospitality leaders forum, which I meet regularly. His story is the same as the rest of the members of the forum’s. We were so concerned that together we submitted a submission to the Treasury’s consultation on business rates, and I implore the Minister to look that up and read it.

I will not go through everything in the consultation, but there are two things I will focus on. The first is investment. The current business rates formula penalises investment. If someone invests in their premises, the rateable value goes up and their taxes go up—it is a tax on investment. The other is online. Amazon pays about 0.37% of its retail sales in business rates. Fuggles pays 3%. That is the exact opposite of what a tax system should do. I implore the Minister to look up the Tunbridge Wells hospitality leaders’ submission to the Treasury’s consultation. There are a lot of good ideas in there, and I hope that he takes them on board.

15:00

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing the debate.

There are 1,400 small businesses with a rateable value of less than £50,000 across my constituency. Today, we are discussing only the changes in business rates, but a lot of other Government decisions—particularly on employers’ national insurance and on energy costs not coming down—will affect our high streets as well. The cumulative impact of all that is devastating for our high streets.

Lots of businesses I speak to in my constituency are horrified that rates relief dropped from 75% to 40%. When I go out and about across Broxbourne and speak to business owners, a lot of them now say, “What’s the point? What’s the point in me coming to work, trying to run a small business in the town centre, creating growth and employing people?” A Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that it is the Government that create growth. Well, let me tell the Government that it is not the Government that create growth; the Government’s job is to create the right environment for entrepreneurs and businesses to create growth.

Business owners go to work day in, day out, and work incredibly long hours. The Government should try to derisk that process. If we want people to open shops on our high streets, the Government should cushion them from some of the risks. When someone starts their own business at home—from a desk, garage or whatever—upscaling that business is incredibly difficult, and lots of risks are involved. Given that the Government are changing business rates relief and slapping more taxes on businesses, particularly in our town centres, why would someone do that?

A couple of weeks ago, I went to a secondary school in my constituency to speak to A-level students who are doing a business T-level. They all want to become entrepreneurs and create businesses, but we are not creating the right environment for people to become entrepreneurs. In the general election campaign, we heard a lot about how Labour would be the most pro-business Government ever to take power in the United Kingdom, but every decision the Government have made since being in office has slammed down growth and made it harder for businesses.

My constituency has the business improvement districts Love Hoddesdon, Love Cheshunt and Love Waltham Cross, and business owners constantly tell me that, whichever way they turn, things are incredibly difficult and the Government are not making them easy. Even when they go through the business rates appeals process, they have to pay the higher bills while the process takes place, and that process takes months. They do not get any response from the Treasury, and it is difficult for them to appeal and submit information. That is simply not good enough.

As I said, lots of people are starting to wonder, “What is the point in me doing this?” We should be pro-growth in this country. The best form of welfare is a well-paid job, but we are not allowing entrepreneurs to go out there, invest in their businesses, create job opportunities and keep our high streets afloat. We all want to see successful high streets up and down the United Kingdom, but this Government’s policies are killing the high street. They are absolutely killing it.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

I suggest that England is in an extraordinarily lucky position, because in Scotland we are not getting business rates relief. There is none for retail or leisure; there is some for hospitality, but only up to a point. The hon. Member should thank the Lord he lives in England.

[Lewis Cocking]

The SNP needs to come up with some relief, because things are hard enough in England, even without what the hon. Gentleman has just outlined in Scotland.

The OECD has today downgraded its growth predictions for the United Kingdom. The Government need to start acting on their rhetoric from before the general election. They said they would be pro-growth, but no policies have come forward to support our high streets or promote growth. The Government really should stop trying to kill our high streets.

15:05

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for calling this important debate and giving us a chance to raise issues on which we largely agree. Businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, the foundation of our communities and the building blocks of our country. I am proud to stand as a pro-business, pro-enterprise, pro-innovation Member of Parliament.

The changes introduced by the Government, notably in the autumn Budget, to reduce the retail, hospitality and leisure relief introduced by the previous Conservative Administration from 75% to 40% will decimate the support available to independent small businesses, and will undoubtedly lead to closures, higher prices for consumers and less footfall across our vibrant high streets and shopping centres, particularly in my constituency.

The examples that stand out for me in Fareham and Waterlooville include national retailers. Following the announcement in the Budget, Sainsbury’s in Waterlooville announced the closure of the café, as part of 3,000 job losses across the country. There is also the Canvas Printing Company, which stood proudly in Fareham high street for 16 years. It recently announced its closure, citing online shopping, reduced footfall and, particularly, business rates and staff costs as having contributed to that decision. Whether we are talking about a large business giving jobs and opportunities to local people to earn a living, or a small business where people have scrimped, saved and sacrificed for decades out of a passion to provide a service and generate revenue, those are devastating examples.

However, I want to talk about a larger project in my constituency: the regeneration of Waterlooville shopping centre. I am sure everybody here knows about Waterlooville, but for those who do not, its history is so rich. British soldiers returning from Waterloo are said to have stopped at an inn called The Heroes to celebrate their victory at that famous battle. Legend has it that many of those soldiers later settled in the area; it was originally called Waterloo, but to avoid confusion, it changed its name to Waterlooville. That is why we have a fantastic local pub called The Heroes, which stands proudly in Waterlooville. However, I should say that whether it is The Red Lion in Fareham, The Chairmakers in Denmead or our cherished Heroes in Waterlooville, our pubs are struggling under this Government as a result of the national insurance rise and the punitive changes to business rates.

We are working on the regeneration of Waterlooville shopping centre. The town has a proud history, and it is the largest town in the Havant borough council area, but it needs investment. There is a masterplan, and we are pleased to have welcomed new developers recently. On Wellington Way, for example, a company has refurbished the first floor for residential accommodation, and new commercial enterprises are going in on the ground floor. We have seen new companies, such as The Exchange, Babyccinos Play Café, Mini Town, Jolly Jellies and the dance school.

I recently visited the Waterlooville Business Association, which is thriving and working hard to bring a more visible brand to the area. We are urging Lib Dem-controlled Havant borough council to proceed swiftly with adoption of the masterplan. Businesses are waiting for it to be adopted, so that they can have the requisite level of confidence to bring investment to Waterlooville. I am sorry about the Government’s changes, but I will continue to champion the regeneration of Waterlooville shopping centre.

15:09

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson). He outlined the attractions of his constituency, and I will do something similar. There will then be a choice for everyone here: which is better? I jest—the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is lovely.

In a world of online convenience, the role of the high street is ever evolving, but the need to ensure that it is worth while for a business to retain a high street presence has remained. The fact is that the costs of energy, heating and lighting a premises, water and insurance—all those hidden costs—are rising and profit margins are steadily decreasing. The rise in national insurance contributions has put additional pressure on businesses that hire staff, which many can simply no longer stand.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. He is a very convivial man, and he never puts across his point of view in a way that offends anyone. I congratulate him on that, and I know that he will try to answer our questions on this issue. High street businesses and business relief are incredibly important.

I am very fortunate to have represented Strangford as an MP since 2010, as an MLA before that and, going back to 1985, as a councillor. I have seen many changes in the high street—lots of things happening and new businesses coming—but one of the cores we have is family businesses, which the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge referred to. I will mention some of them for the record. Wardens has been there for 125 years. We also have Knotts, another family business. We have local family butchers like Carnduff’s and Mawhinney’s, which have been there for the best part of my life, and local bakeries. The clothes shops are all family-owned. There are very few businesses like KFC and so on—those are all out of the town. The town centre is perhaps unique.

We are fortunate to have a number of restaurants and pubs. The Parlour pub and restaurant dates back to 1860—not many restaurants or pubs date back that far, but we have one. We also have Roma Hamill’s and Rice’s—again, family pubs and restaurants in the centre of town—and we have developed a coffee culture. There is only one thing we are missing in Conway Square in Newtownards, where everything looks idyllic: if the sun is there, Ms Jardine, you could be forgiven for thinking you were in the Mediterranean, but if it is not there, you might have a different opinion—as the rain belts down on you and reminds you that we are probably one of the wettest places in Europe.

I am thankful that businesses have evolved. Excel, for instance, has increased its online sales but committed to retaining its high street presence. That is the point I want to make. Older shop owners have moved on, and their families have decided it is no longer viable to have a shop on the high street and have gone online. Online is good, and I want to see it, but I want to have family businesses on the high street. Excel is a family business. Some 65% of their trade is online, but 35% is in the shop.

It has never been harder to have a shop. Bills are rising, and many in Northern Ireland cannot order things from the mainland. Retail NI has highlighted these concerns. It has said that increases in the cost of business in April are the perfect storm. Some 74% of Retail NI members indicate that they will reduce their number of employees, 86% say that they will cut back on their expansion plans and 96% say that more must be done to support local business and to deliver.

We need our local heart back, and the Minister is the perfect man to make sure we get it. We look forward, with expectation, to his answers and to hearing how he will ensure that our high streets are saved right across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

15:14

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this debate. It would be remiss of me not to mention my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman); as a rifleman, it is great to hear Waterlooville spoken about. The 95th Rifles fought there, and it was one of our battle honours. Every day is a training day.

This hugely important debate is relevant to every constituency up and down the country. I firmly believe that small businesses are the backbone of the UK economy. We must do as much as we can to release them from red tape and to reduce taxes, in order to see the great growth that will support our high streets.

After the autumn Budget, I set out across South Shropshire to speak to as many businesses as possible. I launched my small business campaign, which I was delighted to see Ludlow Nutrition win, and which showed me how much love there is for small businesses across the constituency. I recently held a roundtable with the chamber of commerce, which I thank for its work in bringing businesses together across the constituency to hear about the highs and lows and to hear what is working and what is not.

I wanted to go further, so I partnered with Love Bridgnorth and launched a local high street campaign. When it is finished, I will be delighted to share the results with the Minister so that he can see what local residents have said about high streets. What encourages them to come to the high street? What are the problems? What would they like to see from the Government? I have put those questions to thousands of people, and I look forward to seeing the results.

I want to talk about two core areas. One is retail shops on the high street, and the other is hospitality and local pubs, of which South Shropshire has some of the best. Local businesses are facing uncertainty because of the impact of the national insurance rise and the change to business tax. They are tending to do one of a few things: stopping recruiting, not investing in expansion to go for growth, or putting up prices, which can be inflationary. Those are all things that they do not want to be doing.

Earlier in the year, I got many of the local publicans together in Ludlow. The Minister has heard me talk about this before, but I really want to push Ludlow as the fine food capital of the country. The publicans told me what was working, what was not and what was hard. If Ludlow, with all its great pubs and its fine food festival, is struggling to make a profit, that is a concern. Some of those pubs have been trading for 20 years. They have the same footfall and the same turnover, or sometimes even more, but they cannot make a profit. It is not like covid or a financial crash; it is an ongoing situation that they are finding it exceptionally hard to deal with. They are not asking, “How do I survive?” They are saying, “I don’t know what the future looks like.”

I have spoken openly about how I have been teetotal for 13 years, because I used to drink way too much and had a problem with alcohol. So why am I talking about pubs? In South Shropshire, a constituency of 700 square miles, they are a lifeline. They are community assets. People would otherwise be sitting at home on their own come to them, because that is where their friendship groups are. They are a hub for much of our constituency. The other day, I enjoyed going to the George and Dragon at Much Wenlock. There is also the Mill at Leighton and great food at the Mytton & Mermaid in Atcham, where I have taken my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge before now.

I will not push my time limit, but I ask the Minister to look at reducing VAT to 12.5%, as we did through covid, to help out pubs and small businesses. I also ask the Government to reduce business rates back to 75% until we know what the new rates will look like.

15:18

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing the debate. I agree with nearly everything he said, with one notable exception: the constituency with the finest high streets is, of course, Bromley and Biggin Hill.

High streets matter. They are the economic heart of our cities, towns and villages, supporting local jobs and serving as a social hub for communities, as my right hon. Friend said. When they are in decline or struggling, communities feel it: not only are there fewer jobs and less cohesion locally, but there is a deep sense of loss. Shuttered shops and empty streets shatter civic pride. While too many communities have seen their local high streets decline, we avoided mass closure during the pandemic, thanks to generous public support.

Retail, hospitality and leisure relief, under which firms were initially offered 100% relief on business rates with a cap of up to £110,000, was one such pivotal measure. It was a lifeline for many businesses, and it remained a lifeline through the energy crisis and the subsequent inflation. Although it was intended as a temporary measure, that tax break remains crucial to the recovery of high streets and to local growth. It is not yet time to rapidly reduce it. That is why the Government’s decision to reduce the relief from 75% to 40% is a huge blow. The change effectively doubles the business rates bill for retail, hospitality and leisure firms, and it comes on top of the high energy costs and above-target inflation that are squeezing businesses.

In my constituency we are fortunate to have successful high streets, from Bromley town centre, which is home to more than 700 businesses and supports 20,000 jobs, to the smaller parades in Hayes, Biggin Hill, Coney Hall, Bickley and Keston. However, they remain under pressure from rising costs, inflation and high energy prices, and the same challenges are squeezing consumer spending. It is precisely the wrong time to rapidly reduce the business rates relief. For an independent pub in my constituency with a rateable value of £98,000, the changes to the relief and the increase in the standard multiplier will mean an increase of nearly £20,000 in its tax bill.

It is especially reckless because this is not the only Government policy with an impact on our high streets. In one swoop, Ministers have also hiked the minimum wage, created swathes of new employment red tape and introduced a substantial increase in national insurance contributions. The Government have mixed an expensive, anti-business cocktail for our high streets that few businesses can afford. It will mean fewer jobs, less investment and closures, at a time when we want to grow our local economies.

The Government’s boast at last year’s tax-hiking Budget was

“a penny off the pint”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 820.]

But behind that lacklustre announcement, they have not been honest about the collective impact of their policies, which are costing high street businesses an absolute fortune. If the Government are serious about securing investment and growing the economy, they need to rethink their decision to rapidly reduce this critical relief, before they hollow out Britain’s high streets and pull down the shutters for good.

15:22

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this important debate.

Our high street shops and pubs are at the heart of our communities, yet many are threatened by big increases in business rates. Our high street businesses are already contending with Labour’s new tax on jobs. The hike in national insurance makes it more expensive to employ someone who works in a shop or a pub on our high street. The Employment Rights Bill will further increase costs, hitting small businesses with new regulations that make it harder and more expensive to operate. In that context, the decision to cut the retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief from 75% to 40% is wrong.

I met recently with Mr Paul Davis of Styles Menswear in Bridgwater. His business rates have gone up from £3,000 a year to £9,000 a year. That new cost, before we can even consider Labour’s new jobs tax, puts his livelihood at risk. He will not be alone. Paul’s business has the double misfortune of being based in Eastover, where he has had to contend with extensive and lengthy roadworks. In Liberal Democrat-controlled Somerset, we have had a particular problem with various roadworks being scheduled at the same time and harming local businesses. It seems that the Liberal Democrats know little and care less about the damage that they are causing.

The roadworks in Eastover started in October with a partial road closure. As if that were not bad enough, the council then decided to impose a full road closure in January, which is now set to continue until at least September. Ironically, it is on the council’s “celebration mile” project, although to date there has been very little for local businesses to celebrate. The project has proved a hammer blow to many local businesses, which have seen footfall collapse: footfall in Bridgwater is down 400,000 in the past 12 months, mostly caused by the incompetent way in which Somerset council has handled the project.

I believe that those businesses deserve our support. Businesses disproportionately affected by council actions should have the right to claim rates relief. Will the Minister consider that proposal? The situation in Eastover is now desperate, and I fear that in the coming months we will see more shops and businesses closing their doors for good.

It seems that this Labour Government, with the able assistance of Liberal Democrat councillors in Somerset, are set on destroying those businesses. The truth is that, despite the Government’s claim to be going for growth, everything that they are doing appears designed to achieve the opposite. I say to the Minister, “Businesses in Bridgwater are suffering. They need your help now.”

[Mike Martin]

On a point of order, Ms Jardine. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is confused and in the wrong debate. This is a debate about business rates, but he spent his entire time talking about local government sequencing of traffic works.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

That is not a matter for me at the moment.

15:25

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson)—that’s the hardest bit of the speech out of the way now—on securing this important debate.

When we reflect on our communities, it is often our town centres that we think about. Whether it is our own communities, which many hon. Members have spoken about with great love, or others that we enjoy visiting, it is often the town centre at the heart of it that we truly love. However, the challenge that we have faced over recent years is the strange death of our town centres, whether that is a result of out-of-town shopping, online shopping or, more recently, the failure under the Conservatives to reform the business rates system. We now need the new Labour Government to step up to the mark and ensure that reform happens.

As many hon. Members have noted, it is clearly not just about business rates. The problem has been exacerbated by the national insurance hike, which has had a massive impact. Many businesses tell me that they are comfortable with the increase in the minimum wage, but the double whammy of national insurance hikes and the lowering of the levy has had a major impact on them. The worry for many Opposition Members, I am sure, is that the current Government see business as a cash cow. If they bleed the cow too much, it will die. That is a real challenge. I ask the Government to reflect on that.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about Hatchers department store in Taunton? It was founded in 1775, but because of the combined effects of the change in business rates and the revaluation, it has seen its business rates go up by 144% in one year.

[Steve Darling]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I congratulate him on coming from the glorious county of Somerset, where our Liberal Democrat colleagues have had to pick up the pieces after the disastrous Conservative-run council effectively ran it into the ground for many years.

[Sarah Dyke]

As my hon. Friend alluded to, the previous Conservative administration in Somerset was a disaster; indeed, it oversaw an irresponsible record six-year freeze on council tax. Does he agree that the Liberal Democrats in Somerset are now delivering a successfully run administration after a very difficult run of Conservative irresponsibility?

[Steve Darling]

My hon. Friend makes some very powerful points. In my experience, the Conservatives in county councils are more interested in painting the grass greener than in actually getting on and sorting out people’s services.

Back to the main point, we need to be reimagining our town centres. In my constituency of Torbay, a Merlin cinema has appeared where there used to be a department store, and there is an NHS diagnostic offer in our town centre. That reimagining of what the town centre should be about is essential. We have also seen a really popular new pool hall appear in the last few weeks. That is what we need to do to our town centres. Will the Minister do the right thing and undertake a root-and-branch reform of the system to drive the positive change that we want to see?

A couple of businesses have told me about their challenges. A photographer says that he sees no benefit in the doubling of the rates and has had to let a member of staff go due to the national insurance hike. Another business—a gaming café particularly for the LGBTQ community—told me that it is really challenged and is on a knife edge due to the business rates increase; it remains extremely worried.

The Liberal Democrats would like to see a commercial land value levy, which would ensure that we look at the value of the land rather than what is developed on the site. That would lead to a major rebalancing across the United Kingdom and significantly reduce land values in some of our more deprived communities, such as mine in Torbay, driving the productivity and regeneration in our town centres that we desperately need. The only saviour for the Labour Government would be growth in the economy, because that would get us out of the rut that we are in.

I would welcome any assurances the Minister can give us that we will have a root-and-branch reform of the system, rather than tinkering. An element of the Government’s scheme is a cap of £100,000 on what chains pay, and I fear that the books will be balanced on the backs of the poorer independents in our town centres.

15:32

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this important debate. I would thank Members from across the House for their contributions, but one main party has failed to show up—apart from the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, of course.

High street businesses are not just shops, restaurants, pubs, banks and other firms; they represent jobs and investment, but above all they represent identity and a sense of place. Business rates have long been a source of concern for retail firms. That is inherent in their nature as a fixed cost that does not flex to profitability, business cycles or sales.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) spoke of his direct experience as a retailer. There is a case for reform but, as with everything—particularly with this topic—the devil is in the detail. The action that the Government have chosen to take means that shops and others will pay higher bills this year. That comes with consequences, and hon. Members have set out what has happened in their constituencies.

When we were in government, we understood the value of our high streets. That is why we doubled the small business rates relief to £15,000 and almost trebled higher-rate relief to £51,000. That took a third of properties out of business rates completely. We also provided long- term support through things such as the towns fund and the long-term plan for towns, which King’s Lynn in my constituency is benefiting from; it is making a difference.

Of course, in 2021 retail relief was set at 100% to reflect the realities and extraordinary pressures of the covid restrictions. In 2022, retail, hospitality and leisure properties were eligible for a 50% discount, and that was increased in 2023 to 75%—a tax cut worth £2.4 billion, which was then extended to 2024. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge rightly said, that was to help the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors adjust and continue to recover.

That approach is a far cry from the 40% discount that the Government are offering now, almost doubling bills. The Exchequer Secretary was talked up by my right hon. Friend, and if he has his backing he is sure to go far. He is a consistent man, so he will likely claim that there are no plans to extend the 75% relief. However, if people look at our track record, they will see that we consistently provided relief and backed our high streets, and we would have continued to do so—I and my hon. Friends would have made sure of that.

The Government’s decision to cut relief from 75% to 40% will leave many high street businesses facing increased costs. Some 250,000 businesses will be worse off, to the tune of £925 million. According to the British Independent Retailers Association, a shop with a rateable value of £60,000 will pay nearly £20,000 this year, up from only £8,000 in 2024. The average pub will have to pay £5,500 more annually. As we have heard, pubs are at the heart of our communities. Kate Nicholls, the chief executive of UKHospitality, has said that when Wales reduced relief to 40%, closures in Wales were a third higher than they were in England.

Any Member who talks to businesses every week, as I do, will know how difficult things are out there due to the choice that this Government have made to increase costs for our high streets. Under the Government’s plans, from next year there will be higher business rates for properties over £500,000. That will not only hit online retailers. The British Retail Consortium has expressed concerns that it will hit 4,000 larger stores in England, many of which are the anchor stores on high streets that help to drive footfall and support nearby businesses—more unintended consequences from this Government.

As we have heard, high streets and local businesses are indispensable to our economy. Retail alone comprises 5% of GDP, providing 3 million jobs directly and 2.7 million more in the supply chain. Hospitality is the third largest employer in the UK, with 3.5 million people working in the sector, and it contributes £93 billion annually to the economy. Beyond their economic value, high street businesses form the heart of local communities, providing accessible services and so much more.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating Robin’s Nest coffee shop in my constituency, which has just celebrated its first birthday. In the year that the shop has been open, its owners have seen their business rates double, and they have written to me to say that they might not make it to their second birthday. Does he agree that business rate reform cannot come soon enough and that it would be a crying shame to lose such high street businesses?

[James Wild]

Absolutely. That is the sort of risk taking and job creation that we want to see across all our constituencies around the country, and it is that opportunity that the Government are crushing through their decisions.

The hon. Lady’s example illustrates that the impact of these changes is already being felt, but we have been warned that worse is to come. The British Property Federation has found that business rates changes could cause a £2.3 billion hit to the economy, jeopardising 20,000 jobs. When businesses face higher costs, the alternatives open to them are higher prices, job losses or closures—boarded-up shops become inevitable—and young people and, in particular, part-time workers lose out on opportunities as a result.

The Local Government Association has also raised concerns about the financial impact that these reforms could have on local councils. It has urged the Government to introduce a transitional mechanism to ensure that local council services are not put at risk. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond directly to the LGA’s concerns.

Sadly, these are not stand-alone reforms; they come on top of the £25 billion jobs tax; the Employment Rights Bill, which will add £5 billion a year to costs; and the family farm tax and business tax. As if it were playing a game of Buckaroo!, Labour is loading cost after cost on to businesses and there will be a reaction. Half the major retailers surveyed by the British Retail Consortium said that the Employment Rights Bill will lead to job cuts. How does the Minister expect companies to absorb these much higher costs on top of business rates and higher national insurance?

Last month, the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), visited Beales, which was holding a “Rachel Reeves closing down sale” as it wound down its business after more than 140 years. That is just one of 200,000 businesses that have closed under this Government.

The future of our high streets should be a priority for any Government. Policies should be designed to help them to thrive, rather than burdening entrepreneurs and job creators. Extraordinarily, the Prime Minister said earlier this week:

“I don’t think you can tax your way to growth.”

Yet that is precisely what the Government have done with the £25 billion jobs tax. They are choking growth, costing jobs and hitting businesses that our communities rely on.

Before the election, the Labour party promised that it would scrap business rates completely. In power, it simply ditched that pledge—another broken promise. It is little wonder the British Independent Retailers Association said:

“For all the government’s rhetoric about supporting small businesses and revitalising high streets, their actions do precisely the opposite.”

It is time for the Government to start listening to businesses and change course.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister, James Murray.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

15:39

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank hon. Members for their warm welcome.

I want to extend my thanks, as many others have, to the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this debate—and, indeed, for his kind words about how I am doing my job. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for bringing perspectives from their constituencies to it. Although we have had a fair dose of politics, there have also, in fine Westminster Hall tradition, been moments of cross-party agreement and a desire to find a way forward to support high streets in all our constituencies.

As Members of this place, we all know how important high streets are to our constituents as centres of economic activity and places where people come together. I was glad to hear healthy competition in the claims about who has the best high street and local pubs in their constituency. [Interruption.] I am seeing further bids from the other side of the room. We all know as MPs, and indeed as members of the public in our own right, how high streets unite people. They sustain jobs and are central to the identity of the areas that we represent. That is why the Government are protecting the high street by transforming the business rates system so that it supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. I welcome this opportunity to set out our approach to making that transformation a reality.

As many hon. Members have said, retail, hospitality and leisure businesses are the backbone of our high streets—our shops, pubs and cinemas—but they are contending with changing consumer habits and have faced a series of economic headwinds in recent years, including the pandemic. Online services are undeniably convenient and offer great variety, but it is high streets that bring people together. The problem, as many hon. Members have set out, is that business rates fall more heavily on property-intensive sectors, so it is a priority for the Government to ensure that the burden is permanently rebalanced and that high street businesses are protected.

We inherited a situation in which protection for high street businesses through retail, hospitality and leisure relief was set to end altogether in April this year. That continued a pattern that had become normal under the previous Government; ratepayers would rightly complain that the fact that RHL relief ended every year by default created an annual cliff edge for RHL businesses. What was supposed to be a temporary, stopgap measure was extended year by year following the pandemic by Conservative Governments, who made no attempt to fix the system and give businesses the certainty and stability they need.

That is why at last year’s autumn Budget we announced our intention to change how this is done, by introducing permanently lower tax rates for RHL properties with rateable values below £500,000 from 2026-27. That will give much needed certainty and support to the high street, improving investment and growth in places across England. We intend to introduce two lower RHL multipliers to mirror the existing national small business and standard multipliers. The new small business RHL multiplier will apply to RHL properties with rateable values below £51,000, and the new standard RHL multiplier will apply to RHL properties with rateable values of £51,000 and above, and below £500,000. Those lower multipliers will apply to all RHL properties with rateable values below £500,000. We will have no cash cap per business as the previous Government’s relief had, meaning that all relevant properties will be able to benefit from our approach.

Under our Government, any tax cut must be paid for. We saw what happened when the previous Government ignored that rule. That is why we intend to fund this tax cut by introducing a higher rate for properties with rateable values of £500,000 and above. Those properties represent less than 1% of all properties, but include the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by the online giants.

The Government recognise that business rates form a significant part of the costs of some businesses, but we must make difficult choices to ensure that our plans to support the high street are sustainable. That is why we are asking those occupying the most valuable properties to contribute more to support the vitality of the high street.

The rates for new multipliers will be set at the Budget 2025, so that the Government can factor in the upcoming revaluation outcomes and broader economic and fiscal contexts into the decision making. The Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2025 gives Government flexibility in the creation of the new multipliers and their rates within appropriate guardrails, so that the Government do not have unfettered powers. The rate for any higher multiplier cannot be more than 10p higher than the national standard multiplier, while the lower RHL multipliers cannot be less than 20p lower than the national small business multiplier. I emphasise to Members that those are only guardrails, not the intended rates, and the final decisions on the multipliers will be made at Budget in the autumn.

The Government recognise that RHL businesses need support in 2025-26, ahead of the permanently lower tax rates being introduced for 2026-27. Hon. Members today have spoken about the impact of changes to RHL relief on high street businesses in their constituencies, but it is worth emphasising again that without any Government intervention, RHL relief would have ended entirely in April 2025. To avoid that happening, our Government decided to provide a 40% business rates discount to RHL properties up to the cash cap of £110,000 per business in 2025-26.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Will the Minister assure us that, given the cross-party agreement in the Chamber today, he will go back to the Treasury and make representations to see if that could be increased to 75% for the intervening year? It would be a great relief not just on finances but on the mental worry of so many businesses if they knew that someone in the Treasury was battling for the return of that 75% relief.

[James Murray]

The permanently lower tax rates will come in in April 2026, so the intervening year is the year that we are currently in. That rate has been set by the Chancellor. The Chancellor makes announcements about rates at fiscal events. The autumn Budget is where she sets out those rates, in the same way that she agreed, at the autumn Budget last year, what the rate would be for RHL relief for the current year, 2025-26. At the autumn Budget this year, she will set out what the permanently lower rates will be thereafter. I would say to businesses looking at their finances this year that from April ’26—from the next financial year—the permanently lower rates will come in. Indeed, it will benefit a broader variety of shops on the high streets, because we are not continuing the cash cap of £110,000 per business.

[Mr Mohindra]

One of the likely consequences of the Minister’s proposals is that tenants will look to change their rateable value. Can he assure the House that the Valuation Office Agency will have sufficient resources to ensure that any appeals are done as quickly as possible to give the certainty that our high street retailers and hospitality deserve?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of the VOA. Its performance is very important for businesses across the country. I am sure that he will have seen our recent announcement that, this year, we are bringing the VOA into His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, rather than it being an arm’s length body. Part of that is to save on administration costs—to protect the public finances—but it is also to ensure that we can work with it to improve its service as much as possible, to give the best and quickest possible service to businesses involved. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that VOA performance is very high on our agenda.

Hon. Members raised the impact of RHL relief on pubs, which is understandable, given the particular importance of pubs in all our local communities. Indeed, we had a competition for who has the best pub in their constituency. I will just about resist the temptation to list the pubs in my constituency, as I am here as a Minister rather than with my constituency hat on, but hon. Members should pop into the Duke of Kent if they are ever in Ealing North. To put this in context, the extension of RHL relief for this year under this Government is saving the average pub with a rateable value of £16,800 more than £3,300. That is a real, meaningful difference to pubs across the country. The Government have, of course, frozen the small business multiplier for this year as well. Taken together with small business rates relief, more than 1 million properties have been protected from inflationary increases in their bills this year.

Some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, have argued that the RHL relief in this year should be higher. However, given the Government’s fiscal inheritance, it was not fiscally sustainable to continue the 75% relief, which cost £2.4 billion a year. Crucially, to repeat remarks I have made several times now, our approach from April 2026 will mean no more use of an indefinite stopgap measure. Our approach will instead offer permanently lower tax rates and the stability that those bring for businesses.

The Budget announcements and the changes I have just described reflect the Government’s first steps to support the high street. We want to go further, and modernise the business rates system. At the autumn Budget last year, the Chancellor therefore announced the publication of a discussion paper that sets out priority areas for reform.

[Suella Braverman]

The Minister says that he cannot afford the £2 billion price tag of maintaining the relief introduced by the last Conservative Government. How, then, is he paying for the £30 billion surrender deal in which this Government are giving up sovereign territory, the Chagos islands, to Mauritius?

[James Murray]

I would challenge the right hon. and learned Lady’s use of language, but that issue is rather outside the scope of a debate on business rates.

As I was saying, we published a discussion paper at the Budget last year, which invited the industry to help us to design a fairer business rates system that supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. Since publishing the paper last autumn, my officials and I have met more than 250 stakeholders across a range of sectors, including RHL and local government, and have received submissions from a range of businesses, including those from the constituencies of hon. Members present today. We are analysing the responses in detail, and the data and views shared by businesses will inform the business rates policy development process. In the summer, we will publish an interim report that sets out a clear direction of travel for the business rates system, with further policy detail to follow at the autumn Budget 2025.

It is worth my briefly drawing hon. Members’ attention to the fact that, beyond the business rates system, the Government are taking other steps to rejuvenate our high streets. We are introducing high street rental auctions to revitalise our high streets and tackle empty properties, which we know can fuel a spiral of decline in town centres. Through the English devolution Bill, the Government will introduce a new community right to buy to help communities to safeguard valued community assets. That will empower local communities to bring assets such as empty shops, pubs and community spaces into community ownership, helping to revitalise our high streets and eliminate vacant properties.

Alongside that, the new £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods programme will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade to 75 communities across the UK, laying the foundation to kick-start local growth and drive up living standards. As part of the programme, local partnerships will be able to fund interventions focused on revitalising high streets. The Government will announce further plans to support high streets in the small business strategy later this year.

As we have heard, hon. Members are rightly concerned about the high streets in their constituencies. We are all passionate about the places where we live and that we represent, and we want them to thrive. As I have set out, the business rates system that this Government inherited has been failing to give high streets the long-term, certain and stable support they need, instead providing only stopgap help through RHL relief that has kept changing and has been repeatedly extended ahead of an annual cliff edge.

This Government are fixing the foundations of the business rates system, and that starts with permanently rebalancing the burden of RHL properties through introducing permanently lower tax rates from 2026-27.

[Stuart Anderson]

I really like the idea of permanently lower tax rates. Can the Minister confirm that that is for all businesses, and that no businesses will receive tax rises?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I set out, the new lower multipliers of RHL properties will apply to all RHL properties with rateable values below £500,000. There will be a standard RHL multiplier and a small RHL multiplier for properties with rateable values of £51,000 and below. The definition of an RHL property will broadly follow the definition by which RHL relief is currently allocated. That will be set out in guidance, but hon. Members can expect that to operate in a similar way.

The advantage of our approach of permanently lower tax rates and multipliers is that they do not have a cap in the way that the previous Government’s relief did, of £110,000 per business. All properties within the RHL definition with rateable values of less than £500,000 will be able to benefit from this support, helping all the shops that contribute towards high streets across the country.

Beyond the changes to the RHL multipliers, I have also had the chance to set out some of the wider work that we are undertaking to transform business rates over the course of this Parliament and create a fairer, modernised system that is fit for the 21st century. I thank the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge and all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.

15:55

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

A lot of businesses will be worried that when they get rates bills in the future, even under a reformed system, that bill will have not gone down, but actually gone up. I thank the Minister for his comments, but there is a real worry that the Treasury will end up trying to balance the books on the backs of small and family businesses. I urge the Minister to do what he can, because these businesses are the engines of our economy. They are where the jobs are created and where so many young people will get their first opportunity. I urge him to do everything he can to protect opportunities for the future and their ability to create jobs and wealth, because the people who are running these businesses are working people as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of changes to business rates relief on high street businesses.

15:56

Sitting suspended.

Prosecutions for Violence against Women and Girls: West Midlands

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

14:30

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. Before I call the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West, I remind hon. Members that they should not refer to any court cases that are currently active and are therefore sub judice. Hon. Members will also want to be careful about raising matters that might prejudice ongoing police investigations or a future court case. I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West for his courtesy in consulting with the Table Office prior to the debate.

16:01

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for prosecutions relating to violence against women and girls in the West Midlands. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Justice Committee, and my wife is a senior Crown prosecutor in the west midlands dealing with rape and serious sexual offences cases. Violence against women and girls is a global problem and remains one of the gravest social challenges that we face. In the United Kingdom, offences involving violence against women and girls account for approximately 20% of all police-recorded crime.

Although it is undoubtedly a national crisis, the problem is particularly acute in the west midlands. In the year ending March 2023, West Midlands police recorded more than 81,000 domestic abuse-related crimes, which is the highest rate across all police forces in England and Wales. In my constituency of Wolverhampton West, violence and sexual offences have consistently represented the most reported crimes over the last three years, totalling to more than double that of the next highest category. Across the west midlands, an incident of violence against a woman or girl is reported every 30 seconds.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree that with a call to police every 30 seconds—that is over 100 people reporting domestic abuse every hour—more resources need to be given to the police? Given that under 3% are convicted of rape or sexual assault, more time needs to be given to investigate, these perpetrators need to be held accountable and tougher sentences need to be given.

[Warinder Juss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was about to say that I was so shocked to hear the statistic I just cited that I had to ask my parliamentary assistant to check the figure again, because I could not accept that it was so high.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing the issue forward. I spoke to him beforehand to seek his permission to back up the evidence base that he is putting forward so clearly. This is happening not just in Wolverhampton West, but all over the United Kingdom. For example, Ulster University did research in Northern Ireland that said that 21.4% of women who experienced violence reported it to the police, and, further, 77.4% of those who did report found the response unhelpful. There is a clear, huge issue of under-reporting and women must feel that they will be taken seriously. Does the hon. Member agree—I am sure he will—that the police have a lot more to do to reassure women who are subjected to violence and sexual abuse?

[Warinder Juss]

I agree with the hon. Member. It is quite surprising that, despite the scale of the crisis, fewer than 40% of women and girls who have suffered violence actually seek help, and even when they do, the outcomes are consistently inadequate.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and Black Country colleague on securing this important debate. The Office for National Statistics reports that it takes 158 days from the police referring a rape case to the Crown Prosecution Service to the CPS authorising the charge. That compares to 46 days for other crime. Does my hon. Friend agree that urgent reform is essential for victims to get the justice that they truly deserve?

[Warinder Juss]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and as I go through my speech, her question will be answered in more detail.

In the west midlands, the police recorded 7,744 reports of rape or sexual assault, yet only 217 actually resulted in either a charge or a conviction. That is a charge or conviction rate of just 2.8%, which is clearly unacceptable. The court backlog for adult rape cases in the UK is at a record high, with more than 3,500 individuals awaiting trial. Each case represents a survivor still waiting for justice, unable to move on with their lives and begin any healing process. If justice delayed is justice denied, we are consistently allowing our court system to deny justice.

I am pleased that this Government have begun to take significant steps to transform the policing response to these heinous crimes. That includes announcing Raneem’s law, which will see domestic abuse specialists placed in 999 control rooms, together with the roll out of new domestic abuse protection orders, with independent legal advocates for rape victims to be rolled out next year.

However, delays in our court system can expose victims to the risk of further harm. One of my constituents, who had suffered several incidents of domestic violence, had to repeatedly chase for an extension to her domestic abuse protection order because there were delays in the court providing a non-molestation order to protect her from contract from her ex-partner. That resulted in her having to move from her home, and she felt completely let down by the whole system.

It has to be said that the legacy of chronic underfunding left by the previous Government has sent our justice system into crisis. Between 2010 and 2023, the justice budget for England and Wales fell by 22% in real terms, and since 2010, 43% of our courts were closed. That mess was unfortunately left by the previous Government for this Government to clear up.

The average time it takes for an adult rape case to make the full journey from report and investigation to a verdict is over six years. In early 2024, 61% of police investigations into rape and sexual assault were closed because the victim withdrew their complaint. Last year, more than 280 rape prosecutions collapsed because the victims pulled out after a charge was laid. Even when victims choose to go ahead with the trial, 21% of rape trials are postponed at the last minute.

As a former lawyer, I have to say that one of the problems with the justice system is a critical shortage of legal professionals. The Criminal Bar Association recently reported that 64% of prosecuting barristers and 66% of defence barristers are unlikely to reapply to go on to the lists to be instructed for RASSO cases because of poor legal aid fees and the impact that these cases have had on their wellbeing. In 2023, 139 sex offence trials were postponed because there was no prosecution barrister, and a further 113 were postponed because there was no defence counsel.

One in four trials now does not go ahead as scheduled. That is totally unacceptable; survivors are being left in limbo as trials are delayed by months or even years, and cases are increasingly abandoned, destroying victim confidence in our justice system and fundamentally undermining the rule of law.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. In my constituency we have high levels of deprivation and crime, especially domestic violence, rape and sexual assault. Talking about the criminal justice system, I know as a member of the Bar and a criminal defence barrister that a lot of young wannabe barristers are deciding to go to other professions purely because the funding is not there. Does the hon. Member agree that there is no point having extra court sitting days without the support mechanisms of lawyers? What more could the Government do to support that?

[Warinder Juss]

I agree, and I will go on to mention some of the steps that the Government are taking.

There has been a recent surge in the volume and complexity of cases coming before the Crown court, which has further contributed to the backlog. We see more of those cases coming through at the highest level since 2014. The guilty plea rate for rape cases sits at just 15% on average, compared with 66% across all other crimes. That means that rape cases are harder to prepare for and more time-consuming for victims and lawyers. I am pleased that West Midlands police have taken the initiative of having a violence against women and girls strategy that rightly places justice at the heart of its mission, prioritising investigation and evidence.

To answer the question put by the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), the Government have provided additional funding of £24 million for criminal legal aid and an extra £92 million annually for criminal legal aid solicitors. They have also increased magistrates’ sentencing powers, in addition to a new commitment to increase Crown court sitting days, which are all positive steps. Following the sentencing review and as part of the Government’s safer streets mission, there will now be increased tagging for perpetrators of violence against women and girls. I also welcome the Government’s drive to recruit approximately 1,000 judges.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for holding this important debate. Research from Greater Manchester shows that women and girls who have experienced abuse are likely to face multiple disadvantages, such as living in poverty, homelessness, mental illness or addiction, which adds complication in accessing the correct services. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must better understand the multiple disadvantages and needs of survivors to improve confidence and trust in the policing of this violence?

[Warinder Juss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and note his point. We need to ensure that the justice system is there for everyone, regardless of circumstances.

As I was saying, the Government have started a drive to recruit approximately 1,000 judges and tribunal members across all jurisdictions annually. There are 16 Nightingale courtrooms across seven venues being used to hear cases. The Crown Prosecution Service launched a domestic abuse joint justice plan in November last year to improve the working relationship between the police and the CPS, which will hopefully have an impact. It has resulted in a 7% increase in the volume of prosecutions and a 12% increase in convictions for domestic abuse in the west midlands.

The CPS commitment to improve communication and support for victims through the victim transformation programme is a positive step forward. It means that there will be a dedicated victim liaison officer in every RASSO team, with the offer made to meet the victim before the trial to answer questions.

We need to go further. The Labour election manifesto committed to establishing specialist courts for rape and serious sexual offences at every Crown court location in England and Wales, in order to fast-track rape cases. While we eagerly await the Leveson review of the criminal courts, I hope that that commitment can be delivered as soon as possible. By introducing other measures such as having separate waiting areas in court buildings and improving the submission of evidence remotely, we can offer victims the dignity, support and reassurance they deserve during what is often an incredibly distressing process.

We also need a dedicated, adequately funded cohort of specialist lawyers supported through ringfenced legal aid funding, better remuneration, and appropriate wellbeing and mental health support for those working in the most distressing and complex situations. Above all, we must centre victims in every aspect of the system. That means having access to sexual violence advisers and domestic abuse advocates to ensure that survivors are guided and supported as they travel through the legal process, so that they have proper access to justice.

Justice for women and girls simply cannot wait. If we are serious about tackling violence against women and girls, we must overhaul our broken justice system with urgency and compassion. Everyone in our society deserves the support and opportunity they need to secure the justice they deserve.

16:15

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for securing this debate. I am aware of his extensive knowledge of and passion for this subject.

Violence against women and girls is a national emergency, rather than the inevitability that previous Governments treated it as. We are sick and tired of seeing women and girls facing the same threats of violence and abuse, generation after generation. I wholeheartedly support this Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls, but that can happen only if the Government support police forces and the criminal justice system to prosecute perpetrators.

In 2021, Warwickshire police had the lowest rape conviction rate in the country. Fewer than 2% of reported rapes ended with a charge, and just 1.3% led to a conviction. In 2025, Warwickshire police became the best performing police force in the country for charging cases of adult rape. Its charge rate is now 13.4%, compared with a national average of 7.1%. But let us face it: conviction rates are still woeful and would not be tolerated for any other offence.

Let us look at what Warwickshire police changed, in the hope that other forces will adopt the measures and move in the right direction. It created a dedicated team of detectives investigating only rape and high-risk domestic abuse, trained frontline officers to respond to reports of rape, and involved the Crown Prosecution Service early in investigations to ensure a joint approach. The importance of the change in charge rates, from 2% to over 13%, cannot be overestimated. There is rarely an opportunity to talk about hope when discussing violence against women and girls, but the fact that Warwickshire police’s transformation was accomplished in less than five years gives me hope for victims.

Of course, a national average charge rate of 7% is still shockingly low. Women are not safe in a society in which more than 90% of rapes reported to the police go without charge. How are women meant to feel confident in the criminal justice system? I thank the Government for the action they have taken so far, with new measures to tackle stalking and introduce Raneem’s law. I truly believe that we can halve violence against women and girls if we treat it as the national emergency it is. I hope that the example of Warwickshire police demonstrates that this is a possibility. We have a very long way to go, but I believe that ending violence against women and girls is a priority of this Government.

16:18

[The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for securing this important debate, and indeed for contextualising its seriousness in our minds with his informative and very insightful opening remarks. He highlighted the gravity of violence against women and girls. I also extend my thanks to those who have contributed to this debate.

This Government were elected with a landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, and we have been explicit in our prioritisation of tackling this deeply harmful form of offending. We have heard clearly in this debate about the wider issues in the criminal justice system, including the record court backlog and counsel shortages that we inherited from the previous Government. To effectively reduce violence against women and girls, it is important to apply a regional lens that takes into account the nuances specific to different areas across our country, as we are doing today. I am particularly aware of the challenges that my hon. Friend raises when it comes to the west midlands, for reasons I will go into.

As my hon. Friend said, and as other hon. Members have made clear, the Crown Prosecution Service plays a vital role in helping to deliver this Government’s VAWG mission, through the prosecution of offenders and by securing justice for victims. As Solicitor General, it is my role to guard the CPS’s prosecutorial independence, so that it is wholly free to prosecute offences independently of any interference. It is also my duty to help to ensure that the CPS is delivering on our agenda to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.

I will talk briefly about the specific actions that the CPS is taking in the west midlands, before I go on to cover, again relatively briefly, Government action on VAWG more broadly. The CPS has invested extensively in improving its response to VAWG through a number of initiatives, the impact of which is already visible in the west midlands. I recently met with Siobhan Blake, who is the chief Crown prosecutor and head of CPS West Midlands, as well as CPS national lead on rape and serious sexual offences, to discuss exactly that. I will see her again on Friday this week.

Last year, CPS West Midlands rolled out the joint national action plan and complementary national operating models with policing to improve outcomes for victims of rape. The impact of that is visible in the west midlands, where there has been an increase in the volume of adult rape-flagged cases resulting in a charge. In 2022-23, there were 168 charges for adult rape-flagged cases in the west midlands, and in 2023-24, there were 204 charges. In the rolling year to date, we are again seeing increases.

Although we are pleased to see more cases in the system, this clearly has a knock-on effect on caseloads, which have grown significantly in recent years, despite the CPS increasing resourcing in its RASSO units by around 100 prosecutors over the past five years. I am personally aware of the pressure that this can place on staff, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West will be aware of that, too. The CPS national operating model has provided the framework to respond to this workload issue, and includes a wellbeing offer for all RASSO staff to ensure that they get the support they need.

I have talked about rape, but I turn now to domestic abuse. The CPS launched the joint justice plan, which similarly focuses on improving working relationships between police and Crown prosecutors. Just weeks ago, West Midlands police and the local CPS met to continue discussing this shared commitment to better joint working, and again the impact on local performance is already visible. In the west midlands, the plan has led to a 7% increase in the volume of domestic abuse-flagged prosecutions, and from quarter 2 to quarter 3 2024-25, there was a 12% increase in convictions.

Timeliness is a key priority under the joint justice plan, as we recognise the importance of domestic abuse victims and their families being able to get their lives back on track, without a trial and its associated pressures, as quickly as possible. The CPS continues to look for innovative ways to improve timeliness. A pilot is now under way across three CPS areas to improve the timeliness of investigations and the efficiency of charging decisions in domestic abuse cases. The impact of that is being monitored closely.

I want to explicitly acknowledge honour-based abuse. The CPS held a multi-agency conference in Birmingham—the very first of its kind—that I attended alongside the Minister for safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). We engaged directly with local and national groups to set clear directions for combating these extremely harmful practices. At the conference, I shared my experience of overturning an unduly lenient sentence of a perpetrator in the east midlands—the first person in the country to be convicted of conspiracy to commit female genital mutilation. Having reviewed the facts of the case, I referred it to the Court of Appeal, which then increased the offender’s sentence to a total of seven years.

The CPS’s ongoing work across different aspects of violence against women and girls will be unified through its forthcoming VAWG strategy, which is to be launched internally. Work has already begun to deliver that activity from 2025 through to 2030. Our cross-Government VAWG strategy will set out the blueprint for halving VAWG, encompassing prevention, early intervention, responding to offences and supporting victims.

Prevention and education are fundamental to this approach, and we will tackle those crimes at their root, including by supporting our education system to teach children about respectful and healthy relationships and consent. I am especially dedicated to that as a member of the Government’s Young Futures board, chaired by the Department for Education, where I have raised the growing prevalence of child perpetrators in sexual offences. Our cross-Government strategy will unify work to address offending that disproportionately impacts women and girls, together with the existing changes that the Government are driving to strengthen the law and the criminal justice system to improve the prosecution of these crimes.

In the limited time I have left, I want to focus specifically on victims and the work being led across Government by some of my esteemed colleagues, such as the Minister for safeguarding and the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice—both are Members for the west midlands.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West rightly pointed out, earlier this year, West Midlands police became one of five forces to pilot Raneem’s law—a new Government-led initiative established in memory of Raneem Oudeh and her mother, who were murdered by Raneem’s ex-husband. It embeds domestic abuse specialists within 999 control rooms, who will be on hand to provide expert advice, specialist support and to identify missed opportunities to properly safeguard victims.

Last year, pilots of new domestic abuse protection orders began in three police forces, enabling them to provide longer-term protection for victims. There have since been multiple convictions for breaches of those orders, with some perpetrators already behind bars. We are also taking action on stalking by extending the reach of stalking protection orders so that they can be imposed by the courts upon conviction as well as acquittal. That will be backed by other measures, including statutory guidance to empower the police to release the identities of online stalkers, and conducting a wider review of stalking legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Those are just some of the actions being taken by the Government to help protect women and girls from violence and abuse, and to deliver on our commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.

I should say, in closing, that it is very important to be frank, as all contributors to this debate have been, about the challenges facing the criminal justice system. Court backlogs across the country, after a lack of action by the previous Government, mean that victims are waiting far too long to see justice, which is leading to rising levels of attrition when it comes to victims, as has been adequately covered.

We must strain every sinew to improve victim support. It is important that we respect victims’ wishes, and we must also ensure that, where they feel able to, victims remain engaged in the criminal justice process. Ultimately, our success will be measured by more victims coming forward and a sustained reduction in VAWG offending. To achieve that, we need more reporting, more cases being seen through to trial, better support for victims and improved public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Swimming Facilities

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for swimming facilities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am very pleased to have secured this important debate on Government support for swimming facilities. I will start with the importance of swimming and public facilities, and then move on to the responsibility for maintaining those facilities, as well as some of the challenges faced by providers and operators. I will then finish with the support that has been received historically, and with my asks and considerations for the Government.

Swimming remains one of the most popular activities in England, with around 12.5 million adults going swimming each year—that is around 27% of the population. Participation levels are higher than for hockey, football, rugby and tennis combined. Seventy-two per cent of schools use public pools to deliver their statutory responsibility for learning to swim, and 85% of young people learn to swim in a public pool, with almost 2 million children learning to swim outside school through Swim England’s “Learn to Swim” programme each year. Seventy-five per cent of grassroots sports clubs use leisure facilities to deliver social and sporting opportunities to communities. And 66% of NHS cancer rehabilitation services take place in leisure facilities. Swimming helps to save our NHS around £357 million a year. The number of people with a limiting health condition or disability taking to the pool has grown from 15% two years ago to 24% more recently.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on an issue that affects so many of our constituents. I recently gave medals to members of Larkfield swimming club in my constituency, and it was obvious that swimming is helping the health and fitness of so many young people, as well as teaching life lessons of leadership, teamwork, discipline, respect, how to win and how to lose. It was the club and the swimming—it all helped. Does my hon. Friend agree that swimming is a force for good, and that it is very important for our local authorities to be aware of the major benefits for mental health and physical health? They need to support the funding of these facilities.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree that swimming is hugely important for young people and for the mental and physical health of the nation, for all these different reasons. We rely heavily on local authorities for ensuring that these facilities remain open to the public and, crucially, accessible to less well-off people.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. I learned to swim as a boy at Tain Royal Academy in my hometown of Tain. A new school is being built, and the old school, complete with its pool, will be shut shortly. Alas, plans have fallen through to build a new pool, so my hometown could be without a swimming pool for at least a year.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in Scotland as much as in England and Wales, it is crucial that local authorities get to grips with this? For my community to be without a swimming pool for that length of time is a joke, and it has upset people massively.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sadly, his town will not be the only town in the United Kingdom with a pool unavailable for a period of time or possibly forever. I agree that local authorities across the United Kingdom have responsibility, but I also believe the Government have some responsibility to support local councils.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and he is being very generous with his time. My constituency has six swimming pools. Much has been made of the health benefits, but does my hon. Friend agree that, for those of us who represent coastal communities or constituencies with large rivers, being able to swim is an important life skill?

[Joe Robertson]

Absolutely. I also have a coastal constituency, and swimming is a life skill that, one day, someone may rely on to save a life. I agree with my hon. Friend on that.

Councils are generally responsible for supporting the provision of both formal and informal opportunities for communities to be active. They spend £1.4 billion a year on sport, leisure, green spaces, parks and playgrounds, making local government the biggest public funder of sport and leisure services. Local government is directly responsible for 2,727 public leisure facilities, including almost 900 swimming pools. There are 4,000 more pools in England controlled or provided by other operators.

The sport and leisure infrastructure provided by councils is relied on by residents, schools and voluntary sector organisations, none of which could provide their assistance without public swimming facilities. I acknowledge the work of the Swimming Alliance, which is a collaborative group of more than 25 leading national organisations united to address the urgent and systemic challenges facing swimming participation. I will come on to the challenges that swimming facilities are facing.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend comes on to those challenges—and I am mindful of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont)—can he tell us whether he is as disturbed as I am by the increasing number of tragic events in which people drown as a result of not being able to swim? There were more deaths in the last four years than there were previously, and most of those deaths were among young people. Learning to swim is more than recreation; it is something vital. I am delighted that a Conservative Member has secured this debate, but Members across this Chamber are of one mind on this matter.

[Joe Robertson]

The statistic provided by my right hon. Friend could get worse if the number of public swimming facilities declines any further, because of that lack of swimming skills. It seems fairly obvious that, if someone is in trouble in the water, their best chance of surviving is if there is somebody nearby who can swim.

Two of the biggest costs for swimming facilities are energy and staffing, and the cost of both has increased in recent years, putting huge pressure on pools. Post-pandemic, energy is twice as expensive as it was four years ago, and according to Swim England, national insurance contribution increases in the last Budget are costing operators across the country tens of millions of pounds.

Since the pandemic, 206 pools have closed either temporarily or permanently, but local authorities are generally squeezed for funding and there is no prospect of that significantly changing in the next few years as far as I can tell. They are not in a position to substantially divert funding from core services, such as social care, to swimming facilities. Operators have already had to dip into reserves, and Community Leisure UK reports that its members across England are currently in deficit.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is spelling out the challenges that local councils face. Does he agree that we have a particularly big challenge coming down the road—albeit one that is already in front of us—in new towns? In Sherford in my constituency, a swimming pool and a leisure facility were part of the plans. People have bought into living in those new towns based on that promise, but given the lack of funding and the increased costs of running leisure facilities, there is a battle over who will deliver them. This means the facilities are kicked into the long grass, and residents like my constituents are left waiting and hoping for the facility to come. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to ensure that, as they pursue their housing plans, they are minded to fund leisure facilities so that new towns have them as required?

[Joe Robertson]

It is very disappointing to hear about the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Yes, I do think there is a role for the Government, and I will come to that in more detail. I hope she agrees with what I am suggesting.

There is also a significant problem with ageing swimming pools. Generally, they have a life expectancy of around 40 years—the average age of a pool closing due to age is 38 years—but 30% of pools in England are more than 40 years old. This means they are close to the end of their lifespan, and there is no identifiable source of funds to deal with that issue. There is considerable and growing demand for capital investment because our pools are ageing. Swim England says that, by 2030, 73% of local authorities could have a shortage of at least one swimming pool.

On the importance of swimming pools for children, currently only 72% of children leave primary school able to swim 25 metres, but the figure is just 45% in the country’s most deprived areas. If our ageing pools are not upgraded or replaced, it seems obvious that those figures will only get worse.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

In my constituency, Sonning Common primary school is fighting to keep its pool open. The school’s bursar spends every waking hour applying for grants but hits a dead end time and again, often precisely because schools are not eligible for grants. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should make provision to support school swimming pools, where they exist, to ensure the continuity of swimming education?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree, and schools often also rely on public swimming pools. Wherever schools need those facilities, I ask the Government to provide support. There is no other obvious support, as school and council budgets are already overstretched and must be used for other statutory duties.

Swim England’s “Value of Swimming” report showed that swimming generates £2.4 billion of social value each year and improves wellbeing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) said. A 2014 Department for Culture, Media and Sport study valued swimming the highest of all the sports it included.

The Isle of Wight is representative of the challenges faced across England. Pricing for swimming activities has become less inclusive as there are cost pressures for providers, so some of the concessionary rates that benefited those who are less well off or older have been discontinued. On the island, we have the challenge of four ageing facilities, built in 1974, 1978, 1980 and 1993. In 2010, Isle of Wight council withdrew support for Ryde swimming pool, but thankfully the local community saved it through the formation of the Waterside community trust. That pool continues to operate today, albeit without any ongoing funding from the council.

In 2023, Isle of Wight council faced a £1.2 million hole in its leisure and sports development budget, and there were concerns about the continued provision of the two remaining facilities. It is my clear view that our small unitary authority cannot be expected to fund the ongoing costs of those facilities, given that energy prices and the cost of employing staff, due to national insurance contributions, are so high, and particularly when it comes to the capital investment that is needed.

Facilities on the island have benefited from Government support in recent years. I now turn to the historical funding that swimming facilities have received. The last Conservative Government created the swimming pool support fund, with £80 million of funding for swimming facilities. That was £60 million direct from the Treasury and £20 million from the national lottery. The funding was oversubscribed and has now been used—it has come to an end. On the Isle of Wight, Ryde Waterside pool and The Heights in Sandown both benefited from the support.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Obviously, the interest in it is enormous, which is why everybody is here. One of the things that I wanted to say—I probably will not get the opportunity to because of the number of Members here—is that having swimming facilities available, as we have in the neighbouring constituency to Strangford, gave people the chance to swim who never would have had it. It also gave us some Olympic champions, such as Bethany Firth—that is a fact—who learned to swim at the Aurora complex in North Down, with the Ards swimming club. Her opportunity gave us a gold medal at the last Olympics. The opportunity is there, and so are future Olympic champions.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree; swimming does all those things. As we are talking about Olympic champions, I have a quote from five-time Olympic swimmer Mark Foster, commenting on the support that the previous Government were able to provide. He said:

“Swimming pools are at the heart of communities, and there are so many reasons why this funding to keep almost 200 open in England is so important.”

Indeed, 325 swimming pools and leisure centres across England received a share of that money. Investment helped keep them open, and has gone towards helping to meet the target of keeping 3.5 million more people active by 2030. The first £20 million of that money was directly delivered to facilities at risk of closure, and it built on the support from the £100 million in the national leisure centre recovery fund, which since 2019 has helped secure or reopen 1,100 pools. I have secured this debate today because that source of funds has been exhausted but so relied on, and so far, the current Government have not announced any plans to continue with it or to provide any alternatives to help keep pools open and upgrade them where needed.

I have some asks from Swim England. It seeks and encourages long-term capital investment and revenue funding to support the renewal of public leisure infrastructure. It wants to see a shared vision across Government for the future of public leisure, which recognises the value and contribution of swimming, particularly to the health and wellbeing of communities, and its social value. It wants greater integration between the health and leisure sectors, particularly through the work of integrated care systems.

I have some questions for the Minister, which I hope she will address towards the end of the debate. What steps is she taking to support local authorities facing increased financial pressure in maintaining and upgrading ageing swimming pool infrastructure? Does her Department have plans to set targets or a benchmark for reversing the decline in swimming pool provisions across England? If she wants to comment on the United Kingdom, so be it. Will the Minister continue to support and fund, specifically, the last Government’s swimming pool support fund? If not, why not? What alternatives will she put in place?

I remind the Minister gently of a previous quote by her:

“The public leisure sector plays an important role in the delivery of sport, physical activity and leisure across the country. It does so through vital community assets and infrastructure, such as swimming pools…We know that it helps to address and prevent long-term health inequalities, both mental and physical. It helps to combat loneliness, grow the local economy and provide jobs and purpose.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 75WH.]

I could not agree with her more.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. We are going to struggle to get everybody in. I will have to ask hon. Members to keep to a formal two-minute limit, and if you intervene, unfortunately I will have to take you off the list. I have to call the Front-Bench spokespersons by 5.10 pm.

16:49

[Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing the debate.

First, I declare an interest: in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran I chair the Splash group, which is working hard to restore and reopen the outdoor tidal pool in the town of Saltcoats. It has actually been in existence since about the 1890s, so that we can keep swimming pools going. Outdoor swimming has never been so popular, and the pool would be a great asset once again to our town and the constituency. Earlier today I hosted an event with UK Future Lidos, which is here to promote the excellent contribution that lidos make to public health, overall health and wellbeing, the local economy and so much more. The event was met with great enthusiasm, with many attending and showing much interest in visiting and supporting local lidos.

Swimming is very popular in the UK, and in Scotland it is one of our most successful sports. It is one of the nation’s highest participation sports, and 95% of Scottish people agree that swimming pools are important for safety. Nine in 10 agree that the closure of swimming pools is bad for local communities and a cause for concern.

[John Lamont]

I should declare an interest: I learned to swim in Seamill in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Does she agree that there is a particular challenge in Scotland because the Scottish Government are underfunding local authorities, which makes it much harder for councils to support swimming pools in the way they might want to?

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree with the hon. Member’s comments.

Additionally, 93% of Scottish people think that all children should learn to swim, and 91% think that learning to swim is an important part of every child’s education. It can obviously save lives, especially for people living on the coast, as we do.

Swimming is one of the most popular participation sports for all. However, many pool operators are passing on rising operational costs to pool users, making swimming a less affordable and accessible activity, which is a challenge. Scotland still has the highest drowning statistics of all the home nations, and it is important that we help pools access funding to keep affordable and safe swimming available to all, to protect the heritage of our cultural assets, and ultimately to save lives.

16:52

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing the debate.

I learned to swim in Eastbourne Sovereign Centre. Locally, we are ambitious to protect the pool for the long term. That is why I am pushing the Treasury to pilot new models of investing in the future of swimming facilities, because the current local authority “going it alone” orthodoxy is broken. Through a blend of new investment, a partnership between the UK’s largest operator for leisure facilities, Better, and innovative political leaders in my town, as well as Government flexibility on other grants we have been awarded, Eastbourne Sovereign Centre could be a test bed for a new funding model that could be replicated across the country. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss the model, and to her officials for coming down to Eastbourne last week to explore it and see our swimming magic in action.

That magic is also present in the work of Helen Nichols and the Motcombe pool community interest company team, which has secured over half a million pounds to help regenerate their local community pool; the Hillbrow sports centre, with Nick Harvey and Duncan Kerr pioneering a model that uses swimming and health together to train up general practitioners; Eastbourne swimming club, which has nurtured swimmers since 1866; Gary and his team of Eastbourne voluntary lifeguards at the Eastbourne college pool; Joe Agrela at Swimming Nature; and the Blue Lagoon in Hampden Park.

These swimming heroes and their work prove that swimming facilities are not luxuries; they are lifelines, and they produce incredible outcomes for Eastbourne. As a town, we stand ready to work with the Government to pioneer the future of the country’s swimming facilities, and the discussion is always open for us.

16:54

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.

As the Member of Parliament for North Somerset, I welcome today’s debate. I speak on behalf of the many constituents I have spoken to in the past year who have told me how much they value swimming, not just as a sport but as a life skill and a vital part of our community life. Whether it be the much beloved lido in Portishead, the marine lake in Clevedon or Backwell leisure centre, to the coastal community I represent, swimming plays a vital role in supporting our physical and mental wellbeing. However, despite swimming’s clear social value, swimming facilities are increasingly under strain: according to data provided by the Swimming Alliance, across the country more than 1,200 pools have closed since 2010, and many others are ageing and becoming increasingly costly and risky to maintain.

In North Somerset, we are seeing the consequences of decline at first hand, with the closure of the much-beloved swimming pool at Crockerne primary school in Pill. It had taught our children to swim for the past 60 years, but a lack of funding and support has denied residents in this beautiful nook of North Somerset the opportunity to engage in one of Britain’s great pastimes.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

The swimming pool in Atherstone, in my constituency, opened in 1969, and is where I learned to swim. Today it closes regularly because of boiler problems, and despite the swimming pool support fund, it is reaching the end of its life. If it closes and is rebuilt, it will inevitably be closed for around 18 months. There is a waiting list of more than two years for children to learn to swim. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the legacy that the last Government left in terms of investment in swimming facilities, not the picture painted by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) in his opening remarks?

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

I have to agree with my hon. Friend.

However, it is not all doom and gloom. Other swimming facilities in North Somerset have benefited from the great generosity of this Government in recent months. Portishead lido, which I greatly look forward to visiting this Friday, continues to thrive, thanks not only to the hard work of its volunteers, but to the generous £1.3 million grant awarded in the latest round of the community ownership fund. Thanks to the unprecedented support shown by this Labour Government towards preserving local treasures, Portishead lido will now be able to modernise and enhance the pool and café so beloved by the local community.

That is why it is so important to have debates such as these: so that we can continue to share the triumphs and miseries of swimming facilities in our constituencies, and highlight just how important Government funding is to their sustainability. With ageing infrastructure, increased energy costs and the cost of living squeezing families’ discretionary spending, it is more important than ever that we ensure that adequate levels of funding are directed towards ensuring that these treasured community assets remain open to the public for years to come.

16:59

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing the debate.

I was a competitive swimmer in my teens, and my sister swam for Scotland. The hair care means that I do not swim as much as I would like now, but I want to say that my colleagues’ cards are all marked: Hope for Youth Northern Ireland runs a biannual House of Commons versus House of Lords swim, and a couple of months ago I was the only MP on the team. I will be in touch when it comes around again.

I want to emphasise, from a Scottish perspective, a number of things that colleagues have already raised. Safety is important. I highlight the work of Lib Dem Councillor Aude Boubaker-Calder, who has called on local authorities to ensure support for swimming lessons in schools. We need also to think about the wider safety implications for adults.

On access to facilities, my Lib Dem colleagues in North East Fife have again done a lot of work—initially as a result of covid restrictions—to ensure that we maintain the opening hours of existing public facilities at East Sands in St Andrews and in Cupar, so that people can access the same provision as they do in other parts of Fife.

As we think about safety, it is important to think about the growth in open-water swimming. In my constituency, I have a number of tidal pools and beaches—in Cellardyke, Pittenweem, Leven and St Andrews. Whether it is the Bob and a Blether group, the Nae Richters or—my favourite—the Bluetits, swimming groups demonstrate that the demand for swimming is there, and that there is a high participation rate among women, which equals keep fit and aerobics.

Clearly, the issues are similar across the UK. They are about ageing facilities and the support to rebuild and reinvest in them. They are about the high cost of energy for swimming pools and the costs of participation. We need to address those costs, particularly for people in poorer communities, so that they have the opportunity to learn to swim. It is for everybody’s safety.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. To get everybody in, we will have to reduce the time limit to one minute.

16:59

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I remember that when I learned to swim in Hartlepool in the 1980s, it was freezing. The only reason I went along to the swimming lessons was because my mam promised me a packet of salt and vinegar crisps afterwards. None the less, it started a real interest in swimming. I spent the summers of my teenage years mostly in the pool, and I am now a keen outdoor and indoor swimmer. I like swimming outdoors because it is good for my mental and physical wellbeing; I like swimming indoors because I like the flumes more than anything else.

Throughout my life, I have relied on the investment that local authorities have made in swimming, no more so than in Stockton, where we have a great pool at Billingham Forum. It is home to the Billingham amateur swimming club, which did so well at the South Tyneside Gala a couple of weeks ago. There is also Splash in Stockton, in which the council is investing £18.5 million to enhance the facility.

Although Stockton has done well, there has been a net loss of 500 swimming pools across the country since 2010, which really is the legacy of the last Conservative Government. That has had an impact on children’s ability to swim and, of course, on the saving of lives. I want the Minister to take that into account as she thinks about how we can invest in local authorities’ swimming facilities in the future.

17:00

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this debate.

A young lady called Imogen wrote to me recently to tell me about her concerns over swimming safety. She notes that Norfolk has many beautiful rivers, but she worries about people who do not have enough experience of swimming to stay safe, and she urges us to act to improve this situation. I am pleased to be here today in Westminster Hall to speak up for her and express her concerns.

In North Norfolk, fantastic progress is being made to support our swimming facilities. When it comes to securing investment in and improvement to those facilities, Liberal Democrat-led North Norfolk district council has really dived in head-first. [Interruption.] Thank you. In 2021, the Reef leisure centre in Sheringham, which has a swimming pool, reopened after a major rebuild. Moreover, although it is just outside my constituency, I am also thrilled that in the last week planning consent has been granted for an expansion of the leisure centre in Fakenham, which we hope will be completed in 2026. That has been made possible by the Lib Dems securing Government funding to support an £11 million scheme that will transform the centre into another high-quality amenity for local people.

At a time when many other local authorities are backing out of projects because of surging energy prices and slashed Government funding, I am pleased that my residents, supported by the Lib Dem-led council, will have fantastic swimming facilities to enjoy for years to come.

17:01

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Falmouth is a town of young people which juts out into the Atlantic on a finger-like peninsula, so it is vital that people there learn how to swim, yet statistics from a primary school in Falmouth show that the percentage of young children who are unable to swim 25 metres has shot up dramatically, from less than 10% to 50%. That is not coincidental. Schools in Falmouth are struggling, because Falmouth no longer has a swimming pool. It was decommissioned in 2022 by Cornwall’s Tory-run unitary council, which said it was too expensive to run. There is no other swimming facility within a half-hour drive. Primary schools in Falmouth are trying to bus their children for up to 40 minutes to swimming facilities, but that is much too expensive and people are now struggling to learn how to swim.

As things stand, the Falmouth and Penryn Community Area Partnership, which covers a population of 50,000, is the only one in Cornwall without a pool in its area. Falmouth town council took a risk, took on the leisure centre on Pendennis headland and is trying to redevelop the site, but it is struggling to do so. Collaboration with the private sector will be essential, but we also need help from the Government. I know they recognise how important swimming is for our children and young people.

17:02

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

My constituency is home to a number of public swimming pools, including the remarkable Pells pool lido in Lewes. Opened in 1861, it is the UK’s oldest outdoor freshwater swimming pool still operating. Today, however, I will focus on another one of our local pools.

Back in the 1970s, the people of Ringmer demonstrated extraordinary community spirit by spending years tirelessly raising money for their own swimming pool. It opened in 1981 and became a vital local asset, but was forced to close during covid. Now, after further relentless campaigning by local people, Ringmer swimming pool is reopening. Lewes district council, working closely with its longstanding leisure partner Wave Active, stepped forward to rescue and run this essential facility. A new lease agreement with East Sussex county council now ensures that the pool will remain open all day and will be accessible to all, including the local secondary school. This is local government at its best, and I highlight in particular the relentless commitment shown by Councillor Johnny Denis, who has championed this cause every step of the way.

On 14 June, Ringmer will celebrate the full relaunch of its swimming pool. The pool is not just reopening; the relaunch is a victory for the community. I suggest that the example of Ringmer is a clear inspiration and sends out a clear message. Leisure facilities are not optional luxuries; they are lifelines. Let us ensure that pools across my constituency, including those in Seaford, Newhaven and Lewes, and other pools across our nation receive the support they deserve.

17:03

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Sixty seconds is not long enough for a speech, but there is clearly a lot of strong feeling in the Chamber today about this issue, so I hope that one day we will make more time for a longer conversation about this really important issue.

We all know what the physical and mental health benefits of swimming are. For me, one statistic that really stands out is that nearly half a million people have either reduced or stopped taking medication for their mental health because of swimming. Today though, I will quickly mention Crook in my constituency—it lost its swimming pool over a decade ago, and every promise of one since has come to nothing—and Stanhope, which lost its lido during covid and it has never reopened.

Pools like these are important parts of our social infrastructure that keep people fit and healthy. It is important that we look at funding models for swimming, potentially looking to pension funds for the investment we need for new infrastructure, and support swimming pools in combining swimming with other social infrastructure to make them viable.

Finally, I will give a quick shout-out for open swimming. We need more safe open swimming spaces. I welcome the work that this Government are doing to clean up sewage, so that people can enjoy open water swims.

17:05

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing this debate, which is important to my constituents in North Devon.

I will briefly raise the case of a brave young man from North Devon. His name is Oscar, he is 14 years old, and he recently saved the life of a man who got into trouble in the sea off Saunton Sands. Oscar learnt his lifesaving skills at Barnstaple swimming club and with Saunton Sands surf life saving club, but their local pool is run by a private operator and is among the most expensive in Devon. I thank my constituent Rob Enever for his hard work to highlight that there are no concessionary rates for low-income families. Many concerned parents have written to me, worried that basic access to swimming is becoming a question of the haves and have-nots. That means fewer children learning to swim, fewer thriving swimming clubs, and perhaps—if we cannot keep access to swimming available and affordable—fewer heroes like Oscar.

I hope that when the Government are able to look at this issue again, there is greater recognition of the public safety aspect to this whole question, especially in coastal areas such as mine in North Devon.

17:06

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

The proposed imminent loss of two public swimming pools in my constituency of Bedford, citing unaffordable repairs and running costs, is a matter of significant concern for myself, residents and local representatives.

The Oasis and Trinity pools—one run by the local authority and the other managed by the local college—serve many constituents who swim for leisure. Local schools, for which swimming provision is mandated by the national curriculum, competitive teams and other groups all fear that they will be left without adequate provision or the opportunity to swim for health and leisure. I urge the Government to support the provision of public swimming facilities, and I am looking forward to hearing how they intend to do so.

17:07

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Water is so important to Bournemouth, the coastal town that I represent. I commend Bournemouth swimming club and the 1.4 mile swim between Boscombe and Bournemouth piers, which is one of Europe’s largest charity swimming events.

We have swimming pools in Bournemouth, but only a few of them. Foremost among them is the Littledown centre’s 25-metre swimming pool, but schools tell me that they have limited opportunities for children to swim. If schools have few feasible places to go to, swimming opportunities are reduced. We can tackle child poverty, we can improve people’s life chances by, for example, resurrecting Sure Start and extending free school meals to families in receipt of universal credit, but we can also subsidise swimming lessons, provide free swimming passes, and invest in the swimming facilities that have been run down for so long. Leisure provision should be a statutory duty for local authorities, and we should have a Government—as we do with this Labour Government—who are committed to improving swimming for all.

17:08

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

A report last year by the Royal Life Saving Society found that the number of child drownings in England had doubled over a four-year period. That was 125 lives lost. Two years ago, The Guardian reported that England had lost almost 400 swimming pools since 2010, including local authority and community-owned pools, privately owned leisure facilities, school and sports club pools, and the Deepings leisure centre, which previously hosted the renowned Deepings swimming club. My question to the Minister is straightforward. How can I obtain funding, in tune with the previous Government’s swimming pool support fund, to help that much-loved community facility to reopen, and so make swimming available to children and adults in the community?

17:09

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate.

We are in the midst of a massive public health crisis caused by two things: the poor food that we all eat, which the system encourages us to eat, and sedentary lifestyles. Not enough people take part in basic physical activity and sport. As a nation, we have stumbled into this dire situation in which systemic pressure is applied to discourage healthy lifestyles, and the impacts on our precious NHS are clear. Swimming must be part of the solution.

As a form of exercise, swimming is enormously beneficial to most people, even rubbish swimmers like me. It is easy for me because I do not have any hair care to deal with afterwards, to reference the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. That is particularly true for people with disabilities, for older people and those with health conditions who might struggle to exercise on dry land. Research shows that those who begin swimming tend to stick with it to a greater extent than those who take up other forms of exercise. It clearly has something that keeps people involved.

Nuffield Health is the largest private pool provider in the country. Its research has revealed that adults who swim retain their gym memberships for five months longer than those who do not. It is clearly a popular form of exercise among the public and deserving of more Government attention, yet the picture nationally is one of decline. In 2019, 14 million adults—more than 30% of the adult population—went swimming, but despite the popularity of the sport, since the pandemic we have lost 427 public pools. That is a shocking statistic. The average age of a swimming pool at closure is 38 years. Some 1,200 pools in England are 40 years old or more and are approaching end of life. I have seen this at first hand in Cheltenham.

Last year our pool at Cheltenham leisure centre was partially closed due to the discovery of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. It was closed for six weeks. Our leisure centre is at the end of its life and we need a new one. There are countless similar cases across the country. The effects of diminishing access to swimming pools can already be seen among children in the childhood obesity crisis. Swim England estimates that only 72% of year 7 pupils meet the guidelines to swim competently and confidently. That is a worrying increase from previous years and reflects poor uptake of a potentially lifesaving skill. Last year’s “State of the UK Swimming Industry Report” identified rising energy costs, ageing infrastructure and difficulties in recruiting swimming teachers and lifeguards as the main factors driving those losses, but it is worth noting that reporting back via schools is really difficult to do and is not done properly in this country.

Rising energy costs have impacted all areas of life over the past few years, but for swimming pools energy costs are now twice what they were in 2021. There are solutions, though, and again I look locally. Cheltenham lido has installed solar panels to reduce its energy costs; this has brought with it the added benefit of improving the lido’s carbon emissions—an important measure, given that swimming pools are large producers of carbon emissions and have high energy bills. The lido’s trust tells me that its stats show savings of an incredible 4.4 tonnes of CO₂ in the first fortnight that the solar panels were in operation.

SF Planning, the agent for the planning development, reckons the solar panels will provide 93% of the power needed to run the lido. With the help of Professor Jeremy Miller, it is looking to go even further by harnessing even more renewable energy. I would like to place on the record my thanks to the lido chief executive officer, Julie Sergeant, who is in the Public Gallery—hello, Julie—and to Rick Jones, the chair of the lido’s trust, alongside all the trustees and staff of Cheltenham’s lido. The facility recently celebrated its 90th birthday. Thanks to their leadership, I am confident it will continue to serve the public for many more years to come. I fully intend to be there to see it through to 120. Or 130—crikey!

The Liberal Democrats are calling for swimming pools and leisure centres to be designated as critical health infrastructure, in order to protect the swimming pools in our communities against closure. It is vital that we do this to uphold what we know is true, which is that people who go swimming like swimming and make themselves healthier and happier as a result.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I call Louie French.

17:14

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

Thank you, Ms Jardine—excellently chaired, as always. I would like to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing this important debate. We have had some excellent contributions across the Chamber. He spoke passionately about the case for more investment in swimming facilities across England. He also had brilliant contributions from colleagues in Scotland about important safety issues, particularly in open water swimming. I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of the arguments that have been made. I thank Swim England and those in the Swimming Alliance who are here today for their ongoing engagement with us as the official Opposition.

Swimming, as we have heard already, is a valuable life skill. Going for a swim can keep people of all ages fit and healthy, both physically and mentally. Knowing how to swim can save your life or someone else’s. That is why it is rightly part of the national curriculum. But, worryingly, we have seen a decline in young people’s swimming capabilities following the pandemic. According to Swim England, nearly a third of children leaving primary school cannot swim confidently, safely and unaided over 25 metres. As the sports body warns, there is a risk that many in this generation will simply not learn to swim. The complex causes of that are often seen in London, where swimming facilities are actually a lot better than other parts of the country.

[Jamie Stone]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share my dismay that death by drowning is twice as common per head of population in Scotland as it is in England. Does that not say something about the under-provision that we currently have north of the border?

[Mr French]

Sadly, it does. Parts of the Swimming Alliance are looking very closely at the open swimming element because of the tragic examples where people lose their lives. We have to be conscious of that as we go into the summer months across Great Britain, when people are more likely to swim in open water.

We have sadly seen the closure of too many swimming pools in recent years, with the number of new pools opening being only half that of those that have closed. It is a trend that the previous Conservative Government fought hard against. In 2020, we launched the £100 million national leisure recovery fund to keep leisure centres open in more than 260 local authorities.

More recently, in 2023, when rising energy prices threatened to close more swimming pools, we launched the £80 million swimming pool support fund. That crucial funding helped 102 local authorities to cover the spiralling costs that threatened to reduce and close even more facilities. Importantly, it funded nearly 550 projects across almost 350 leisure facilities to help them to reduce their energy bills. Those facilities included two in my home borough, the London borough of Bexley, where swimming remains very popular among my constituents. It is also where I learnt to swim, at the Crook Log leisure centre—not very well, I must say, although that is not a comment on their swimming lessons.

We invested to protect swimming facilities, but I now fear that, sadly, the trend of closure could accelerate under this new Government without new proposals coming forward. Schools struggling with the cost of the Labour Government’s national insurance increase might not be able to afford travel costs to local swimming pools. I am worried that the school tax will impact the areas of the country where the private pool in a school is the only swimming facility available, and about how that may impact local clubs looking to use it.

Councils are also braced for more spending pressures as inflation rises again and will struggle to keep public facilities afloat under Labour. My council has been hit with a £5 million extra cost this year just because of national insurance. Leisure facility costs are still rising, as we have heard, thanks in no small part to similar tax hikes. We have only to look at the letter from a number of providers that was made public yesterday to see their concern about the Government’s inaction.

While I appreciate that some of those matters are beyond the brief of the Minister for Sport, they are a consequence of her Government’s decisions. It is against that backdrop that she needs to lay out the Government’s plans to not only prevent more closures but open more swimming facilities, particularly in underserved communities around the country. What representations has the Minister made to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the potential impact of council finances on swimming facilities? Will the Department for Culture, Media and Sport continue to provide capital funding to improve energy efficiency at our leisure centres and pools? What is her plan to reverse the trend of swimming pools closing, and promote open swimming because of the safety aspects that we have discussed, so that every generation has a chance to learn to swim?

This is an important issue for not only people’s health and wellbeing, but Britain’s sporting prowess. We all know the amazing British Paralympic and Olympic athletes and the representations they have made at the elite end of the sport. This is something that this Government must address to ensure that everyone can swim safely, and we will hold them to account to ensure that that happens in the years to come.

17:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate. The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone, regardless of background, has access to and benefits from quality sport and physical activity opportunities. I have been clear in Parliament and beyond that I know just how important public leisure facilities are. They are great places for people of all ages to stay fit and healthy, offer vital social spaces and play an important role within communities.

I will respond to points raised during the debate and then elaborate further on some of them as I progress through my speech. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East made a very clear case for the important role that quality and accessible community swimming facilities can play in his constituency and across the UK. He clearly illustrated his commitment through securing the debate and his speech. I was struck by one of the statistics he shared: 27% of the population have taken part in some form of swimming over the last 12 months. I very much heard his asks from Swim England, and I am pleased to echo the comments he quoted from one of my previous speeches about how I am committed to public leisure and greater integration between health and sport, which I will come on to speak about.

The hon. Gentleman asked about specific support for local authorities, which is an issue for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. He asked about specific targets. We do not have plans to set targets, as it is for local areas to determine what they need, but we believe that robust plans should be in place. The shadow Minister and the hon. Gentleman also spoke about the swimming support fund. I am very aware of the benefit it had, but I cannot comment on that ahead of the spending review.

I was pleased to meet the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) a few weeks ago. He highlighted some of the creative opportunities available. I was pleased that my officials were able to visit his constituency, and they said that they had a productive visit. I look forward to continuing that dialogue with him. A number of Members from across the House spoke about the importance of safety, including the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome)—he paid tribute to Oscar, and I echo those comments—and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) made a really important point about the tragic increase in deaths.

[Sir John Hayes]

In order to help the Minister, because I know she does not have much time, would she agree to meet me offline to discuss that? It would be much easier if I could meet her with a community group from the Deepings, and we can take that forward.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I would be very happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman. I was going to say that I would write to him after the spending review, but he has very keenly got me to agree to a meeting. It would be an absolute pleasure, and we can continue the conversation.

Sport and physical activity, especially swimming, plays a vital role in tackling the health challenges facing our nation through helping to treat and manage a wide range of conditions. Swim England’s “Value of Swimming” report highlighted that 1.4 million adults felt that swimming significantly reduced their anxiety or depression. That report has been quoted more than once today. Swimming has saved the NHS and social care system more than £357 million annually. Physical activity interventions contribute an immense saving to our NHS by preventing 900,000 cases of diabetes and 93,000 cases of dementia every year. The Government are committed to focusing our health system on prevention, and sport and physical activity are central to that. The biggest health gain comes from supporting those who are inactive or less active to move more.

Across the country, there is a direct correlation between increased activity levels and the number of accessible facilities that are safe, inclusive and affordable on offer. We must therefore ensure that these spaces are both present and accessible as a key part of getting people active and thereby tackling health inequalities. Whether through team sports, gym classes or children’s swimming lessons, these spaces can create a sense of pride in place and improved community cohesion. In my constituency of Barnsley, we are lucky to have access to some brilliant swimming facilities. Everyone in the local area knows the Barnsley Metrodome—I always remember it as where the general election declaration is made—and we also have the Dearneside and Hoyland leisure centres. All are incredibly popular. Many local people enjoy our public pools, and swimming is a great way to look after our physical and mental health.

In my role as sports Minister, I joined Mental Health Swims last month for a cold water swim in the Hampstead ponds to mark Mental Health Awareness Week. A number of Members have talked about the benefit of cold water and outdoor swimming. Mental Health Swims is a peer group that hosts free and inclusive swim meets in more than 150 locations across the UK. I got to experience at first hand some of the benefits of outdoor swimming. I know people across the country enjoy the activity too; indeed, people in South Yorkshire often visit the Manvers lake just down the road from my constituency, which has some of the best facilities for open water swimming in the country. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made some really important points on that topic.

I also saw the impact of swimming when I visited Active Essex. Local council leaders are working in partnership with Active Essex, local health services and leisure providers to knit together services. They are building strong links between health and leisure sectors, including co-locating services so that people have easy access to a wide range of physical activity opportunities. That means, for example, that people with long-term health conditions can have access to activities that not only improve their physical health but are fun and social and, in some cases, contribute to them getting back to work.

I will share with the House an example. I spoke to a woman who had had a terrible accident, and she was on medication. She did not work, but through the project, she had come off medication and was retraining and looking for work. It was incredibly inspiring to speak to her, and a really good example of what knitting together local government, health and sport can do. These visits have reinforced the positive impact that sport can have on mental health.

I acknowledge the importance of swimming lessons in my constituency, as a number of hon. Members have done for their constituencies. There are a number of open-water spaces in Barnsley that are not appropriate for swimming, but it is important to know how to swim in the event of an emergency in water. I am a former teacher, so I know how important it is to ensure swimming proficiency for schoolchildren. It is not just a great way to get active, but a fundamental life skill. Swimming and water safety are compulsory elements of the physical education national curriculum at key stages 1 and 2. Pupils should be taught to swim a minimum of 25 metres using a range of strokes and be able to perform safe self-rescue, but it is clear that we face significant challenges.

The numbers of children leaving school able to swim the required 25 metres unaided is falling. Last year’s data shows that only 70% of year 7 pupils aged 11 to 12 can swim confidently and proficiently over a distance of at least 25 metres—a fall of seven percentage points compared with six years ago. That is clearly a very worrying trend, and it is clear that inequalities between those who do and do not have access to opportunities to swim are widening further. We are aware of that, and through the Government’s work to reform school sport, we are committed to supporting schools to provide opportunities for every pupil to learn to swim.

We are committed to protecting time for physical education in schools. The ongoing independent, expert-led review of the curriculum will ensure that all children can engage with a broad range of subjects, including PE and sport. Local government has an integral role to play. We encourage local leaders to prioritise access to sport and physical activity wherever possible and to support public and private sectors to work together to ensure that provision is accessible and reflects the needs of local communities.

Although local authorities are responsible for decisions regarding sport and leisure provision in their area, we recognise the challenges faced, especially by smaller councils. The Government are taking immediate action to begin addressing those challenges by ensuring that funding in the latest local government finance settlement goes to the places that need it most. Overall, the provisional settlement will ensure that local government will receive a real-terms increase in core spending of around 3.2%. I am committed to working to support our leisure sector up and down the country.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), asked whether I speak to those at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I very much do, and I am very keen to continue those conversations, because my Department is responsible for the overall approach to sport and leisure provision across the country. We work closely with Sport England, the Government’s arm’s length body for community sport, to invest more than £250 million of national lottery and Government money annually in some of the most deprived areas of the country to help them to increase levels of physical activity. That includes the vital £10.6 million from Sport England for grassroots swimming, empowering more people to learn to swim, enjoy water and compete safely. Sport England’s place-based investment approach, which is now expanding to a further 53 communities, places local voices at the heart of decision making and is testament to our evolving strategy, but we recognise that the journey does not end here.

We appreciate the huge contribution that publicly accessible sport and leisure facilities make to health and wellbeing. My Department will continue to look at ways to support such thinking, as we look ahead to future policy around community sport and leisure facilities and their contribution towards genuinely tackling inactivity and inequalities. I am hugely passionate about that agenda, and I know that being physically active and playing sport genuinely changes lives. Hon. Members have made really important contributions; we can see how much people care about this issue up and down the country from how well-attended the debate has been. I thank Members for taking part.

17:28

[Joe Robertson]

I am grateful to Members for attending this important debate and making so many good contributions. There is plainly unanimous agreement about the importance of swimming for the health and mental health of young people, as well as for safety and other reasons. I hope that there is general support, at least, for the Government having a role to play in ensuring public facilities are available to everyone and are affordable.

I welcome the sentiment expressed by the Minister, although it is obviously disappointing that she is unable to commit to previous Government funding pots to secure swimming facilities. I hope in the coming weeks that she and her Government are able to translate that sentiment into funding promises, so that local government and other providers have the security they need to continue to provide swimming facilities for the public.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for swimming facilities.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.