House of Commons
(3 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
Public services in Northern Ireland can and should be better. The Government are backing the Northern Ireland Executive every step of the way, starting with a record £19.3 billion settlement. Of course there is more to do and we will continue to work with the Executive to do it.
Mr Dhesi
Like my Slough constituents, the good people of Northern Ireland deserve the best possible public services. This Government promised to cut the sky-high NHS waiting lists. Indeed, those lists are coming down for the first time in 15 years thanks to an extra £26 billion investment. That extra money is part of why the Northern Ireland Executive have a record funding settlement. Does the Minister agree that it is now crucial that the Executive and this Government work collaboratively to share knowledge and best practice so that we improve outcomes for patients?
Matthew Patrick
I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to highlight that, just recently, England had the second best monthly fall in waiting lists for 15 years. In Northern Ireland, the 70,000-appointments target has been surpassed and we have hit 200,000 additional appointments. I am pleased with the work of the Northern Ireland Health Minister Mike Nesbitt on that. The UK Government are committed to sharing best practice with those in the Northern Ireland Executive to continue that work.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Health is a devolved matter, but the fight against cancer is not. Will the Minister join me in praising the work of the All-Island Cancer Research Institute, which is led by Queen’s and others, and ensure that our efforts to address cancer are done not just in Northern Ireland or the four nations, but between these islands?
Matthew Patrick
It was my privilege to see some of the work being done there. Any efforts to bring down waiting times for cancer patients should be adopted. I will encourage this Government to do anything they can to share best practice from their own 10-year cancer plan.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Over the past 10 days we have seen a number of revelations about the procurement of services and goods and the provision of sensitive information during Peter Mandelson’s time as a Government Minister and as an ambassador in Washington. Given that Mandelson was, for two years, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, can the Minister assure the House that his Department will comb its records to identify any possible wrongdoing?
Matthew Patrick
I can absolutely give the shadow Secretary of State that assurance. That work is under way and we will update the House on anything that may emerge.
Alex Burghart
I am very grateful to the Minister for that direct response. Will he also commit to return to this House before Easter to update Members on the work that his Department has done and what it has found?
Matthew Patrick
I believe that work will be published by the Cabinet Office. I will ensure that, through that, the House will receive an update on the records.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Minister, the Secretary of State and his officials for their constructive engagement in preparation for a reserve claim for the Executive. Through that work, I know that the figure has doubled and rightly so. May I also highlight the Northern Ireland Audit Office’s report on the frailty within our Northern Ireland civil service? In the past six years, out of 23 recommendations, only five have been progressed. We have 5,000 vacancies, 3,000 temporary promotions and a rising sickness level. Does he believe that it is sustainable for the Northern Ireland civil service to ignore such changes for reform if we want to see the delivery of good public services?
Matthew Patrick
This Government are committed to civil service reform here. We have said that we wish to move fast and fix things. We will share our learnings with the Northern Ireland civil service. The right hon. Member also mentioned the reserve claim. He will have seen in yesterday’s supplementary estimates that £400 million has been given to the Northern Ireland Executive. That is exceptional. It will be repayable over three years and accompanied by an open-book exercise looking at the Executive budget.
Gavin Robinson
One constraint, as the Minister knows because I raised it at the last Northern Ireland questions, is the potential requirement, as a result of EU legislative change, of an additional 60,000 GP appointments for antimicrobial-resistant drugs. That would decimate the delivery of health services in Northern Ireland. I ask that he and the Secretary of State engage with this to ensure that Northern Ireland is not a casualty as a result of the imposition of EU regulation. Can he update the House on that?
Matthew Patrick
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter powerfully last month and again this month. We raised his concerns with the European Union, and I am pleased—I hope he is, too—that the latest draft of the EU regulations includes a full exemption for Northern Ireland regarding the prescription status of antimicrobial-resistant medicines. That shows the benefits of a grown-up working relationship with the European Union, so that we can address issues as and when they arise.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government are supporting Northern Ireland through the four city deals, the local innovation partnerships fund, an enhanced investment zone and greater economic stability. Economic activity in Northern Ireland increased by 2.9% over the year to quarter 3, and it has the lowest unemployment in the UK.
Joe Robertson
The Government are giving a 50% reduction to the emissions trading scheme levy on ferries crossing between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in an apparent effort not to negatively impact the economy there. Scottish islands are getting a 100% reduction, yet the Isle of Wight is getting no reduction. What economic assessment has been done to arrive at those figures, or are they simply plucked out of thin air?
Hilary Benn
The figures are based on the assessment that there are particular requirements for the Scottish islands in terms of services, access to essential care and so on. That is why that exemption has been applied for Scotland. The impact of this measure on trade between GB and Northern Ireland will be very small in light of the overall costs of moving goods and transportation.
Blake Stephenson
While the rise in the agricultural property relief threshold to £2.5 million is a welcome step for farmers, does the Minister recognise the broader economic concern shared by the Ulster Farmers Union that inflation and steadily rising asset values will over time pull more family farms into inheritance tax liability, even when their real wealth and income may not increase?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Member will be aware, the Government announced that the allowance for 100% rate relief will be increased from £1 million to £2.5 million. That means that a couple will now be able to pass on up to £5 million tax-free between them, on top of the existing allowances such as the nil-rate band. The president of the Ulster Farmers Union, William Irwin, welcomed the changes. In fact, he said:
“We are in a better position today than we were yesterday”.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
The local growth fund was a UK Government policy that had been working to support some people outside of the labour market into decent work, helping to address Northern Ireland’s low productivity rates. The UK Government have changed that policy and the capital revenue split in a way that works for the Treasury, but not for organisations in Northern Ireland. Funded groups are being directed to PEACEPLUS, but its funding criteria does not work for most. Why are voluntary and community sector groups being asked to distort Special EU Programmes Body rules, rather than UK Government policy adapting to local needs?
Hilary Benn
I met the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action and CO3 last week to talk about this matter. It is a difficult situation because of how capital and resources have been allocated through the local growth fund. Of the £12 million of available resource funding, we agreed with the Executive that £3 million would go to Go Succeed at their request, and £9 million would go to economic inactivity programmes. We are exploring other potential sources of funding, of which PEACEPLUS is one. Another source is the Northern Ireland Executive’s record settlement. They had £9 million yesterday in additional Barnett consequentials. They could choose to invest some money in these programmes.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland, like Scotland and Wales, shares the benefits of a united United Kingdom and its collective spending power, generating jobs and opportunities across the four countries of the United Kingdom?
Hilary Benn
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. All parts of the United Kingdom derive strength and benefit from being part of that Union. We can see in the figures I quoted a moment ago the benefit being obtained in Northern Ireland in terms of how the economy is doing.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The Windsor framework was meant to give Northern Ireland the best of both worlds: unfettered access to the UK internal market and barrier-free access to the EU. Not so, according to a recent survey conducted by the Federation of Small Businesses, which reports that more than half those trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are having difficulties, with over a third having stopped trading altogether. The figures are stark. Fewer than one in six Northern Ireland businesses say that they benefit from dual market access, while nearly 80% rate Government support as poor or very poor. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to a specific time-bound plan to make dual market access work, or does he accept that Northern Ireland got the worst of both worlds?
Hilary Benn
I do not accept that Northern Ireland has the worst of both worlds. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the issue facing small businesses, highlighted by the FSB report and others, including Lord Murphy’s independent report. As he will have noticed, in the Budget the Chancellor announced a £16.6 million package which will include a comprehensive one-stop-shop regulatory support service to help precisely those businesses to trade more between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
The defence of our country is always the first duty of any Government. Last week I met businesses big and small, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry and representative bodies, as well as our great universities, to discuss how the defence growth deal for Northern Ireland can pack the biggest punch possible. With £250 million across five deals, including one in Northern Ireland, there is a huge potential here, and I am determined that we will seize it.
Alice Macdonald
In Northern Ireland the defence sector offers many opportunities to apprentices, as it does across the rest of the country: I met two apprentices from MSI Defence Systems in my constituency yesterday. Will the Minister join me in celebrating apprentices throughout our United Kingdom, and will he explain how we will support the next generation of skilled workers in this vital industry?
Matthew Patrick
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in doing that. Just last week I visited Mallaghan, where four apprentices were being given incredible opportunities as a result of taking up their jobs, and I am sure they would agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment.
Kevin Bonavia
My hon. Friend will be aware that the defence industry sector is well established in my constituency, where it is building links with its counterparts in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that the defence industrial strategy presents a huge opportunity for businesses in constituencies throughout the country, including Stevenage and most certainly Northern Ireland, where it can help to boost investment, job creation and economic growth?
Matthew Patrick
My hon. Friend is right. The strategy is not just about the defence of the realm; there are economic opportunities that come with it. The defence growth deal on which we are working in Northern Ireland will take advantage of that, and will ensure that small businesses in particular can benefit.
John Slinger
The Government are doing good work to encourage young people into their careers via apprenticeships, and this week is National Apprenticeship Week. In my constituency we have GE Vernova, which is ramping up its apprenticeship scheme, while Rugby college, part of Warwickshire College Group, is getting apprenticeship programmes under way for 750 young people and adults. Does the Minister agree that the Government must go further to support apprenticeships in the vital defence sector, in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom, including, of course, Northern Ireland?
Matthew Patrick
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Some of the apprentices whom I met just last week told me that, over four years, they were more than £100,000 better off as a result of taking their apprenticeships. It is good for them, good for businesses and good for the country.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Yesterday I met two apprentices who were engaged in firms delivering defence contracts in Northern Ireland and were enthusiastic about the skills and their prospects, but Northern Ireland benefits minimally from defence contracts across the United Kingdom. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that more contracts are awarded to Northern Ireland, and will he ignore the comments of the First Minister, who does not want that to happen?
Matthew Patrick
This Government are supporting businesses in Northern Ireland. The work that I am doing with them on the defence growth deal is designed specifically to ensure that this will benefit them and all their supply chains, and I will continue to do that work.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Whatever the defence industrial strategy aims to do, its aims will not be met if we cannot find and recruit people willing to use the equipment and technology that are created. People will be far less likely to risk their lives to keep our country safe and free if they cannot rely on the Government to stand by them both during and after their service. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the military and the defence industry of the Government’s decision to allow our veterans who served in Northern Ireland to be dragged vindictively through the courts?
Matthew Patrick
I reject that characterisation. The immunity that was offered by the last Government was false. We do not agree with that in principle, and the veterans we speak to do not want immunity under the law; they want equality before it. It was this Government who gave our armed forces the largest pay rise in over two decades. This Government are backing our armed forces.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the Minister agree that there is a clear need for a stronger role for Northern Ireland firms in the UK defence supply chain, and will he commit to encouraging far greater inclusion of Northern Ireland small and medium-sized enterprises in Ministry of Defence framework contracts and sub-contracting opportunities?
Matthew Patrick
I absolutely accept that we can do even more to support such companies. The companies I have been meeting in relation to the defence growth deal have said that the opportunity to showcase the talent and expertise that exists in Northern Ireland is really important, and I want to support them in doing that.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The autumn Budget provided Northern Ireland with an additional £370 million, on top of the record spending review settlement, and will assist families with the cost of living by cutting energy bills, lifting the two-child benefit limit and raising the minimum wage.
Sean Woodcock
The Government’s child poverty strategy aims to lift over 550,000 children out of poverty by 2030. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of the abolition of the two-child benefit cap for families in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
The lifting of the two-child benefit cap in Northern Ireland will help more than 17,000 children and more than 48,000 people in Northern Ireland households. We are also increasing the national minimum wage, which will benefit 170,000 people, and increasing the state pension will benefit 330,000 pensioners in Northern Ireland.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Cancer is a thief and a home-wrecker. Sadly, Northern Ireland has the worst cancer outcomes across the UK. I recently lifted the lid on breast cancer referrals, with red-flag appointments taking in excess of 14 weeks. Although the autumn Budget has been helpful, can the Minister confirm whether conversations are happening with the Treasury to ask for transformational money to help us transform our health service, so that cancer wait times and medical pathways can be improved once and for all?
Hilary Benn
Like the whole House, I share the hon. Member’s wish to improve cancer treatment and cancer waiting times for those who are currently waiting too long. There is the public services transformation fund, and the first phase of projects was funded last year. Decisions are about to be taken on the second phase of funding, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) mentioned, there also needs to be reform of the way in which the health service works. We are seeing progress under Mike Nesbitt’s leadership, and we need to see more.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The increase in national insurance contributions is having a devastating impact on the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland, with over a quarter of businesses reporting losses and a further 20% only breaking even. How is the Northern Ireland Executive expected to achieve their target of doubling tourism in the next 10 years if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting pubs, restaurants and hotels out of business?
Hilary Benn
The increase in national insurance was a decision that the Government took to deal with the inheritance left by the last Government. [Interruption.] That is a fact, and no one can argue that it is not the case. We needed to put the economy on a stable footing. The fact that the Northern Ireland economy is growing, and that Northern Ireland has the lowest unemployment in the United Kingdom, is a sign of the fundamental strength of the economy in Northern Ireland.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Matthew Patrick)
Chances in life are set early. Although education is devolved in Northern Ireland, we must work together. That is why it was my privilege to bring the Minister for Early Education to Belfast recently to visit schools and to present to Northern Ireland Ministers at the East-West Council. We discussed the school twinning programme, the theme of which is “Reading for Pleasure”. As a new dad, I am reading quite a few baby books at the moment.
Sarah Hall
As chair of the inclusion and nurture in education all-party group, I welcome the Northern Ireland Department of Education’s independent research showing that nurture provision delivers measurable improvements in pupils’ behaviour, attendance and attainment. What discussions are being had to share this good practice in inclusive education with the rest of the UK, including officials in England, as the Government seek to improve inclusion and educational outcomes for all?
Matthew Patrick
Just last month, I went with the early years Minister to visit schools that are really focused on being inclusive and nurturing for pupils, and my hon. Friend is totally right to highlight how this work can have such a positive impact on the children in our schools.
Jas Athwal
Does the Minister agree with me about the importance of the Northern Ireland Executive and the Government sharing knowledge, expertise and best practice as we all seek to improve outcomes for children in all our schools?
Matthew Patrick
I absolutely do. I have always said that this is not a case of cutting a cheque and walking away. There is work we can do with the Northern Ireland Executive, and we continue to share best practice. In fact, just this week I wrote to the Minister responsible for early years, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey), to explore further opportunities for collaboration.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
At last year’s spending review, the Northern Ireland Office announced a £2 million allocation to support the integrated education sector. Given that a range of schools in Northern Ireland have been offering an integrated educational ethos for many years, will the Government review that policy to support integrated education per se across a number of schools in Northern Ireland?
Matthew Patrick
We support integrated education, and integrated schools are a really important part of that. I was recently at some shared education schools, at the request of the Minister, and I was impressed by some of the work being done there, but I do not think there is just one route for schools in Northern Ireland.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. The Education Minister in Northern Ireland, Paul Givan, has been keen to introduce restrictions on students using smartphones in schools, and he has a pilot scheme in place. The Government here are happy to do the same thing. Has the Minister had an opportunity to encourage the Education Minister in Northern Ireland to bring in smartphone restrictions in schools? One party in the Executive wishes to stop that, but the will of the people is to make sure it happens.
Matthew Patrick
I was with the Minister for Education recently but this topic did not come up. Obviously, these matters are devolved and are for the Northern Ireland Executive, but I would be happy to speak to Minister Givan, as the hon. Member suggests.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
There are currently six republican paramilitaries facing prosecution for troubles-related killings. The legacy commission is already investigating a number of IRA atrocities, including the M62 coach bombing, the Guildford pub bombing and the Warrenpoint massacre. Under the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, the commission will benefit from information sharing by the Irish authorities.
David Davis
Some 2,058 people died at the hands of republican paramilitaries during the troubles—2,058—but despite that fact, only 19 IRA members are currently in prison. The Secretary of State laughably claims there was no amnesty under the Good Friday agreement, and he gives us only the few he has just mentioned. Can he tell the House how many prosecutions of IRA members he expects to arise under his troubles Bill, and how many families of people murdered by the IRA will find out what happened to their relatives?
Hilary Benn
The answer to the right hon. Member’s first question is that it will depend, as he well knows, on the evidence in any individual case, and that decision will be taken by public prosecutors in the normal way. On his second question, he will be aware that between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries were imprisoned during the troubles for a range of offences, including murder, and the purpose of the reform is to ensure that more families are able to find answers to the questions, which they are still asking, about what happened to their loved ones.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
On the subject of troubles-era violence, this week my Committee published a unanimous report calling on the Government to formally name agent Stakeknife. The Government have said that the Supreme Court judgment in the Thompson case has implications for their decision, but lead officers have said it does not. What is preventing the Government from naming Stakeknife, and when do they plan to do so?
Hilary Benn
I have, of course, seen the report that the Select Committee has published. There are ongoing civil proceedings and the Government, as I indicated previously, are still considering the implications of the Supreme Court’s Thompson judgment for this decision. I have promised the House that I will return when the Government have reached a decision on the request made by Sir Iain Livingstone, and I intend to honour that promise.
David Davis
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In view of the inadequate response that I received from the Secretary of State on Question 7, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has put that decision on the record. I am not going to extend Northern Ireland questions, so we will move on.
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery the President—the Speaker—of the Parliament of Estonia. I thank him and his delegation for being with us today from Estonia.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. I did not think that the Prime Minister was so popular on the Opposition Benches.
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Mr Speaker, may I start by saying that my thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, are with the two children stabbed at Kingsbury high school in Brent? My heart goes out to everyone affected by this appalling attack. We thank the police for their rapid response. It is important now that we give them the space to pursue their investigation.
This morning I conveyed the UK’s deepest condolences to Prime Minister Carney and the people of Canada after the devastating shooting in Tumbler Ridge.
Mr Speaker, I am determined to fix the broken SEND—special educational needs and disabilities—system. No parent should have to fight for the support their child needs. Today we announced a 10-year plan to fix the crumbling school estate that we inherited, delivering more modern and inclusive classrooms that meet the needs of every child.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues—there have been quite a few of those this week. [Laughter.] In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Perkins
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks.
The Prime Minister’s commitment to 1.5 million more homes will require 48,000 new entrants to the construction industry every year. In Chesterfield we are doing our bit: our construction skills hub brought 70 new entrants into the construction sector. We saw a welcome increase in numbers across the country last year, but we need a step change and we need numbers to double. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to get more people to commit to construction industry careers and get those numbers up where we need them to be to deliver on his housing ambitions?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right: the task of rebuilding our country is a huge opportunity to give young people a brilliant career. We are backing apprentices with a record £3 billion budget, and we are making sure that companies that bid for major contracts commit to high-quality apprenticeships here in the United Kingdom. We are creating 13,000 new opportunities for young people as plumbers, engineers and bricklayers, securing their future and rebuilding this country.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
May I associate myself, and those on the Opposition Benches, with the Prime Minister’s words on the horrific stabbing in north London yesterday, as well as the shooting in Canada?
When he was Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said, “I never turn on my staff. When they make mistakes, I carry the can.” What changed?
The Prime Minister
I have accepted responsibility and apologised for the mistakes that I made. But let me say this: Morgan McSweeney helped me change our party and helped me win a landslide election victory, which delivered for the Conservatives the smallest Tory party in over 100 years. And what is the right hon. Lady’s great achievement? To make it even smaller.
Mrs Badenoch
The Whips have done a great job today—[Interruption.] Labour Members say, “Yes, exactly.” The Whips have done a great job today getting them cheering. We all know that they have been sick for the last week. Let us remember that just last week the Prime Minister told us he had “full confidence” in his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. On Sunday he sacked Morgan McSweeney—[Interruption.] Oh, “He resigned.” Last week the Prime Minister was defending the Cabinet Secretary. Now he is sacking him. What changed?
The Prime Minister
In January the Leader of the Opposition said that she had full confidence—“100% confident”, she said—that there would be no more defections from her party. Forty-eight hours later, her shadow Foreign Minister defected. Eight days after that, the former Home Secretary defected. The only question now is: who is next? She needs to wake up—her party is dying.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is demonstrating stratospheric levels of delusion if he thinks the problem is on the Opposition Benches. He did not say anything about why the Cabinet Secretary is going, but we know the truth: it is because he is throwing everyone under the bus except himself.
The Mandelson episode was not an isolated incident. A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced a peerage for one Matthew Doyle, his former director of communications. Immediately after that, The Sunday Times published on its front page that Doyle had campaigned for a man charged with child sex offences. Despite the Prime Minister knowing that, he gave Doyle a job for life in the House of Lords anyway. Why?
The Prime Minister
Matthew Doyle did not give a full account of his actions. On Monday I promised my party and my country that there will be change, and yesterday I removed the Whip from Matthew Doyle. I will tell you what other actions we have taken, Mr Speaker: along with the Safeguarding Minister, I and this Government have introduced the most far-reaching violence against women and girls strategy. This Government have also introduced a pay rise for millions of working-class women. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? She opposed it. This Government are introducing greater protections for women at work. What did the Leader of the Opposition do? She opposed it. I will tell you what else she opposes, Mr Speaker: this Government removing the disgusting rape clause that her Government put in place.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister pretends not to know about Matthew Doyle, but it was on the front page of The Sunday Times. He cannot explain why he gave this man a peerage—I think Labour Members should be wondering why they are still cheering for him after that. The Prime Minister sometimes likes to claim that he cares about violence against women, as he just did, but the truth is that he cares about the victims only when he is trying to save his own skin. Labour Members can shake their heads at that, but we saw it with grooming gangs, we saw it with Mandelson and now we see it with Doyle. Is that not what a former prosecutor would call an established pattern of behaviour?
The Prime Minister
I will take no lectures from the Tories on standards in public life. The Leader of the Opposition defended partygate for months and months, and even now she says that it was overblown. The shadow Foreign Secretary broke the ministerial code by bullying, but Boris Johnson kept her and the Leader of the Opposition promoted her, and now she sits on her Front Bench. Her former shadow Justice Secretary complained about not seeing enough white faces in Birmingham, and the Leader of the Opposition was too weak to sack him for racism.
Mrs Badenoch
Nobody buys it, Mr Speaker—not even the Labour women, because they know that the Prime Minister always puts the Downing Street boys club first. How dare he criticise us? The Conservatives were not the ones stuffing Government with hypocrites and paedophile apologists. He cannot build a team and he has no plan. He cannot even run his own office, let alone the country. He is now dealing with a new scandal of appointing someone who campaigned for a man convicted of having indecent pictures of girls as young as 10. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that that will be his legacy?
The Prime Minister
My legacy is changing my party and winning a general election. Let me tell the Leader of the Opposition this: I kicked my former leader out of my party, while her former leader, Liz Truss, broke the economy and has descended into bonkers conspiracy theories. I kicked her out of Parliament, but the Leader of the Opposition is too weak to kick her out of their party.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister has not apologised for appointing Matthew Doyle, because he will not take responsibility—he never does, and Labour Members know it. The Prime Minister is now telling everyone that he has never lost a fight, but that is because he will not step into the ring. He has never lost a fight because he has walked away from welfare reform, he will not stand up to the unions, he will not stand up to China—he cannot even stand up to Mauritius. He has had three Cabinet Secretaries, four chiefs of staff and five directors of communications in just 18 months, and now he is mired in yet another scandal. Does he ever look in the mirror and ask himself if the real problem is staring him in the face?
The Prime Minister
I delivered a landslide victory for our party. Only four people have ever led the Labour party to victory at a general election, and I am one of them. The Leader of the Opposition talks about numbers. Let us remember what the Conservatives had: five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors, eight Home Secretaries, eight Foreign Secretaries, and 16 Housing Secretaries—all were completely useless; all failed Britain. This Prime Minister is cleaning up the mess. The right hon. Lady comes here every week desperately fighting to save her dying party. I am fighting to change our country. Interest rates—down. Inflation—down. Waiting lists—down. Child poverty—down. And I can tell her another thing that is down: the number of Tory MPs.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Delivering the new Frimley Park hospital is a priority. Under the Conservatives, my hon. Friend’s constituents were given totally empty promises. They failed patients and they failed staff. We put forward a proper plan and the funding to match, and the trust is making real progress on the business case. I want to see spades in the ground as quickly as possible.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the dreadful stabbing of two children in Brent and the horrifying shootings in British Columbia? Our thoughts and prayers are with the children’s parents and the people of Canada, especially those grieving the loss of loved ones.
To appoint one paedophile supporter cannot be excused as misfortune. To appoint two shows a catastrophic lack of judgment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman once told this House that when a Prime Minister refuses to take responsibility, it
“only serves to convince people that things cannot get better, that Government cannot improve people’s lives, and that progress is not possible because politics does not work.”—[Official Report, 8 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 44.]
Does he still agree with himself, and does he share my fear that that is exactly what is happening now?
The Prime Minister
Millions of people in this country have been let down for years and years, and one of the reasons for that was austerity, which the right hon. Gentleman’s party supported. He should take accountability and responsibility for what he has inflicted on this country! [Interruption.]
Ed Davey
Mr Speaker, I think I touched a raw nerve. I think the whole House will agree that the Mandelson scandal has shown yet again why we need a duty of candour for anyone and everyone in public office. There should be no more delays in putting the Hillsborough law on the statute book, after a long fight by the bereaved families and so many others, such as the Mayor of Greater Manchester. The Prime Minister once said that it would be one of the first things he did in No. 10. Will he finally do it now, even if it is the last thing he does?
The Prime Minister
The panel report on the Hillsborough case was when I started working on the Hillsborough case. That was in 2012, when the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power. They could have passed this law a long time ago and saved a lot of grief. I am proud that this Labour Government are bringing in a Hillsborough law—something I have committed to for a very long time.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I know how important affordable ferries are to my hon. Friend’s constituents’ everyday lives. The ETS scheme will make journeys cleaner and we are working with ferry companies on the grid connections in ports that enable greener vessels. I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
If I have just heard the Prime Minister correctly, he has essentially rolled the same pitch in relation to Matthew Doyle as he did with Peter Mandelson, in saying that they were not clear with him. He appears to be the most gullible former Director of Public Prosecutions in history. But he has a slight problem, because some of us do read the newspapers. Towards the end of last year, on 30 December, having written to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, I received a response from the chair, who advised me that as part of their vetting, they
“provide confidential advice to the Prime Minister on the propriety of the proposed nominees”.
Will the Prime Minister release that advice?
The Prime Minister
I have made my position clear. The right hon. Gentleman knows how the system works. He says he reads the newspapers. He will have read that in nine days, his party’s former chief executive goes on trial for embezzling money. He will have read that in the Queen Elizabeth hospital, we see one of the worst failures in Scottish public life, with vulnerable children and adults put at risk. Evidence of serious warnings to the SNP Government was ignored. He should have been looking at those warnings, not looking at the newspapers. The First Minister should act, because families deserve accountability.
Mr Speaker
Can I just remind the Prime Minister that we do not discuss live cases because they are sub judice?
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Lleyton’s success is a testament to what young people can achieve with the right support. We are creating technical excellence colleges and delivering training places for 60,000 skilled construction workers. Labour is creating opportunities for every young person while building the homes, schools and hospitals that our country needs, and that is what I am fighting for.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are taking action, but if the hon. Lady sends me or my team the details of the particular case in her constituency, I will see if there is anything we can do to provide support on what is obviously an important issue.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an awful case, and my thoughts and those, I am sure, of the whole House are with the loved ones of Lorraine. Tackling violence against women and girls is a critical mission, and I will ensure that a Home Office Minister meets the family. I want to be absolutely clear that illegal immigrants who commit such appalling acts should not be in this country. That is why we have already removed nearly 60,000 people with no right to be here, and deportations of foreign criminals are up by a third. We are also reforming human rights law to allow us to swiftly remove those with no right to be here.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Prime Minister
We have put a record amount of money into dealing with potholes. The hon. Member needs to ask his council, which is run by his party, why it is not using that money.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Flynn, you don’t need to cover your mouth—I can still hear you. Your voice is louder than mine!
Douglas McAllister
It is also a source of great pride that the torch has now been passed to our Government. By removing the two-child benefit cap, we will lift more children out of poverty in a single Parliament than ever before—2,260 children in West Dunbartonshire and 95,000 children in Scotland. Does the Prime Minister agree that this demonstrates true Labour values in action across Scotland and the UK?
The Prime Minister
In Labour, we know the damage that growing up in poverty does to the life chances of children. The Tories put hundreds of thousands of children into poverty, and they will live with that for the rest of their lives. We are undoing their damage. Our decision will benefit almost 100,000 children in Scotland as we deliver the largest reduction in child poverty in any single Parliament.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising those cases—they are harrowing cases for everyone in this country. The safety of children is of course paramount, and we are acting to keep them safe. We are implementing all the proposals consulted on to strengthen safeguarding as part of our early years foundation stage framework. An expert group is developing guidance on the effective use of CCTV—the point she makes—and considering whether it should be mandatory in early settings. I will ensure that she is updated as we take that work forward.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. The people’s palace is an iconic British venue—a home for darts, snooker and world-class music. It is vital that we support brilliant venues that give so much to our cultural life. That is why we are providing almost £200 million to preserve heritage buildings across the country, so that venues like Alexandra Palace can have a bright future.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Mr Speaker
Order. It is an important question but I am sure that the Prime Minister got it in the first two minutes.
The Prime Minister
I know that communities have been badly affected by recent storms, and the damage to the A379 is very concerning. I am pleased that the hon. Lady is meeting the Roads Minister and the Floods Minister today. We are investing £10 billion to improve coastal and flood defences. I thank the Environment Agency staff who are working hard right now to put extra protections in place and support people ahead of further wet weather.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
My message is that I have always believed that those with skin in the game make the best decisions about their communities. I know just how much her constituents want Woodgate Valley visitors centre back open. Together, we can make that happen. Hope in Britain is found in our communities. That is why we are investing so heavily in our Pride in Place initiative.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
My constituent’s mum, sister and stepfather were killed in a horrific dangerous driving crime for which a foreign national offender was sentenced to 10 and a half years. However, the family have just been told that he may be released imminently in order to be deported, having served just three years. Will the Prime Minister look at the case and at what steps can be taken to prevent that release? Such a pitiful time served—three years for three lives—would be the final insult and undermine public confidence in our justice system.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising what is obviously a terrible case. If he provides further details, I will ensure that it is looked into as quickly as possible.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is an inspirational and powerful campaigner on this issue. By doing what he is doing, he will give great courage to other people to take the same steps. I am proud that we are increasing the number of NHS speech and language therapists. We are trialling new ways of identifying and supporting children with speech and language needs in their early years, because I agree that every child deserves the help they need to reach their potential.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
My Surrey Heath constituent Christopher was discharged from the RAF in 1966 solely for being gay, but—despite the Government committing to restoring the medals and the berets, and indeed acknowledging the injustice of those who were discharged from our armed forces prior to 1967 for that reason—his case has been dismissed out of hand, with only a letter that contained the tracked changes from the template that the Ministry of Defence issued. Can I ask the Prime Minister to take a personal interest in this case to ensure that it is resolved swiftly, and to allow Christopher to march on Remembrance Day, as he wishes to, with his medals and his beret, and his dignity restored?
The Prime Minister
I will do everything that I can to ensure that that happens, which is absolutely what should happen. This was an absolute scandal—the gays in the military ban—and it is absolutely right that it was overturned, but we must follow through on that. I will do everything I can to make sure that we deliver on what the hon. Gentleman has asked me to deliver on.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend’s constituency is already home to brilliant research, innovation and economic growth, and through a Greater Cambridge development corporation we will put in place the powers and resources to unlock its full potential. I want to let local people have their say. We will make sure that we create a fair plan, with attractive, well-connected and thriving new neighbourhoods.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister share with me the concern that while some ambassadors retiring in disgrace get tens of thousands of pounds in pay-offs, many other civil servants are failing to get the retirement that they are due and are expected to turn to their old Departments for bridging loans? This is clearly a scandal. Will he put all his effort behind making sure that those who have served with integrity are treated with the dignity that they deserve?
The Prime Minister
Yes; we are taking steps, and the right hon. Gentleman is right that we should take further steps. I think there will be agreement about that across the House.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that we need the conditions for flourishing high streets. That underscores the importance of six interest rate cuts, the £5.8 billion that we have put into Pride in Place, and the work to put money in people’s pockets. I am pleased that we have delivered a 15% cut and a two-year freeze for pubs and live music venues. That comes on top of the £4.3 billion to support businesses, and permanently lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for raising the stabbing at Kingsbury high school yesterday. It is absolutely right that we allow the police to get on with their job of investigating this terrible atrocity; indeed, the police are out there now, providing reassurance to parents and people in the community. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and those who witnessed the atrocity. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Will the Prime Minister now look at what needs to be done to combat knife crime across the country? It is absolutely wrong that people are carrying knives in the first place—they do not need to—and that they are drawn into such terrible atrocities. We owe it to the victims to ensure that that happens.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this case: it is one of the most powerful and important things that we do as MPs in this place, particularly when there are such awful cases. He is absolutely right; we must everything that we can to reduce knife crime. There are initiatives and steps that we have taken to remove the accessibility of knives, in relation to where they can be bought. We need to do much more work with our schools and young people to ensure that people do not carry knives, and we need to work with the police and law enforcement to make sure that these incidents are investigated as quickly and effectively as possible. I think that is an endeavour shared by Members from across the House.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
In my constituency, the beautiful grade II listed Chetwynd bridge on the A513 between Edingale and Alrewas has been restricted to cars and light vans since October 2023, so farmers face a 25-mile diversion. With severe flooding hitting Edingale multiple times a year, this vital route risks being cut off for emergency response times as well. Bridges like this one, with a clear economic impact on communities, should be the focus of the Government’s new structures fund, which I welcome. Will the Prime Minister encourage his Ministers to meet with me so that we can find a solution to this issue for my rural constituents in Tamworth?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Just hearing her makes it absolutely clear that we need to find a solution, so I will make sure that she gets the meeting that she requests with the relevant Minister so that we can move as quickly as possible.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Rubbish is building up right beneath my very nose. [Laughter.]
Ayoub Khan
It is becoming a serious problem. In Birmingham, bin strikes have now been running for close to two years. May I gently ask the Prime Minister to intervene? Will he perhaps speak to the leader of Birmingham city council to see if he can re-enter negotiations with Unite the union?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. We are doing everything that we can to resolve the situation, which absolutely needs resolving.
Point of Order
(3 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, a Reform UK MP visited a synagogue in my constituency and failed to notify me; it was a political visit. This is part of a pattern that has been observed. At a time when we need to work together in our communities to tackle antisemitism, a terrible form of hate, I would like your guidance on the correct procedure for Members on when they should—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Tice, it is very important that I hear this point of order—[Interruption.] No, I need to hear it; I will make a ruling in a minute.
Rachel Blake
I would like your guidance, Mr Speaker, on the correct procedure for Members. When should they, or when should they not, show the courtesy of letting the sitting Member of Parliament know of their intention to visit a constituency?
Mr Speaker
I am very clear on this matter. When Members of Parliament go into another Member’s constituency, they should let that Member know in advance. This is not about one party; Members of all parties continue to do it. These are the courtesies that we expect of others, so please remember the rule: let other Members know when you are going into their constituency. The point has been raised, and I will leave it at that.
Short-term Let Accommodation (Data Sharing Requirements)
Wednesday 11th February 2026
(3 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Short-term Let Accommodation (Data Sharing Requirements) Bill 2024-26 View all Short-term Let Accommodation (Data Sharing Requirements) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require certain persons or organisations to share specified data relating to the short-term letting of accommodation with regulatory authorities; to amend the Data Protection Act 2018 in connection with that requirement; and for connected purposes.
I am honoured to represent the Cities of London and Westminster in the heart of London; it is a truly unique constituency in a number of ways. How many can say that they have the Tate Britain, Ronnie Scott’s and Abbey Road Studios in their patch? How many can boast 78,000 businesses and 2 million jobs? How many can point to having been the home for a unique wealth of historical figures, such as Mary Seacole, Millicent Fawcett and Olaudah Equiano? However, this centrality comes at the cost of one of the most competitive housing markets in the world, where long-term residents are forced to compete against commercial real estate, luxury developers and foreign oligarchs.
Chief among the forces hollowing out our communities is the unchecked proliferation of short-term letting hosts on Airbnb, Booking.com and other sites. These individuals turn our homes into hotels, our communities into commodities, and our neighbours into night-time nuisances. My inbox is full of such stories: fire services being called because of guests leaving cookers on; families with children being kept up with drug-fuelled James Bond-themed parties taking place right next door night after night; and even organised crime outfits renting out apartments for a weekend to harass Londoners, snatching phones and wallets before leaving with their ill-gotten gains.
Amidst this bad behaviour is the flagrant breach of the London-wide regulation that short lets can operate for no more than 90 nights per year without planning permission. This is operationally impossible to enforce because of how difficult it is to get accurate information on how many nights a short-term let is being used. In some parts of my constituency, as many as 30% of homes are being used as short-term lets, in the process making the homes that are left less affordable for long-term residents. Research from King’s College London shows that doubling the density of short-term lets is associated with an 8% growth—or more than £4,500 per year—in per-bedroom rental prices. This overheated housing market has become unaffordable for locals and hollowed out communities like those in the west end, which was historically the beating cultural heart of London, home to William Blake, Shelley and Constable. The average one-bed flat in Soho costs £2,400 a month to rent privately, That is over double what it would have cost at the turn of the millennium. At the same time, average prices have tripled from £300,000 to nearly £1 million.
When non-residential forces crowd into a residential market, it is working people who are the losers. It is no coincidence that Soho’s population has shrunk by two thirds over the same time period and that the knock-on effects of these changes are felt. Since my election, I have had to fight for institutions used by local residents, including schools and community facilities such as the Jubilee Hall gym and the Central YMCA, to stay open, and frequently their landlords have complained about a lack of footfall.
London is not just special because of its landmarks or its economy; it is special because of its people—its historic communities living and working together, and generating some of the greatest cultural and social achievements produced by this country. If we want to keep London a world-leading city, we need to ensure that its people can afford to make a home here, and that they feel safe and at ease living here. We have to fight for this city, and that is exactly what I intend to do.
I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to the City of Westminster’s pioneering short-term lets team, who work day in and day out to enforce existing rules around illegal subletting, the 90-day rule, and antisocial behaviour in problem properties. Since coming into power on the council in 2022, Labour has doubled its size and I have been working with it in launching a short-term lets commission, directly reporting properties flagged by my constituents to council officers and ensuring they are taken off the sites for good.
The Government are on the side of my constituents too, pushing forward with a mandatory short-term lets registration scheme. This will for the first time give us clear, uncontested data on where the short-term lets are and who is operating them. Hosts will have to enter their property’s address and will receive a unique reference number, which will then appear on all sites where it is let, and they will have to confirm that they are following existing regulations that apply to short-term lets, such as fire, gas and electrical certificates. This will be transformative for how we enforce short-term lets in London. With a unique reference number, teams like those in Westminster will be able to pinpoint problem properties much more easily and take them off major sites for good.
But there is a piece of information that the scheme must collect, yet which right now we cannot: the number of nights for which homes are being let out. Without this crucial data, enforcing the 90-day limit will remain an elusive task to local authority planning enforcement teams. Data from AirDNA indicates that nearly 6,000 short lets in the Cities of London and Westminster are being let out for over the 90-day limit. These are almost certainly the worst offenders when it comes to the other community disruptions I have mentioned. If we simply made these actors follow the law, or better still took them off the market entirely, we would significantly reduce the disruption caused by short-term letting.
Why can we not record this data? The Data Protection Act 2018 currently prevents such information from being shared. While the Act is crucial for ensuring that our personal data is more secure than in comparable countries outside the EU, in this case it stands in the way of effectively regulating short-term lets. A number of exemptions exist in the legislation, however, and the Bill would extend them to include the number of nights for which short-term lets are used.
However, that is not the only action needed to tackle short-term lets. Time and again, my constituents bring up licensing as a possible solution to the spread of short-term lets, backed by reams of research from policy experts. Just as a business must apply to open a bar or café in a local area, so too should the host of a short-term let have to apply to their local authority before opening what is, in essence, a micro-hotel in the middle of a residential block.
While every local authority should be able to undertake its open approach to this issue, local authorities such as Westminster and the City of London, where concentrations are so high, need to have the power to decide where homes can be let out and under what conditions. The Government’s upcoming database is a crucial step in this direction because it can, for the first time ever, provide an authoritative dataset on the extent of this problem, which will benefit Members of Parliament and their constituents across the country.
My constituents are ready to engage with that database and report poor practice, and the local authorities I work with are on hand to upscale their work and the benefits that it can bring. All we need now is this final piece of the puzzle: knowing how many nights homes are let out for. That piece is well within our grasp, and it is up to us in this House to deliver it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Rachel Blake, Lizzi Collinge, Florence Eshalomi, Dame Meg Hillier, Alison Hume, Jayne Kirkham, Joe Powell, Anna Gelderd, Will Stone, Noah Law, Tony Vaughan and Dr Scott Arthur present the Bill.
Rachel Blake accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 382).
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice on how I register my utter disgust at the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) scoring a cheap political point about me visiting a synagogue in this constituency.
Mr Speaker
First, that is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record. A point of order was made earlier, and this ruling is where I stand: if you are visiting a synagogue for prayer or in a private capacity, the relevant Member should not expect to be told. However, if you are visiting in an official capacity following an invite, it is only right that we must ensure that the relevant Member of Parliament is aware. I will leave it at that. I will not continue the debate, but I just reaffirm to all Members—whether shadow Ministers, Ministers or Back Benchers—that they should ensure that the relevant Member of Parliament is aware of a visit. When I say “visit”, I am talking about one made not in a private capacity but a political capacity.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised a previous point of order regarding the Royal Mail and postal delivery services, and I mention that because I recently wrote to some constituents about that very point of order. However, that letter, which was sent first class from the House of Commons, took 12 days to arrive. Many Members across this House are writing about important issues on House of Commons paper, in House of Commons envelopes, and they are taking many days to arrive. As a result, many of our constituents might be ill-informed about the speed with which Members of Parliament are responding, which—as you will know, Mr Speaker—can be raised with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is certainly not a point of order, but you have rightly put your point on the record. I am sure your constituents are well aware that you are diligent in your replies, and that the delay is down to Royal Mail hanging on to your letter for 12 days. Royal Mail quite rightly has a duty of care. If it says first class, we expect a first-class delivery service. With the price of postage, the Royal Mail should be embarrassed by what you have raised today, but that still does not make it a point of order.
Business of the House
(3 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Police Grant Report
(3 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026–27 (HC 1638), which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.
Before I come to the detail of the settlement, I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister’s Question Time following the stabbing at Kingsbury high school in Brent yesterday, and add our condolences and our thoughts. We all hope that those who have been injured will be able to recover, and that justice will be done in a very difficult situation.
I also want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women who work to protect the rest of us from harm. I did not need to become the Policing Minister to appreciate the debt of gratitude that is owed to those dedicated public servants, but having the honour of serving in this post has given me a daily insight into the remarkable work of our police. I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing gratitude to the officers, staff and volunteers who, as we speak, are performing their duties with professionalism, skill and courage. We are all fortunate to have so many brave individuals dedicated to keeping us safe, whether they be first responders turning towards danger, police community support officers immersed in their neighbourhoods, or staff working behind the scenes to track the latest threats to the public. That is why our record cash investment in the policing system for England and Wales is so important. We are determined to provide our police forces with the resources they need to continue their vital work, as well as support to invest in their future.
In 2026-27, overall funding for the policing system in England and Wales will be up to £21 billion, an increase of £1.3 billion compared with 2025-26. Funding available to local police forces will total up to £18.4 billion, an increase of £796 million from 2025-26, or 2.3% in real terms. Of this funding increase, £432 million will come from additional Government grant, while £364 million will come from police precept, assuming that police and crime commissioners choose to maximise the £15 limit. Furthermore, we have worked with a small group of forces that evidenced particular financial pressures to agree additional precept flexibility. The settlement also includes at least £1.2 billion for counter-terrorism policing to preserve national security and guard against the most severe threats, as is the primary duty of any Government.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
As the Minister is getting into the detail of the funding package, will she accept two broad points? First, the overall number of police officers in England has fallen on Labour’s watch. Secondly, because of cost pressures on police forces from other decisions taken by her Government, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has said that there is a £500 million shortfall in the allocation of funding from this Government to police forces.
Sarah Jones
With £21 billion going into policing overall and £18.4 billion going directly to our police forces, I do not accept that there is a shortfall in funding. More money—hundreds of millions of pounds—is going into policing this year than last year.
Turning to the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, which I suspect Conservative Front Benchers will also try to make, we have worked with police chiefs not only to introduce a big package of reform, but to remove the arbitrary headcount targets for officer numbers that local forces found so difficult to navigate. Those forces were pushed into recruiting officers and putting them behind desks to do jobs that staff could do. We are not going to judge our police on the numbers of people in different roles; we are going to judge them on their outcomes, which is why we are setting targets, driving productivity, and focusing on tackling crime rather than arbitrary numbers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for the report we are debating. I think she mentioned that the figure for counter-terrorism was £1.2 billion. Obviously, we in Northern Ireland have a particular, critical role when it comes to addressing the issue of terrorism. It is still active in Northern Ireland—in a minor way, but still active—and we also have a border that we have to patrol, addressing issues such as immigration and theft of agricultural machinery. All those things come into the picture, so will extra money be coming to the Police Service of Northern Ireland through the Barnett consequentials to help us?
Sarah Jones
Of course, policing itself is devolved, but addressing the risk of terrorism involves working across the whole of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Security Minister will ensure we are working very closely across all four parts of this United Kingdom to offer the support that is needed.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
As the Policing Minister knows, West Mercia police—which covers Shropshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire—is a very good force in many ways. However, is she aware that West Mercia is about to see the first fall in police numbers in over a decade, with approximately 20 frontline police officers likely to be removed as a result of what the local police and crime commissioner calls a “shortfall in Government funding”, and that this will affect The Wrekin constituency?
Sarah Jones
To repeat, every force in the country has had an increase in its funding this year, and we are making sure we have the right funding to support our objectives. On police officer numbers, what we saw under the last Government was a reduction of 20,000 officers and then a rush to recruit 20,000. The result was, for example, a 60% rise in retail crime in the last two years of the Conservative Government—that arbitrary focus on numbers did not result in the right outcomes. We are interested in police outcomes. We are interested in driving down crime and preventing it, and we believe that we should give our chiefs the flexibility to understand what roles they need within their local workforce. Police staff are exceptionally important in many different roles.
Under the last Government, the number of PCSOs halved. That was not even Government policy; it just happened because they did not have a proper workforce plan and did not think about these things, and then in the latter years they did not allow flexibility for local officers. We believe chiefs can make the right decisions about their workforce locally, and for the first time—the Conservatives failed to do this—we will establish a national workforce plan, to make sure we have the right resources in the right places at the right time.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The Policing Minister, who is my constituency neighbour, has referenced the different kinds of people in the police workforce and how police chiefs should have flexibility. However, over the past year, not only have police officer numbers fallen by 1,300, but police staff numbers have also fallen by 529. The number of PCSOs has fallen by 204, the number of special constables has fallen by 514, and even the number of volunteers has fallen. Every single number has fallen—is the Minister proud of that?
Sarah Jones
Knife murders have fallen by 27% and knife crime has fallen by 8%—there were nearly 4,500 fewer knife offences in the past year than in the year before that. We are focused on outcomes. The right hon. Gentleman will know that proper police reform involves looking at the staff, the workforce and new technology. He is a big fan of live facial recognition, as are we, and we are taking out of the system inefficiencies to the tune of £350 million during this Parliament. Money was being wasted by the previous Government, but we will strip those inefficiencies out of the system. Our reforms will focus on outcomes, and on delivering a local police force that will tackle the epidemic of everyday crime and a national police service that will tackle complex crime.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I apologise for the fact that I cannot stay until the end of this debate, because I have a debate in Westminster Hall, but I need to ask the Minister a question. She talks about outcomes. Is she as shocked as I am that the Labour Cheshire police and crime commissioner has already spent £200,000 on two listening exercises, and is expected to spend another £400,000 on more listening exercises? The precept is going up by 6.7%, but the police force will have to make redundancies. Does she not agree that the money should go not on vanity projects, but on frontline policing?
Sarah Jones
I suggest that the previous Government would have benefited from listening to the public. There is no harm in listening to the public. Indeed, it is our role as elected representatives to do so. One challenge that we are grappling with through the police reform White Paper is how we make sure that there is accountability at the hyper-local and national levels. We need to make sure that we listen to our constituents and target the crimes that they care about.
Esther McVey
Following on from the Minister’s point, I noticed today that the same Labour police and crime commissioner has put up an advert for a senior public relations officer on £45,000 to £55,000, and there are other vanity projects. Surely that money should be spent on PCSOs and police on the ground, not on the PCC himself.
Sarah Jones
I do not know whether the right hon. Lady has anybody in her team to help her with communications.
Sarah Jones
Nobody? I suspect that she does have somebody who helps with communications; most hon. Members in this place do.
Sarah Jones
Ensuring the public know what is happening is also a good thing. The right hon. Lady will know that we have said several times in this place that we are abolishing the role of the police and crime commissioner. That is not in any way because of the work that they have done. Indeed, they have done a lot of brilliant work. I have some fantastic colleagues that I will continue to work with until 2028.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Is the Minister taking the intervention or not?
Sarah Jones
I suggest that we carry on that conversation over a cup of coffee another time.
We are also investing £1.4 billion in the wider policing system to continue our progress on adopting modern, cutting-edge technologies that will better enable the police to perform their most critical function of keeping the public safe. The Government are supporting the police in their ongoing fight against knife crime by maintaining funding for serious violence reduction activity in every force area. Alongside that, there is £28 million, through our county lines programme, to disrupt organised crime and protect vulnerable and exploited children. A total of £119 million will go towards our ambitious programme of police reform, in which we will establish a new national centre to support the use of artificial intelligence across policing, enable the national roll-out of live facial recognition and strengthen the way that data is used to support operational policing.
Mark Pritchard
The Minister is being very generous with her time, as she always is. I hope that she will also be generous in her reply. AI is already playing a part in policing, and I would hope that everybody who wants crime reduced supports that, but as far as I am concerned, that support comes with caveats. There needs to be legislative oversight to ensure that AI is regulated and not abused. When will the Government come forward with the legislation that was mentioned by the Home Secretary? Just very briefly on police reform, does she recognise that West Mercia oversees a rural and semi-rural area? In any reconfiguration, restructuring should recognise the unique challenges of rural police forces, as opposed to, let us say, those of the neighbouring force, West Midlands.
Sarah Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the two points that he raised in one question. On AI, he is absolutely right that we need to ensure—I hope this is now the policy of the Opposition; it was not when they were in government—that there is an understanding of what AI is and is not used for. Importantly, we are consulting on how live facial recognition is and is not used. On AI, a huge amount of work is going on in different police forces, and most areas have ethics committees and other such structures that consider and talk about the use of AI. For example, there are certain rules around the use of AI. It should never be used to make a decision or to pass a judgment; it should be just for giving information. That is very important. We saw in the recent West Midlands case how easy it is to end up making a mistake, and we want to avoid that.
On the reform point, we are baking into our structures the idea that, at the hyper-local level, everybody in the ward will have a named, contactable officer, and that there will be targets for 999 response times, 999 call-answering times, and response times for non-urgent calls. I have heard from several MPs that rural areas are concerned that where there is a larger force, they will get fewer resources. That is not the intention—indeed, it is quite the opposite. Instead of having 43 forces making 43 decisions, and 86 decision makers spending money in 43 different ways, we will make savings that will mean that we can put more money into frontline policing in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I am reassured to hear the Minister’s words, but I am not hearing how what she describes will happen. We have all seen what happens with a larger force. The big cities and metropolitan areas have a political way of pulling resources to them; it is almost like gravity. Something structural is required. The Minister may not have an answer today, but will she consider ways of backing up her hope, to turn it into something on which rural communities in my constituency can rely?
Sarah Jones
As the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), has just said to me, the two of us are from cities and we quite often feel the same way—that we do not always get the resources that we are pushing for. Everybody here will be interested in ensuring that their constituents get the funding that they need. We are about to set up an independent review on what the structures will be. The right hon. Member can also read the White Paper, which sets out some of these ideas. The independent review will be completed by the summer, and that will set out how many forces there will be and how they will work.
Sarah Jones
I will make a little bit of progress, if that is okay.
Let me say a little more about policing reform. Last month, as I said, we released the White Paper, which sets out how we will create a policing system fit for the future. Taken together, our plans amount to the biggest reforms for almost 200 years. They will see improvements to police governance, forced mergers to unlock greater efficiencies, and the creation of a national police service, capable of fighting sophisticated criminals at a national level. Those reforms are overdue. They will not be easy, but they are necessary. Our overarching aim is clear: to establish a new policing model, in which local forces protect their communities and a national police protects us all.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the challenges that we have always had in Staffordshire is that, because of a manufacturing site in Tamworth and because of the politics of Stoke-on-Trent, we have often had to deal with complex national issues around far-right activism and Hizb ut-Tahrir activism. With the increases for police forces, and given their national responsibilities, how will the Minister ensure that the local specialisms that we have built up in Staffordshire will continue to be deployable there? Sometimes, our neighbourhood policing is the first barrier—the first way of dealing with problems that can escalate further down the line. How will that knowledge transfer carry on?
Sarah Jones
Several people have raised similar concerns. My answer is that creating a much simpler system will make the movement of information, resources, people and specialisms easier, and that will be easier to maintain. We will be bringing together lots of different national bodies. We have the regional organised crime units, which do not have a legislative basis and are funded in a range of different, slightly peculiar ways. We have specialist units sitting in different forces across the country looking at different things, whether that is modern slavery or funding helicopters. We have this peculiar system that does not make much sense. By streamlining things, so that we have a national service, a regional service and local police areas, we can enable that flow of information and specialisms to be clearer. I understand my hon. Friend’s point, which has been raised by several people. We will certainly be mindful of it.
Graham Stuart
The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way. I met the chief constable of Humberside last week. As the Minister will know, it is the leading force in the country and has the best results, so local people are concerned about a reorganisation that could be expensive, and could draw resources away from a successful police system. How will those making preparations for these changes engage the chief constable in Humberside and others who are helping to set very high standards now? We do not want those standards diminished in the future.
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Gentleman points to a challenge, which is that some police forces perform brilliantly, and others perform less well. There is only one force in Engage at the moment, but in the main, forces will be good at certain things and bad at others, and that will vary across the country. Our aim is to ensure that we have brilliance everywhere, and we are working closely with police chiefs.
I think this is the first time that a reform programme has not had the criticism that we might expect from different aspects of policing. It was almost to the point that we sat back and wondered, “Have we got this wrong? Everybody is agreeing with us.” It is powerful to sit with police chiefs and with rank and file officers, as I did last week, and hear about the challenges they face and their solutions. We are suggesting the same solutions. It will be a difficult journey—no reform programme is not—but we are making sure that we engage with policing every step of the way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sarah Jones
I will make some progress, I am afraid.
Many hon. Members have talked about the funding formula. In opposition, I regularly called on the previous Government to review the funding formula. As part of this reform journey, we will have to reform the formula, because we are changing the structures. I can reassure Members that we will do that. This year’s settlement represents a first step in our reform journey. We have streamlined the way that we distribute funding and have put flexibility back into the hands of police chiefs, allowing them to focus on the priorities of their communities and of this Government.
One of those priorities has to be neighbourhood policing, as it is the bedrock of the British policing model. A central aim of this Government’s agenda has been to restore neighbourhood policing after it was catastrophically eroded in the years before the general election. Our efforts are already having an impact; there are nearly 2,400 more neighbourhood officers already in our communities, and the neighbourhood policing guarantee is delivering named, contactable officers in every area, but we must and will go further. Through this settlement, we will build on the progress made so far.
Having listened to feedback from police chiefs, police and crime commissioners, Select Committees and His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services and others, we are removing arbitrary headcount targets for overall officer numbers. We believe that success should be judged not just by numbers, but by how the police deliver the outcomes that the public want. Our focus is on putting police where they can make the most difference, which is often in our communities, tackling the crime and antisocial behaviour that blights cities, towns and villages. We are therefore ringfencing £363 million of funding to get 1,750 more police officers and police and community support officers into neighbourhood policing roles in the next year.
Sarah Jones
I will carry on making some progress.
Through the continued growth in neighbourhood policing, we will restore the vital link between police forces and the communities they serve. We also believe that there is significant potential to revolutionise police efficiency and productivity. We are continuing to work with forces through the efficiency programme towards the target I mentioned earlier of £354 million of cashable savings by the end of this Parliament. As set out in our White Paper, we must explore further avenues to bring policing into the modern age and deliver better value. Meanwhile, new structures will remove duplication and the national police service will allow us to deal with the biggest threats nationally. This Government believe in doing things right once, not in 43 different ways, and not a single penny of taxpayers’ money should be wasted. By investing in new technology, taking away administrative burdens and moving officers out from desks and into our communities, we move closer to that goal.
In 2026-27, we are continuing to invest in the police, supporting them with a record level of funding to do what they do best: keeping us all safe. That is the first duty of Government.
Sarah Jones
I will not on this occasion.
Keeping us all safe requires a highly effective and efficient police service that is both equipped for the crime-fighting challenges of now and prepared for the future.
Ultimately,
“the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.”
Not my words, but one of Robert Peel’s principles of policing, as laid out almost 200 years ago. Those principles are just as relevant today. We believe that policing should be about keeping people safe. The visible presence of police officers on our streets is vital, and this settlement aims to get officers away from desks and back on the frontline.
Esther McVey
I thank the Minister for giving way; it is most generous of her. My chief constable has raised a point about Labour’s new Sentencing Act 2026, where criminals will not be sentenced for less than 12 months. My chief constable says that their force will now be man-marking criminals on the street, which will cost them approximately £1.6 million a year. Can the Minister explain how she plans to address that issue in costs and man hours?
Sarah Jones
Significant investment is going into probation alongside those reforms. As the right hon. Lady would expect, colleagues in the Home Office and I are working closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure we are equipped to respond to any changes. It is absolutely true that it is often right for people to have non-prison sentences, whether that is tagging or other punishments. We can do some innovative work on that going forward, but we are having regular meetings with our police colleagues to make sure we are ready for the changes.
Equally, we cannot forget the staff essential to our policing system, such as the PCSOs working with vulnerable individuals, victim support staff helping people through the aftermath of crimes, or tech experts working in police headquarters to track stolen phones. This settlement recognises that and puts power back in the hands of local forces, allowing them to prioritise the right mix of skills for a modern workforce. We are giving the police the resources—up to £18.4 billion—to invest in this workforce and to supply them with the tools and powers they need to do their jobs.
We know that to people across England and Wales, what matters most is not what we say but what we do. We are backing up our words with action—restoring neighbourhood policing, driving down harmful threats and equipping forces for the challenges of modern crime fighting—but we will not stop there. We will maintain momentum this year and beyond, reforming policing and striving to give law-abiding citizens the safety and security they deserve. This settlement will aid us in delivering those aims, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Gareth Snell
I just wanted to say this before the right hon. Gentleman got into his speech. In 2010 the number of police officers in Staffordshire was about 1,000, and it only returned to that level this year. We have never had a police and crime commissioner who was not a Conservative, and we have only ever had a Conservative council and a Conservative Government during that period. Is the right hon. Gentleman able to tell me whom I should hold accountable for that decimation of neighbourhood policing under the last Government?
Chris Philp
The last Government left office with record police numbers. In March 2024, at the time of the last recruitment intake, there were 149,769 officers by headcount, the highest number in history and 3,000 higher than the number in 2010. The Minister asked about outcomes. According to the crime survey for England and Wales, overall crime fell by about 50% under the last Government.
I was about to say, before I, perhaps foolishly—
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Philp
Goodness me, this is already becoming very congested, but I cannot possibly resist my right hon. Friend’s entreaty.
Graham Stuart
I am extremely grateful. My right hon. Friend is being most generous, and he has barely begun his speech.
I must have misheard, because I have listened to so many speeches about law and order from Labour Members, and my right hon. Friend must have misspoken. He has suggested that not only did the last Conservative Government leave a record number of police officers, but overall crime fell by 50%. Have those words ever been issued by the Ministers, or do they try to mislead the public at every opportunity?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to stand up and correct the record? Go ahead.
Graham Stuart
I mentioned no individual, Madam Deputy Speaker, but “inadvertently”, of course, in any Minister’s case.
Chris Philp
It is true that Labour Members forget to mention the record police numbers in March 2024 or the reduction in crime—which was, in fact, more than 50% over the period.
Chris Philp
I will happily give way quite a lot, but I have not even started, and I have given way a couple of times already.
I was going to start by echoing the Minister’s tribute to police officers up and down the country who, every day, put themselves in the line of danger. I have attended the annual police memorial service and met the families of officers who have tragically lost their lives while keeping us safe, and I think they should remain at the front of our minds during the debate.
The Minister threw around some big numbers earlier in respect of the increase in police funding that has been announced, but the 4.5% increase for frontline police forces—the increase being given to police and crime commissioners—is not enough to meet the funding and cost pressures that they face. Earlier today I spoke to Roger Hirst, the Essex police and crime commissioner, who is, as the Minister knows, the finance lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. He told me that, according to his assessment, this funding settlement is about £100 million short of the cost pressures that police forces will face, which means that they will have to find cuts—but it is not just Roger. The National Police Chiefs’ Council, the body that represents chief constables, said on 28 January:
“Many forces are planning service reductions, with consequences for officer numbers, staff capacity and…resilience.”
In other words, both police and crime commissioners and the NPCC say that the settlement is inadequate to maintain police resources. But it not just them either. The Labour police and crime commissioner for Avon and Somerset has just had to cancel the recruitment of 70 new officers because of “lower than expected” Government funding. The Cambridgeshire police and crime commissioner says that the settlement falls short of what is required. The chief constable of Cleveland says that his force faces a £4 million funding gap. The Essex police and crime commissioner, whom I mentioned a moment ago, says that
“the Government…settlement…is insufficient to cover rising costs”,
and Greater Manchester police say that they face a £32 million funding gap. In summary, this settlement is not enough to enable police forces up and down the country to maintain their level of service. They will shrink, and their services will be diminished.
The Minister mentioned the money being provided for the 1,750 neighbourhood policing officers, but did not say how much it was. In fact, the Government are providing £50 million for that purpose. If we divide the one number by the other, we find that it comes to £29,000 per officer. As the NPCC has pointed out, the cost of an officer is, on average, £68,000, so the Government are funding only 42% of the cost, leaving the other 58% completely unfunded. The Minister also forgot to mention that the Government are cancelling the funding for antisocial behaviour hotspot patrolling, which was introduced by the last Government and should have been continued.
As for the way in which the money is distributed, it remains the case that the funding formula is deeply unfair. Changes are long overdue, and I ask the Minister to introduce those changes to make the formula fairer. The Metropolitan police receive by far the highest amount in the country. Even if we account for the national capital city grant and counter-terrorism funding, they receive £439 per head. As for the lowest-funded forces, Dorset receives £255 a head, Essex £236, Cambridgeshire £237 and Wiltshire £235. They are inadequately funded, and the formula urgently needs to be updated. I ask the Minister—or her colleague the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), when she sums up the debate—to address that point.
The consequence of this inadequate funding settlement is just the same as the consequence of last year’s inadequate funding settlement, when my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), my shadow ministerial colleague, stood at the Dispatch Box and warned the Minister’s predecessor that the settlement would lead to reductions in police numbers. We now know that that has come to pass. The most recent figures, published only a few weeks ago, show that in the year to September 2025—an entire year in which Labour was in government—the number of police officers fell by 1,318. Numbers are being cut under this Labour Government.
The Government say that they want to hire staff instead, to do jobs behind desks, but the number of police staff fell as well, by 529. They talk about police community support officers. Well, the number of PCSOs fell by 204. Special constables are down by 514 and police volunteers are down by 429. That is a reduction of 3,000 in the police workforce in just one year under this Labour Government. They are not funding the police properly, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Mark Pritchard
It is true that a huge number of police staff are never seen—support staff, admin staff and call centre staff, for instance—and they play an important part in delivering police services to all our communities, but is it not the case that visibility in policing is needed, and only police officers who are warranted can make arrests when crime is committed? Notwithstanding all the wonderful people working in the back offices of all our police forces, we still need police officers in our communities, tackling the antisocial behaviour that my right hon. Friend mentioned and turning up at least occasionally at the parish council, where the local police officer still has a reference in the agenda. Visibility is critical to deal with the fear of crime, and a police officer with a warrant is critical in enforcing the law and making arrests.
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Only uniformed or warranted officers can make arrests, and that is why the fall in police numbers under this Labour Government is so shocking. They talk about neighbourhood police officers specifically, but that, of course, ignores activities such as crime investigation, 999 responses, and specialist officers who investigate, for example, sexual offences. When total numbers are falling, they focus on only one part of policing.
Sarah Jones
Does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the 2,400 more police in our neighbourhoods than at the start of this Government?
Chris Philp
The point is that the Minister has cut other areas to do that. She has cut 999 responses and crime investigations. She can use smoke and mirrors by focusing on only one part of the police world, but the fact is that total police numbers are down, police staff are down, PCSOs are down, specials are down and police volunteers are down—all under this Labour Government.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for lobbying on behalf of Essex. Obviously, I want more funding for Essex as much as he does. I should declare an interest at this point, as I have stood against Roger Hirst in two elections, but I want to make it clear that I have a great deal of time for the work that he does as police and crime commissioner. On his website, he says that he welcomes
“another 69 new recruits into Essex Police, making the force bigger and stronger than ever before.”
That does not quite fit with what the shadow Secretary of State said earlier.
Chris Philp
Roger Hirst, in common with many police and crime commissioners, has done a valiant job in the face of inadequate funding. However, as he said himself:
“The Government settlement is insufficient to cover rising costs.”
Let us look at outcomes, which the Minister mentioned. It is a matter of deep concern that, under this Labour Government, shoplifting has gone up by 10%, to record levels, robbery from business premises is up by 66% in the past year, antisocial behaviour has gone up, rape has gone up by 7%, and sexual offences have gone up by 8%.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
When the right hon. Gentleman says that rape has gone up, does he mean that the recorded crime of rape has gone up? Does he recognise that all Members of this House should celebrate when women feel more comfortable in coming forward?
Chris Philp
That is not what the hon. Lady was saying when the rape figures were going up under the last Government.
Chris Philp
Once is enough.
Reported rapes are going up, which reflects increased levels of offending. That is a serious concern.
Jess Phillips
What is actually going up is rape charging. To put the record straight, I never criticised increased reporting of rape. What I criticised was the decimation of rape charging under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, which led to the worst record in history.
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady will know that the change in the rape charge rate followed the disclosure rule changes after the Liam Allan case back in 2017. The last Government set up Operation Soteria and a rape taskforce, which were designed to increase rape charging rates. Indeed, they were increasing prior to the last election, and I very much hope that this Government are continuing the work of Operation Soteria, which was started by the last Government.
On the police reforms that the Minister referred to, some functions, such as counter-terrorism and fighting serious and organised crime, may well be better provided on a national basis. However, we oppose the creation of approximately 10 regional mega-forces, which will see county forces essentially abolished and merged into enormous entities that are far removed from the communities they serve. That will inevitably see resources drawn away from towns and villages and given to large cities, and there is no evidence that large forces are either more efficient or better performing.
In fact, the two arguably worst-performing forces in the country, the Met and West Midlands, are also the largest forces in the country. The history of Police Scotland, which was created by merging eight police forces into one, has not been a particularly happy episode, and it is certainly not a good case study for what is being proposed. I ask the Minister to think again about the creation of mega-forces, given that the examples of the West Midlands, the Met and Police Scotland indicate that large police forces do not perform well.
There is one area where I agree with the Minister, and where I actively support what she is trying to do: the use of technology in catching criminals, and in particular the use of live facial recognition. She and I have both seen that being used very effectively in Croydon town centre, and indeed across London, where 963 arrests have occurred in the past year as a result of using live facial recognition of criminals who would not otherwise have been caught, including a man wanted for a double rape dating back eight years. He would not have been caught, but for the use of live facial recognition. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s plans for rolling out this technology across the country and accelerating its use dramatically.
I would like an assurance that the Minister’s consultation on the use of the technology will be carefully calibrated, because there is a risk that people on the fringes—left and right—who do not like it will lobby her and try to persuade her to introduce all kinds of rules, regulations and red tape. If she gives in to their requests, she may end up inadvertently creating a bureaucratic system that, in practice, is very difficult for the police to operate. I urge her to think about the mainstream majority, who strongly support this technology. In Croydon, the public certainly support the technology, because they understand that it catches criminals and that if someone is not on the watch list, their image is immediately and automatically deleted. I ask the Minister to make sure that if she does change the rules, she does so in a way that is quite light-touch, and that it does not end up strangling what could be one of the most promising and effective crime-fighting technologies that this country has seen for many decades. I really hope that is the approach she plans to take.
Graham Stuart
My right hon. Friend will have noted, as I did, that the Minister failed to answer on the “how”. She said that she wishes to ensure that the creation of massive new police organisations does not lead to policing becoming more distant, remote and hard to influence, not least for rural communities, but she could not tell us how it will be done. Does he share my concern that we will end up with a larger, more bureaucratic system that is remote from ordinary people? People in rural East Yorkshire are going to feel far away from decision making.
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend puts it brilliantly. He has articulated exactly why the forced creation of regional mega-forces is likely to be a backwards step.
Chris Philp
I am almost done. The hon. Gentleman may find that a matter of considerable relief.
In conclusion—sometimes “in conclusion” are the most popular words I utter in a speech—
Esther McVey
At a time of great pressure on police budgets, my Cheshire police force is having to make redundancies. Was my right hon. Friend as concerned as I was that the Minister felt that our Labour police and crime commissioner could spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on vanity projects? She accepted it, rather than condemning it, and that money should go to frontline policing.
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it was disappointing that the Minister did not substantively respond. Spending money on loads of communications officers, instead of police officers to catch criminals, is a misallocation of resources, and my right hon. Friend is right to call it out.
This police funding settlement is not adequate to meet the funding pressures. It will lead to continued reductions in police numbers across England and Wales, which will leave our constituents and our countries less safe.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her remarks. She will find very considerable support for the broad thrust of what she said, especially on streamlining and the new policing models. I know that she is thinking very seriously about how to get the best return on the reorganisation in order to tackle serious and organised crime, and she is alive to the regional specialisms and expertise that already exist. I thank her for that, and for her commitment to delivering better funding for our police force following the disastrous period of austerity under the Conservatives.
I want to put some challenges to the Minister, because I have some local concerns. However, after hearing the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks about police numbers, I have to say, in all candour, that the reduction of 20,000 police officers in the name of austerity was one of the most reckless and stupid things a Government could ever do. I would like him to come to the Dispatch Box and apologise for that gross dereliction of duty. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) chunters and laughs from a sedentary position.
Andy McDonald
I will in a minute.
Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State would like to apologise to the country for the damage that was caused. I can tell him that removing so many officers at a stroke had a devastating impact. Looking at the raw numbers—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member chunters, but he fails to comprehend.
Chris Philp
The hon. Member is focusing on the events of 14 years ago, when that Government were fixing the financial mess that Gordon Brown had left behind. I would remind him that the last Government left office with record police numbers, and I suggest he reserves his ire for the falling police numbers we are seeing under this Labour Government.
Andy McDonald
The penny has not dropped for the shadow Secretary of State, who cannot for one minute understand how that translated in our communities. That is the issue, because he simply does not take into consideration that loss of expertise. We cannot replace those police with recruits overnight. It was the stupidest thing a Government could do.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes my point for me, which is that the devastating thing was ripping the experience out of our police force and then dressing up new recruits as somehow a replacement. That led to higher crime in my constituency and, I know, in his.
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Those were the lived experiences of our constituents, and those were the consequences they had to live with. Opposition Members may say that was because of the financial situation they were left with, but austerity was of course a political choice. The Conservatives deliberately ploughed this furrow with disastrous consequences, and they should have the humility to get up and acknowledge the error they made.
Graham Stuart
I have never heard someone so passionately misinformed in my life. The Labour Government left a massive, gaping overspend. In other speeches the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the national debt going up under the Conservatives, but we brought it down every year, and we fought and reduced crime as well. Having ensured that the country recovered, we left record levels of police officers and a 50% cut in crime. He puts on this faux outrage, but the lived reality for his communities and mine was an improved service and balanced books.
Andy McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman should not consider it to be faux outrage. I lived in my constituency throughout that period and saw the damage it caused.
Andy McDonald
Yes, and we should acknowledge the damage that was caused. I am going to be challenging my own Government, and I am trying to be objective about these issues, but what has to be understood in this place is the consequences of the terrible decisions that were made.
I will now move on, because I want to ask the Minister to address the real issues involving Cleveland police. There is more to be done in improving funding, which remains uneven, and some local areas continue to miss out. I hope to explore this in an objective and rational way with those on the Front Bench.
I want to draw attention to the urgent and growing concerns of Cleveland’s police and crime commissioner about the funding of our local force. Despite serving one of the most deprived and high crime areas in the country, Cleveland police remains the force with the lowest number of officers compared with 2010—a reduction of some 12%—leaving the community more vulnerable and officers overstretched. With the greatest respect, the recent funding settlement compounds the problem. Cleveland received the smallest increase in the country—just 3.3%—and after accounting for inflation and pay awards, that leaves a real-terms shortfall of about £2.4 million, which is equivalent to 40 officers. The Government continue to expect this deficit to be met through local council tax, and I just respectfully suggest that is unreasonable.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman was practically spitting with anger when he talked about the Conservatives’ record of increased numbers of police officers and a halving of crime, but now he “respectfully” makes suggestions to the Minister. Is it his understanding that, as a direct result of the settlement that this Minister has brought to the House, there will be a cut in service level in his deprived communities, making them less safe? Is that his understanding, and if so, perhaps his passion could rise up a little?
Andy McDonald
The difference between me and the right hon. Gentleman is that I am capable of being objective when facts are put in front of me, whereas he appears to be completely myopic and in total denial about his own Government’s record of decimating our police forces and the consequences of that. I am perfectly content with making proper representations to the Government on the settlements that have been devolved. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, and it is a shame that he could not participate in a more sensible discussion.
With almost a third of our neighbourhoods in the top 10% of the most deprived nationally, local residents cannot shoulder a £90 increase on band D properties to restore staffing to safe levels. The police and crime commissioner has written three times to the Minister seeking urgent clarity about how the settlement was calculated. Each time, he has not had a response, and I ask the Minister to reflect on that and come back to me. Our communities and their elected PCC deserve answers. It is not just a matter of fairness; it is a matter of public safety. Without adequate funding, Cleveland police cannot meet the Government’s own objectives of reducing knife crime, tackling violence against women and girls, and maintaining effective neighbourhood policing.
The people of Cleveland, their PCC and officers on the frontline have done everything asked of them—exceeding recruitment targets, investing in neighbourhood policing and achieving crime reductions above the national average—and of course they made incredible efforts in response to the riot on 4 August 2024. It was the most remarkable response by the police and the community, banding together in the wake of the most violent attack on our community. I must pay tribute to the incredible work the police did, because they have never had to deal with anything like that. They did it with such incredible dedication and professionalism, and we cannot ever be thankful enough to them for their efforts. Again, I just ask the Minister to reconsider this settlement, because I am not convinced that it reflects their efforts, and it redistributes scarce resources to other forces with less need.
I therefore urge the Government to revisit the settlement urgently; to properly resource Cleveland police based on need, deprivation and demand, not on population alone; and to provide the answers that the PCC and our communities deserve. Our officers deserve the support they have earned, and our residents deserve the safety and security that only properly funded policing can provide.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I would like to start by declaring an interest, in that my father-in-law is the police chaplain for North Yorkshire police and my brother-in-law is an inspector in North Yorkshire police. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Hear, hear, indeed, and I would like to segue from thanking them to thanking Inspector Steve Benbow, who leads the policing team in Cheltenham and does a terrific job in difficult circumstances.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for a return to proper community policing. Unfortunately, community police numbers fell under the last Conservative Government, and it is clear to me from speaking to people in my constituency and elsewhere that they want a visible and trusted police presence in their community to focus on preventing and solving crimes. Far too many crimes—shoplifting, bike theft, tool theft and so many more—go unsolved at the moment, and ordinary people pay the price. Police stations and front desks are disappearing at an alarming rate even under this Government, leaving people with nowhere to go.
Labour has promised the public 13,000 more police officers, but instead frontline officer numbers have fallen. By September last year, we had 1,300 fewer officers than the year before, and in March 2025 the number of frontline police officers was down by more than 4,300 compared with March 2024. That is why it is so important to get these police reforms right, and we must see an improvement in frontline policing numbers as soon as possible.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I would like to highlight one case from Flamstead, where David, who was a toolman and a tradesman, had his van broken into 10 times. On the 10th time, he called the police while the thieves were there, but it still took officers many days to arrive, and he has now decided to retire because it is too expensive to keep going. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why it is so important to have a frontline community service from the police?
Max Wilkinson
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point. When we call the police, we expect them to turn up. I do not blame the police officers for not showing up. If there are simply not enough of them to do the job, that problem is a hangover from the previous Government. This Government must go faster to solve that problem.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman may have inadvertently suggested that there was a reduction in police numbers. There was a record number of police officers, the highest in this country’s history, when the Conservatives left power. That number has been reduced—frontline, back office and PCSOs; each and every one of them—by the Policing Minister and the Government opposite. I know that the hon. Gentleman, who is always an honest and straightforward Member of this House, would not want to suggest that the Conservatives left us with reduced numbers, when, in fact, they had increased.
Max Wilkinson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention—[Interruption.] I also thank Government Members for the many communications that are coming from the other side of the Chamber. When I hear the Labour party and the Conservative party arguing about police numbers, I just think it is an excellent advert for voting for one of the other parties.
If the Government are serious about restoring neighbourhood policing, they need to step up, get this reform right and get more officers back on to our streets. Ministers have suggested that the numbers will increase. We do not doubt their good intentions, but they will ultimately be judged on results.
We cautiously welcome the Government’s suggestion that they will assign a police team to every council ward, but the devil will be in the detail. So I ask the Minister—I am happy to take an intervention if she would like to put me straight, because we have asked a written question—will each council ward have its own policing team? Will it be unique to that ward, or will it be assigned en masse to several wards?
Sarah Jones
At the moment, we have a situation where each area has its own named, contactable officer. We are going even further, so that each ward will have its own named, contactable officer. These are hyper-local police.
Max Wilkinson
Based on the Minister’s answer, I assume that each ward has its own police officer and that that police officer has only one ward to deal with.
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Member suggests from a sedentary position that each police officer will have multiple wards. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify that.
Sarah Jones
To be clear, by the end of this Parliament there will be 13,000 extra neighbourhood police. The hon. Gentleman can divide that by—[Interruption.] Yes, police.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The Minister is making an intervention on Mr Wilkinson, not continuing the debate. Please make the intervention, so the hon. Member can respond.
Sarah Jones
To be clear, PCSOs are police officers. They are not warranted, but they are police. We will have 13,000 extra police in our neighbourhoods. I would have to do the maths to divide that number between each ward, but there will be a named, contactable officer in each ward.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before I call Max Wilkinson, I note that the Front Benchers will have an opportunity to respond at the end of debate.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I concur with the hon. Gentleman’s point on what the Minister has just said. In Cambridgeshire, our named neighbourhood officers—it is a little difficult to pin down exactly how many there are and how big an area they cover—cover a vast area. For example, the officer who covers the town of St Ives—that is the whole town, which has multiple wards—covers every area between St Ives and Ramsey, which also includes several villages. It is for the birds to suggest that Cambridgeshire constabulary will have enough named officers to cover every single ward that is represented currently by local government.
Max Wilkinson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. That is the point I am trying to draw out. The White Paper is somewhat non-specific on that point. It does say that there will be a named contact for each ward, but the suggestion is that that might be just one person—one police officer or PCSO per ward—and that that officer would have no other responsibilities. I do not believe that that will be the case given the numbers being presented, which means that the White Paper is perhaps somewhat misleading. I am not suggesting for a moment that Ministers would like to mislead the House, but the White Paper does need clarification.
If communities are to have confidence that stretched local police teams can deal with local issues, such as illegal e-scooters and e-bikes, they need certainty that police teams are available and accessible. Failure to do so will lead to more people feeling unsafe and, sadly, to more tragedies. In my Cheltenham constituency, we recently suffered the loss of an 18-year-old, who was riding an illegal e-scooter, in a road traffic collision. In my constituency, and in constituencies up and down the country, we frequently witness e-bikes travelling at speed, often on pavements and in pedestrian areas. An on-street police presence would surely deter such activities. That must be fully funded. Visible policing would also help to deter the onslaught of shoplifting that this nation is suffering. We must hope that the Government’s warm words on that will be backed by action.
We applaud the Government for announcing the impending abolition of police and crime commissioners. We Liberal Democrats have long opposed the politicisation of policing and we believe the money should be spent elsewhere. However, there is a risk that splitting the powers of police and crime commissioners between directly elected mayors and the Home Secretary will perpetuate the same problems with the politicisation of policing that we have experienced since 2012. The Government must ensure that in doing so, they allow crime and police boards, which will be made up of local councillors and representatives of relevant local groups, and will perhaps include mayors, to take over and ensure that police resources—the grant we are talking about today—are properly spent, so that we do not see money being wasted.
The Liberal Democrats are also calling for a police front desk in every community across the country. These would be in community hubs such as libraries, shopping centres and town halls. Such an approach would allow people to report crimes or share information with the police face to face in convenient and accessible locations.
Graham Stuart
When I met the chief constable of Humberside last week, he talked about Bobbi, an AI tool that is now able to meet 75%, and up to 90%, of queries. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage the desks always being manned, or would a computer or AI-based system be suitable in his view?
Max Wilkinson
We envisage them being staffed. Clearly, people want to see police face to face. AI can have a role, although we all know there was a cautionary tale from the west midlands recently that we would all like to put behind us. AI surely has a role, but in the proposals the Liberal Democrats are putting forward there would be staffed desks in convenient community hubs. I ask Ministers to consider that.
As Members will know, crime is not only concentrated in cities and towns. Many Members here in the Chamber represent rural constituencies. NFU Mutual estimated that the cost of rural crime in 2024 was as high as £44.1 million—a shocking cost to our countryside. We must consider the impact on those who live in rural areas, specifically farmers who are having a really difficult time. Their mental health and wellbeing can be badly harmed by crime. A survey of 115 NFU Mutual agents found that 92% believed rural crime was disrupting farming activities in their area and that 86% knew farmers who had been repeat victims of crime, leaving them feeling vulnerable in both their workplace and in their home. Rural communities have seen increasingly organised and damaging offences, yet only a small proportion of the police workforce is dedicated to tackling them. Rural crime is currently dealt with by just 0.4% of the overall police workforce.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about rural crime. My concern is that as the boundaries of police forces become greater, the resources tend to go to the urban areas. We see that in east Devon, where Cranbrook has sucked in resources from villages and towns that have previously had a police presence. Does he recognise that the effect of police being pulled into urban areas is being seen in other parts of the country?
Max Wilkinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention. On the issue of policing structures, if the Government impose wider boundaries, as they intend to, we need to ensure that they follow through on their pledges on local community policing areas. The responses we heard in the debate from many Members about five minutes ago tell us that the Government have not yet told the story in a way that will reassure my community or his.
Rural communities are increasingly concerned by the increase in crime they are seeing and want to be reassured that Ministers are allocating the funding that is needed to tackle it. In the report we are considering today, there are few references to rural areas and the countryside. Can we be reassured that rural crime will be tackled by a specific team in every police force? We are calling for a “countryside copper guarantee”, which would see properly resourced, dedicated rural crime teams or specialists embedded in every police force. Will the Government pledge to deliver the equipment, specialist knowledge and communication tools needed to tackle these crimes effectively?
The shadow Home Secretary mentioned facial recognition technology. We accept that this technology has the potential to improve the outlook for members of the public and to make the police’s job easier, too, but it does place our civil liberties at risk, and we must not be relaxed about that. In December 2025, the UK’s data protection watchdog asked the Home Office for “urgent clarity” over the racial bias of police facial recognition technology. Official Home Office research has shown that the technology identifies the wrong person about 100 times as often for Asian and black people as white people and twice as often for women as men.
We seek reassurances that this technology will not be used unless the data can be safely captured, and seek assurance from Ministers that those in minority communities will not be misidentified and wrongly arrested. We hope that Ministers can reassure us that the data will be stored appropriately and that this will not result in the widespread retention of data relating to innocent people. Will the Government consider statutory guidance on this technology to ensure that each police force takes a common and safe approach?
Chris Philp
I just want to pick up two points the hon. Gentleman raised, which I looked into when I was Minister for Policing. First, he raised allegations of racial disproportionality, which arose in 2017 or 2018. The system has subsequently been updated significantly. It was tested by the National Physical Laboratory two or three years ago, and, at the setting the police use it, there is now no racial disproportionality at all. It is a historic problem that has now been fixed. Secondly, on data retention, the system operates in such a way that if a member of the public who is not on the wanted list—like me or the hon. Gentleman, I assume—walks past the camera, our image is then automatically and immediately deleted. I hope that addresses his concern about data retention.
Max Wilkinson
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for addressing those two points. I can reassure him that I am not on the wanted list, although I can speak only for myself. That was a useful clarification, but I would like it from Ministers as well; perhaps the Minister will be able to reassure me when she sums up.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is sitting beside the Policing Minister, will share my view that police must be better at tackling violence against women and girls. I know that she has done a huge amount of work on this. Survivors of VAWG and domestic abuse deserve to know that properly funded support services will be there, and we must also be reassured that the police have the training to enable them to address so-called honour-based abuse.
The Government should look at introducing high-quality programmes for perpetrators in domestic abuse cases, with the aim of preventing further abuse, and Ministers must make it easier for victims who are already suffering to come forward. The Government should also consider rolling out a Home Office-led national public awareness campaign that tackles the myths around domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, signposts victims to support services and promotes the role of the new VAWG taskforce; there is already some really good publicity going out that we will have seen on our televisions.
Survivors must always be able to safely report incidents to the police, although the complexities of these cases mean there are additional needs that must be addressed. We seek reassurance that police forces will provide for anonymous reporting options and embedding VAWG and domestic abuse specialists in every 999 operator assistance centre—both important measures to help victims to report incidents to the police. These measures should bring together officers and specialists with the training, resources and capacity to effectively support survivors, including by working in partnership with frontline women’s services. Will the Minister therefore commit to establishing specialist taskforces in every police force?
Finally, we ask whether, in considering this report, we are yet again looking at smoke and mirrors—it is the same with funding no matter which party is in government. The Government’s figures assume a maximum police precept rise in every local area, pushing part of the funding settlement discussion to local areas. Should Governments of all colours not just be clearer about that in their communications?
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Before I make my remarks and my plea to the Government, I must respond to the complete nonsense from the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and other Members on the Opposition Benches. The 14 years following 2010 saw catastrophic cuts to the police service, a rise in recorded crime, unmanageable police force budget deficits, the demise of neighbourhood policing and the near destruction of the Probation Service. No part of the criminal justice system was spared from mismanagement. It is incredible that the penny still has not dropped that when austerity is forced on an area, antisocial behaviour and fragile communities are the outcome. Opposition Members will have to excuse this Government for not taking lectures from them.
This debate is crucial as it is about how we fund the services that keep our communities safe and resilient. Safe communities are the foundation of economic growth and local prosperity; businesses invest where towns feel secure, families settle where neighbourhoods are stable, and regeneration succeeds when antisocial behaviour is tackled and police are visible and responsive. Public safety underpins economic renewal and long-term confidence.
Our police and crime commissioner, Joy Allen, has raised serious and legitimate concerns about the structural pressures faced in Durham and Darlington under the current funding framework. Those concerns are about not performance—Durham constabulary is highly regarded and delivers daily for our communities—but capacity and sustainability. Durham has one of the lowest council tax bases in England and a very high proportion of band A properties, meaning that each £1 added to the police precept raises significantly less locally than it does in many other force areas. In practice, a 1% increase in the precept in County Durham generates £490,000, while in Surrey it generates approximately £1.7 million. At a time when we are rightly focused on narrowing the north-south divide, the funding framework risks reinforcing it.
North Road in Durham is a clear example of why sustained neighbourhood policing matters. It is one of the city’s busiest corridors and has, at times, been a hotspot for shoplifting and antisocial behaviour, particularly drug and alcohol abuse, placing real pressure on local traders and creating a perception of fear for residents and visitors. In response, Durham constabulary has worked with businesses to introduce the Shop Watch scheme, and it now holds regular meetings with retailers to share intelligence, co-ordinate action and improve visibility. That kind of partnership approach is starting to make a difference, but it relies on having the capacity and presence on the ground to sustain it.
County Durham also covers a large and diverse geographical area, with dispersed rural communities creating distinct policing pressures in terms of travel time, visibility and response. A prime example is when yobs on e-bikes terrorise our villagers, our football clubs and walkers; people feel scared, but police cannot reach them in time to take action. A single national framework does not, therefore, produce equal outcomes. The same policy decision yields very different resources, and over time that gap is compounded.
Between 2010 and 2020, under the Conservative Government, Durham constabulary lost 408 officers—around 20% of its workforce—and officer numbers have still not returned to 2010 levels, meaning sustained pressure on neighbourhood teams and frontline capacity across that wide geography. For three consecutive years, local consultation has shown that residents are willing to invest more when it protects visible neighbourhood policing and community safety. There is democratic backing locally for strengthening capacity. The issue is not willingness, but ability.
When funding depends heavily on council tax capacity, areas with lower property values are structurally constrained, regardless of need or performance. Equal percentage increases in grant do not offset unequal precept yield. If we want to see places like Durham flourish to attract investment, support local business and build confident communities, the framework for funding policing must not entrench the inequality between regions that soared during the Conservatives’ imposed austerity measures. Safer communities—
Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is making a powerful speech. As she says, there will be a regressive impact from this police grant settlement, which is going to see higher and higher council tax on low-earning residents in her area, and because of rising costs, reduced policing. That is obviously concerning. I wonder how she is going to take that up with Ministers to try to effect change.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind Members that it is completely up to them whether they wish to take an intervention.
Mary Kelly Foy
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was happy to take that intervention. To the right hon. Member’s point—[Interruption.] If he cares to listen to my response, what he said is exactly what I am doing now: I am urging the Government to look again at the council tax precept. We are playing catch-up for the years of mismanagement and austerity when his party was in government.
Safer communities enable growth. The settlement should reflect that principle fairly and consistently across the country if we are ever to repair the damage caused by the Conservative Government’s period in office.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“The current funding system is complex, outdated and the product of legacy decisions rather than strategic design”—
not my words but those of the Government in last month’s police reform White Paper. I agree, which is why I do not approve of the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026-27”. The complex and outdated legacy police allocation formula sees Cambridgeshire constabulary down at the bottom of the list of forces for police funding per head, and yet the Government are still using it. Since being elected to the House, I have called on the Government to change this repeatedly, and it continues to be an issue that concerns my constituents. Reliance on a formula based on data from 2001 maintains the existing imbalance in funding that the Government know cannot continue.
The Government have already committed to updating the police allocation formula as part of their commitment to restructuring the 43 police forces in England and Wales, but that will not take place for years, and it will be years more before we see any benefit locally. How will current recruitment and resourcing dovetail into the new force structures? What rebalancing will take place, and would it not have made sense to have done the work on future structures first, so that the road map to the new model of policing could be better articulated?
The Government are already on the hook to fulfil their neighbourhood policing guarantee. Two weeks ago, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners released a statement that clearly outlined that
“the settlement is only sufficient to fund the increase in personnel promised by the Government under the neighbourhood policing guarantee in part”.
With funding for hotspot policing already rolled into the neighbourhood policing grant, where are we with the recruitment of the 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and specials?
The number of 13,000 additional officers was first announced in February 2023 by the then Home Secretary. In March 2023, the number of full-time officers was 142,145. In March 2024, just before the general election, that figure had reached 147,745—an increase of 5,600. By March 2025, the figure had fallen to 146,442—a 1% decrease year on year. Exactly what progress has been made in recruiting the 13,000 additional officers? What is the baseline figure that this is being benchmarked against? Is it March 2023 when the pledge was made, is it March 2024—the most recent data available when Labour came into government—or is it March 2025, when the funding to recruit these officers actually came on stream?
I am happy to take an intervention from the Policing Minister if she would like to clarify exactly what the baseline figure is. No, she does not wish to. As far as I am aware, that baseline figure has never been clarified, and when I asked that question of the previous Policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), I received a waffly non-response that did not even attempt to answer the question. So do the Government even know? Nope—nothing from the Front Bench.
Let me turn to the point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), about the number of police officers per ward. St Ives and Ramsey in my constituency has six officers in total, across police sergeants, PCs and PCSOs, covering 10 wards. In Huntingdon, there are eight officers for 11 wards. That makes 14 officers to cover 21 wards, so we are already seven officers down, and that is assuming that none of those officers ever has a day off, is ever on holiday and is ever sick. I do not see how we are going to gain those additional officers that the Policing Minister implies that we are going to receive under the neighbourhood policing guarantee in order to make up that shortfall. The APCC joint leads on local policing, Chris Nelson and Matt Storey, highlight that, as things stand, the maths simply do not add up, saying:
“We want to deliver the increase in neighbourhood policing the Government has pledged, but this can only be done if it is fully funded. Current funding covers the cost of approximately 750 additional officers, so it is unclear how forces will be able to fund the remaining 1,000 neighbourhood officers to which the Government has committed.”
Less than a year ago, we saw the Government revise down the neighbourhood policing figures. A staggering 31 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales amended their figures, having overstated them, resulting in a net reduction of 2,611 police officers and PCSOs—a 13% decrease. They had included student officers based in the classroom, not out on patrol, as well as officers double-counted on out-of-date HR systems. West Midlands police force had its true neighbourhood policing figure reduced by 62%, Gloucestershire’s was reduced by 65%, and Wiltshire and Suffolk had their figures reduced by over 50%. Is that 2,611 factored into the 13,000? The Minister referred to an extra 2,400 neighbourhood police officers, but the number of officers is already 2,611 down, resulting in a net negative of 211 officers; she will forgive my scepticism about the accuracy of the Government’s policing plan.
Sarah Jones
Just to be clear, there are 2,400 extra neighbourhood police officers in our neighbourhoods. Our policy is to tilt resources into our neighbourhoods, because the previous Government decimated neighbourhood policing. We are building it back up.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I appreciate the Minister’s intervention. I understood that point, but my point was that those 2,400 officers do not even make up the 2,611 by which the Government have already reduced the number of neighbourhood police officers by recounting the officers that we have.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Smoke and mirrors, indeed.
Last month’s police reform White Paper does little to clear up any confusion. The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners said:
“We are aware the cost of police reform has been estimated at around £500 million. While the Government has announced that £119 million will be allocated to the reform programme in 2026/27”.
Those police and crime commissioners have been scrapped, and in 2028 police governance will be transferred to strategic authority mayors or policing and crime boards. While the White Paper mentions that the latter will be expanded to reflect larger forces in the future, it does not explain how strategic authority mayors’ responsibilities would be restructured.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
The hon. Member is saying that police funding has been cut and that we are getting rid of police and crime commissioners, but is the money not better spent directly with police forces than in the offices of police and crime commissioners?
Ben Obese-Jecty
To be honest, looking at the police and crime commissioners, it has not been clarified exactly how that responsibility is going to work across the country. The point I was trying to make is that we are saying that the authority for policing locally is going to go to strategic mayors. That is fine, but if we are also going to merge forces, who will have primacy among those strategic mayors? In Cambridgeshire, for example, it will be devolved to the mayor of the combined authority, but if that force is to merge with other forces in East Anglia, and if there is a future mayor of Norfolk and Suffolk, which of those two mayors will have primacy over that area?
Graham Stuart
It is just that sort of incoherence that is upsetting my constituents. Humberside police force—the finest in the country—has a mayor on the north bank and another mayor on the south bank, so who exactly will be in charge of the police force? We do not know what will replace it. We do not have the detail, and we do not know what it will cost. All we do know from governance reorganisations through the years is that whoever is in charge, they are normally slower, more costly and do not deliver as much as the Government hoped for at the beginning.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I hope that that will clarified by the Minister who winds up, or through further clarification of the White Paper. I have read the White Paper, and it currently is not explained.
We have also received little explanation about how the independent review of force structures will work; who the independent chair will be; when and how they will be appointed; when the terms of reference will be published; and whether we as Members of Parliament will be included within the scope of the “policing stakeholders” referenced in the White Paper. Some clarity regarding the process behind such seismic and sweeping changes desperately needs to be outlined.
There are serious concerns that the new model for policing will not address some of the key resource requirements for rural forces, instead seeing cities and larger towns taking up an ever-growing share of the available resources. Last week I spoke to local National Farmers Union members in my constituency. For the second year running, concerns regarding rural crime, specifically hare coursing, were raised by local farmers. This is a topic that we rarely hear spoken about in this Chamber or by the Government. It is incomprehensible to many that idyllic rural locations could find themselves in the grip of violent and organised crime, but that is the situation that so many find themselves in.
Esther McVey
Is my hon. Friend concerned about not only that but increasing industrial-scale dumping in rural areas and the additional pressures on neighbourhood policing—whether from the increase in illegal immigrants going into hotels and houses of multiple occupancy, or from prisoners being let out of prisons, who neighbourhood police forces have to man-mark because of Labour’s Sentencing Bill?
Ben Obese-Jecty
The police are required to pick up the slack in so many different aspects of this, and I do not think that that is factored into or reflected in the way we are looking at the force structures. I hope that it will be factored into the review of the forces.
Coming back to rural crime, in my constituency of Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire constabulary has an effective and successful rural crime action team, but they are only 14 strong and cover a huge rural area. This must be factored into discussions and not risk being lost in the maelstrom of big-ticket policing items brought under national control and a myopic focus on urban and neighbourhood policing. It is my understanding that the rural crime action team, who specialise in dealing with machinery theft, GPS theft and hare coursing, have been moved from being operational support unit officers to being designated as neighbourhood policing officers. They are specialist officers required to do a specialist role. They are not bobbies on the beat in the villages around my constituency and they are never going to be that, so it is annoying to see that they are being restructured in that way. Redesignating rural crime specialist officers as neighbourhood officers to balance the books and tick an administrative box is not going to cut it.
Cambridgeshire constabulary proved itself to be an effective force with the swift manner in which it neutralised the assailant following the Huntingdon train attack last November. Speaking to my local officers, I know that there are huge inconsistencies in the way in which each force is managed, and I ask the Policing Minister for clarity on how those discrepancies will be harmonised intra-force. We know that overtime calculations for police officers lack consistency from force to force, as does the application of the adjustment bank for outstanding hours owed. These issues are affecting officers on the ground. Not every issue in policing is an operational resourcing question. Much of the pressure officers are experiencing is due to administrative inconsistencies, from pay inequality, given the south-east allowance, to officers wearing body armour that is past its expiration date because of failings in the procurement system—a tragic front-page scandal waiting to happen.
To conclude, I ask the Policing Minister to consider: ringfenced funding for rural crime action teams in the new force structure so that rural crime can be eradicated once and for all; pay disparities, particularly in regard to eligibility for the south-east allowance, the application of overtime eligibility and the management of the adjustment bank; and consortium contracting, and particularly the risk posed by reliance on one make of vehicle, including the use of Volvos by any force, given that Volvo is now owned by the Chinese Zhejiang Geely Holding Group. I believe I have a meeting scheduled with the Policing Minister, and I would be keen to continue the discussion around these issues with her on behalf of the officers in my county who have received a raw deal for far too long.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The 2026-27 settlement delivers a cash increase nationally but once again fails to address the structural unfairness faced by rural forces such as Dorset. It does not properly reflect rurality, seasonal population increases or the cumulative impact of more than a decade of underfunding. Dorset police is consistently one of the worst-funded forces in the country. It ranks in the bottom 10 nationally for total funding, receiving around £203 million, and sits at roughly 26th out of the 43 forces on a per capita basis. Despite covering over 1,000 square miles of largely rural geography, Dorset police remains at below the national average for funding per head and far behind most urban and metropolitan forces. The 2026-27 settlement does nothing to change that relative position.
The settlement assumes that police and crime commissioners will raise tax by the full £15 band D precept. In Dorset, that assumption is particularly problematic. Around 51% of Dorset police’s funding already comes from local council tax payers, compared with a national average of 34%, and as little as 20% in some of the better-funded force areas. Because Dorset has a smaller and slower-growing council tax base, even the same £15 increase raises far less in real terms than it does in urban areas. This settlement therefore locks in a reliance on council tax in a way that systematically disadvantages rural counties. We have already seen where this kind of Treasury assumption can lead. Similar flawed assumptions in fire service funding have resulted in plans to close fire stations in Maiden Newton and Charmouth. Once again, decisions are being based on unrealistic expectations of local funding, with consequences for rural communities.
Although the Government have stated that the recent 2.4% police pay settlement is fully funded nationally, in Dorset it is very different. For Dorset police, our settlement alone requires £500,000 of savings to be found locally. Over the past three years, the force has had to make £2.8 million in savings, with a direct impact on staffing levels. Meanwhile, seven forces nationally are able to generate surpluses year after year, while six forces, including Dorset, are forced to find savings just to stand still or, in many cases, regress. This is not a fair or sustainable system. It makes a mockery of the Government’s neighbourhood policing guarantee, even after the proposed long-term reforms. Dorset is one of the 11 forces that has still not returned to 2010 officer levels, and when neighbourhood policing funding is examined in isolation, Dorset is the worst-funded force in the country.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Over the weekend I went on a walkaround with my local police officers in Boscombe and Springbourne, and they were talking about the need to make sure that, particularly over the summer months, neighbourhood police teams were not seeing—in their words—significant abstractions of police officers from our communities into the seafront and the town centre, because Bournemouth particularly sees very high levels of tourism and large numbers of people coming in from outside who sometimes cause criminality. They also welcome the neighbourhood guarantee, which will see an increase in neighbourhood police forces. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to ensure that we keep our neighbourhood police forces in their neighbourhoods?
Edward Morello
I thank my fellow Dorset MP for his intervention. He will know that we welcome a huge number of tourists, who are vital for our local hospitality and tourism economy. While we want people to come, this does put an incredible strain on our local police forces and the funding needs to reflect that population increase.
Graham Stuart
One of the dangers, while the Government are cutting the police—1,300 last year alone, estimated by my police and crime commissioner, and another 4,000 nationally could go next year—is that they come up with this smoke-and-mirrors talk about neighbourhood policing and ask the hon. Gentleman whether he wants to protect that. If an artificial number, set from the centre, leads to the removal of police officers from where they are needed to meet local need, that is not a good thing. I hope that he, as a proper Liberal Democrat, will recognise that local decision making needs to guide this most, and that we need to have a Government who are not playing with smoke and mirrors.
Edward Morello
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for saving me from the indignity of not being intervened on by him during this debate. I agree that local police forces need to be local, and that we want bobbies on the beat everywhere.
Forces that routinely generate surpluses are able to invest in more officers, better technology and healthy reserves. Dorset cannot do that. Dorset police serves large, sparsely populated areas such as West Dorset, meaning longer response times, higher fuel costs and fewer economies of scale. Rural areas also tend to have less CCTV, fewer automatic number plate recognition cameras and generally fewer witnesses, making crime harder and more resource-intensive to investigate. National analysis shows that the average rural police force budget is £6.03 million, compared with £8.52 million for urban forces. On top of that, Dorset faces intense seasonal pressures, as we have discussed. West Dorset alone sees a 42% population increase during the peak tourist months and Dorset as a whole receives 25 million day visitors each year.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I want to follow on from the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) in asking the Policing Minister again: would you agree that it is about time we got—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I do not agree, I do agree—I am pretty neutral. The hon. Lady should ask the Member to agree and not use the term “you”.
Vikki Slade
I can only apologise, Madam Chair. Would my hon. Friend agree that the Policing Minister is long overdue in replying to the calls from Dorset MPs and the police and crime commissioner in November last year to look at the seasonality issue, because we simply cannot go on?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. To help other Members in case they should make the same error: I am not “Madam Chair”; I am Madam Deputy Speaker.
Edward Morello
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, I agree with my Dorset neighbour. All the Dorset MPs have written repeatedly to Ministers to ask for a fairer funding settlement, and I shall speak to some of those issues.
None of the additional demand caused by our population increases during the summer months is properly funded. Dorset police faced a £3.6 million funding deficit in 2024, rising to £7.3 million last year. Despite submitting evidence-backed requests for additional funding of £12.2 million annually to recruit around 250 extra officers and staff, that support has not been provided. Instead, the police force has been forced to cut community support officers by 43%, freeze recruitment, sell vehicles and buildings, restrict overtime and halt non-essential spending.
If the Government are serious about fair policing and neighbourhood visibility, two immediate steps are needed, alongside the restructuring and long-term reforms our rural police service is calling for. The first is greater precept flexibility for forces such as Dorset that are already asking far more of local taxpayers than others. Secondly, as a stopgap, forces holding reserves above 5% should contribute back to a central redistribution pot, particularly when recommended reserve levels are closer to 3%. The proposed reforms come too late to make the difference on the ground that people want to see from their police force. This police grant report delivers more cash, but no structural fixes, and it comes before the police reforms that the Home Secretary laid before the House a few weeks ago have even been implemented.
As part of the reforms, we must reassess how we properly fund rural police forces to allow for proper neighbourhood policing. For rural forces like Dorset, the grant in its current form is closer to standstill funding than a genuine uplift once inflation, demand, population increases and geography are factored in. If we want safer rural communities, visible neighbourhood policing and public confidence in fairness, the funding formula must finally reflect what rural constituencies experience day to day.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Before I delve into the issues facing policing in Norfolk, I have to discuss some of the simply incredible ways that funding allocations are decided in the police grant report that we are debating. This is just another example of government functioning in a way that is rapidly becoming unfit for purpose and not changing with the times fast enough. An array of complex sums, based on data from as long ago as the 2001 census, dictates how many police officers we can expect to see on the streets in my constituency over the next year.
If we asked the average person on the street how their local police force funding was decided, few would guess that it was decided by a long formula that includes multipliers such as the daytime net inflow in 2001, a population projection for 2013, and the number of unemployed men between 2009 and 2012. The number of pubs and bars in an area is linked to the funding that a police force receives. Under police crime top-ups 1, 3, 4 and 5 and the “fear of crime” top-up, the greater the number of licensed establishment per 100 hectares, the greater the funding multiplier for the police force.
That leads me to a key question that I hope the Minister can answer on this year’s report and next year’s funding settlement. The Chancellor’s ongoing war on pubs is leading to closures across rural areas like mine; can the Minister confirm that under her formula, if a community lost their local pub, their local police force would receive less funding the following year? Surely we can create a clearer, more up-to-date and more workable formula than this—one that uses better data and delivers more funding. I note that Members of the Home Secretary’s own party have called for reflection on this, and so I hope she will take it into consideration.
People in North Norfolk want to be reassured that they are getting a fair deal. I am not sure that the system delivers that for them. Once upon a time, this formula may have delivered well, but given the evolving nature of crime, I do not think that it is well suited to the policing needs of 2026. Whatever logarithms and multipliers the Home Secretary chooses to use, the reality on the ground in my area is clear: our communities feel less safe than they once did. Community policing has been stripped back. Rural crime is not being handled with the seriousness that it deserves.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Does my county colleague agree that there are particular challenges in Norfolk? Under the previous Conservative police and crime commissioner, not only were all 150 of our police and community support officers made redundant, but many police stations lost their public access, and accessibility and visible policing have been eroded as a result.
Steff Aquarone
Those facts are irrefutable. I will come on to some of the points that the hon. Member makes about the challenges of policing an area like North Norfolk, due to the unique characteristics of our shared county.
We are lucky to have a lower than average rate of crime, but that does not mean that we should have our provision cut, or officer numbers reduced. Security and confidence in public safety are created by a well-funded and trusted police force, not by punishing us for not having enough crime. Maybe the Minister could listen to what her colleague and perhaps future leader, the Health Secretary, says about his focus on prevention. If we view much of crime through a public health lens, we can learn sensible and holistic lessons about stopping crime before it happens, rather than just responding as best we can.
Rural crime across the country is at staggering rates, and that causes real fear for farmers and rural business owners in Norfolk, where our past Conservative police and crime commissioners left us with zero specialist rural crime officers—an unbelievable statistic for such a rural county. Latest stats show that after pressure from the Liberal Democrats, the numbers reached the heady heights of two officers in 2024. Clearly, we have a long way to go. I will work with our PCC and police chiefs to ensure that we can deliver more for tackling rural crime, and that the Government give them what they need to do so.
I have said time and again that I am proud to have the oldest population in the country in North Norfolk, but that brings challenges for policing, and challenges to do with the way that my residents are targeted by criminals. Older people are seen as good marks for fraudsters and scammers. In Norfolk last year, £4.5 million was lost through investment fraud. In 2023, almost £100,000 was lost to pension fraud; some had their retirement savings ripped away. We have to crack down on this awful crime, which has serious financial and emotional impacts on its victims.
It saddens me that the prevalence of fraud and scams could make our communities less trusting and confident in the goodness of others, all because of criminal groups out there who steal their hard-earned money. For all the benefits that artificial intelligence can bring, we need to accept, sadly, that this will be one of the ways in which it can be damaging. Scammers with access to AI can use it to make their scams more widespread and efficient; it will allow them to hit more people in shorter timeframes. When the long-promised AI Bill comes to the House, it would be great if steps were taken to address that. We Liberal Democrats have called for the establishment of an online crime agency to focus on fraud and scammers who prey on constituents like mine. I hope that the Government will look carefully at our proposals, and will take action to stop these criminals damaging our communities.
I am not sure how many more police grant reports we will debate in this House that will have Norfolk as its own line item, as the Government’s White Paper seems to be strongly flirting with the idea of merging us with two or even three other counties. That is just another step taking us further away from policing in the community, and from an understanding of what an area needs. A lack of local leadership, making police chiefs even more distant, and the notion that policing priorities in Stalham could be dictated from as far away as Peterborough do not make sense to our constituents.
The Government are returning to type. They are centralising power, and trying to sell it back to us with the promise of some meagre back-office savings. That is their approach to local government reorganisation, to devolution and now to policing as well. We want them to ensure that Norfolk can stop and solve crime, and to make our community safer, not waste time and energy rejigging structures without a promise of improved outcomes.
North Norfolk is a fantastic community, which is lucky to see less crime than other parts of the country, but that is something we have worked hard to achieve. I am grateful for the hard work of Norfolk constabulary, which keeps my constituents safe and supported. It is time for the Government to listen to their needs and ensure that the money and resource needed to keep us safe is being delivered.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) said earlier, Liberal Democrats have long called for a return to proper community policing. After years of Conservative chaos and mismanagement, it is clear in Wokingham and across the country that there are not enough police officers. Residents in Wokingham are always telling me that they want to see more bobbies on the beat and a visible and trusted police presence in our communities, focusing on preventing and solving crimes.
That community presence is important, but it is not the only reason why we need greater police numbers; many in Wokingham tell me that they need to see better police responses to crime as well. Shop managers do not want to feel that shoplifting is not important when they contact the police. Early last year, I visited several stores in Wokingham, Emmbrook and Arborfield to speak with managers about shoplifting. Stores were seeing increasingly frequent and targeted incidents of shoplifting, which was impacting their businesses and customers. It was clear that store managers need better responses from the police when it comes to tackle shoplifting as the incident is happening. Needless to say, better police responses on tackling crimes as they happen also help prevent future crimes. If the Government really want to restore neighbourhood policing and rebuild public trust in policing, they need to ensure that reforms are done properly, and that more police officers are put on our streets and in our communities.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I join the House in thanking our frontline police officers and staff for their incredible commitment, and the contribution and sacrifices that they make to keep our streets safe. I am grateful to the Minister for her statement, though I must say that it has the familiar quality of a Government announcing success, while the public are left wondering where exactly it has occurred. The Minister has come to the House today to present this police funding settlement as a turning point—as if police numbers are not actually falling, and as if criminals across the country are now packing up their tools and reconsidering their life choices.
However, outside Westminster, the country looks rather different. The public judge policing in a far more old-fashioned way than Ministers. They judge it not by the tone of a statement, but by whether they see officers on the streets, whether the police answer the telephone and turn up, and whether crime is dealt with when it happens—and on those measures, too many of our constituents feel that policing is being stretched to breaking point. This debate cannot take place without us confronting the central fact behind it: Labour promised more police on our streets, but since it entered government, police officer numbers have fallen by more than 1,300. That is not a minor adjustment, or an accounting quirk; it is 1,300 fewer police officers available to respond to crime, protect victims and patrol our communities.
Matt Bishop
The shadow Minister talks about reductions in officer numbers. Has he considered perhaps that those officers were coming to retirement, or were suffering ill health and were on restricted duties, and were not the officers seen by the public on the street, so the public perception is just the same?
Matt Vickers
This is the net number of police officers making the difference out there on Britain’s streets. There were 149,769; there are now nearly 2,000 fewer—that has a real impact. We hear all this noise about neighbourhood policing. Neighbourhood policing has a huge part to play in the policing model, but we cannot take away the police who respond to 999 calls. Should we badge police up, redeploy them, and leave people waiting longer for a 999 response when they really need one?
Graham Stuart
In his powerful speech, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) talked about the rise in scammers and fraudsters. I am concerned about the fact that Humberside will get a 2.4% funding increase, according to a public announcement by Ministers. The police and crime commissioner has shown that, when costs are taken into account, that represents a 2.9% cut. That is why 1,300 police officers have been cut so far, and it is why another reduction of 4,000 is expected next year. The Minister can go through a carefully curated number of neighbourhood officers, but the overall number is down, and the Government are not being straight with us.
Matt Vickers
I could not agree more. That is why the number of robberies against businesses has surged, shoplifting is up, and people feel less safe on our streets. Between September 2024 and September 2025—entirely on this Government’s watch—the number of officers fell by 1,318, compared with the year before. More broadly, 3,000 fewer people are working in police forces across the country to keep us safe.
Andy McDonald
I hear what the shadow Minister says about police numbers, but what did he say when Cleveland lost 500 police officers on his Government’s watch? Was he concerned then?
Matt Vickers
Back in 2010, I was deeply concerned about lots of things—the damage to our economy, the number of people without a job, the challenge of the difficult choices that the Government had to make—but the previous Government left office with record numbers of police on our streets.
Richard Foord
Measuring police effectiveness by looking solely at numbers is absolutely flawed. Does the shadow Minister accept in retrospect that the way in which Theresa May allowed police numbers to plummet while claiming that crime was falling was completely flawed? We lost a lot of experience in those years.
Matt Vickers
When the Conservatives last left office, we had record numbers of police on the streets. I do not know how many police officers we had on the streets when the Liberal Democrats last left office. [Interruption.] I will make some progress.
In terms of headcount, the picture is starker. In March 2024, under the previous Government, there were 149,769 officers—the highest number since records began. As of September 2025, that number stands at 147,621—a decrease of more than 2,000. When the Minister speaks about supporting the police, the House is entitled to ask a simple question: how can the Government support policing while presiding over fewer police?
Worryingly, the bad news does not stop there. The number of officers in the British Transport police and the number of staff in the National Crime Agency have also decreased, all while the Government announce a national police service that will be created from organisations such as the NCA. The staff who will make up that service are leaving. That is critical because the grant that we are discussing comes against the backdrop of many forces warning about their long-term financial stability.
As the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council said:
“The overall financial picture remains challenging. Many forces are planning service reductions, with consequences for officer numbers, staff capacity and overall resilience.”
That is a direct consequence of the Government’s decisions. There are real funding challenges, here and now, with real consequences for forces and communities across the country. The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners says that this year’s settlement leaves police forces with a shortfall that could be as high as £500 million.
Labour’s own police and crime commissioners across the country have spoken out on the challenges. In my own part of the world, Labour PCC Matt Storey has said that Cleveland police have to operate with
“one hand behind their back”,
and that funding has
“failed to keep pace with the level of inflation, while other funding has been removed and re-allocated”,
making it impossible to maintain current levels of service. I understand that he has written to the Minister on three occasions and is still awaiting a response. Durham’s Labour police and crime commissioner has been even more direct in her criticism. She said that the Labour Government have
“consistently demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of policing and community safety.”
The Minister will no doubt point with great enthusiasm to headline figures. Such spin fails to acknowledge inflation, pay awards and the ongoing cost of the Government’s jobs tax. Many at home will be stunned that our police forces were subjected to hundreds of millions of pounds of costs by way of the national insurance increase, and that the Government have actually taxed the police off our streets. This settlement is not the straightforward increase that the Minister claims it is. It relies heavily on the police precept, pushing more of the burden on to local taxpayers, while forces face rising costs and rising demand.
In 2023, an MP told this House that the then Government’s approach was to
“put up local taxes, put up council tax, push the problem on to local forces”,
and that
“Ministers have chosen to heap the burden on to hard-pressed local taxpayers through the precept.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2023; Vol. 727, c. 935.]
Any idea who that might have been? [Interruption.] Yes, it was the current Policing Minister. Given the Government’s fondness for U-turns, I am not surprised by the Minister’s change of view.
Jess Phillips
If the shadow Minister was so upset about this, why did he not do anything about it?
Matt Vickers
An increasing burden is being put on local taxpayers. Members can say one thing in opposition, but then they enter government and have to make real choices. Labour’s choices have meant cuts to police numbers, increases in the burden on local taxpayers, and spiralling levels of retail crime and robbery against businesses.
The consequences of that approach are as obvious today as they were then. The reliance on the police precept entrenches a postcode lottery in policing. Areas with strong council tax bases can raise more; areas with weaker council tax bases cannot. Yet the need for policing does not neatly align with local prosperity. Criminals do not check council tax bands before committing burglary. Nor do they decide where to operate based on local authority revenue forecasts. Yet under this Government’s model, two communities can face the same crime pressures but receive very different policing capacity simply because one can raise more money than the other. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what changed her mind about increasing the burden on local taxpayers for funding the police. Given the articulate case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty)—and by the Minister when in opposition—will she tell us when the funding formula review will take place?
The pressures on policing are not diminishing; they are growing. Forces are dealing with county lines, drug gangs exploiting children, organised crime operating across borders, cyber-crime and fraud expanding at an industrial scale, and domestic abuse cases that require extensive time, safeguarding and specialist capacity. They are also dealing with public order demands, which have become increasingly routine. This is a modern landscape of threats that requires modern capacity, and it cannot be met with funding settlements designed for ministerial speeches rather than frontline realities. This settlement will ultimately be judged not by the Minister’s tone, but by its results.
This debate comes down to the difference between saying and doing. The Government can say that they support policing, but too many see numbers falling. They can say that they support victims, but too many see no justice. And they can claim to be tough on crime, while quietly introducing early-release schemes that put offenders back on our streets sooner. Until the Government’s actions match their words, the public will not be convinced—and nor should they be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
I thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate—there was a big representation from the Liberal Democrats. I will not repeat the details of the settlement, as they were set out very clearly by my hon. Friend the Policing Minister. However, I will re-emphasise the importance of the significant investment in policing. It plays a key role in our programme of police reform, through which we will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of our police service, and ensure that our police are equipped for the future. The settlement also supports neighbourhood policing, which is the bedrock of the British policing model. We are listening to feedback from forces and giving them flexibility to shape their workforce and meet the demands of modern policing.
I will now come to the points raised in the debate.
Jess Phillips
The right hon. Gentleman raised many such points, so he will excuse me if I do not give way now.
It seems that the whole House can agree that no one likes the funding formula. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) gave an especially good trot-through of that issue. While he is not of my political stripes, he is considerably better than the previous right hon. Member for North Norfolk, who bears some responsibility for the damage that this Government are having to fix. The funding formula is fundamentally—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would like to intervene or think that I have said something that I should not have said, they should feel free to defend the former right hon. Member for North Norfolk, the one-time Prime Minister who crashed the economy.
Graham Stuart
As ever, I am afraid that this Minister gets her facts wrong. Despite that frailty, she is none the less straightforward and pretty outspoken. We get so few direct answers these days, so I look to her to provide them to two questions: are there fewer police officers now than there were when Labour came to power? And were there record numbers at that time? Are those two facts correct or are the Conservatives misleading the House, which we would not want to do?
Jess Phillips
I will come to the points that were raised in the debate, and that is one that the right hon. Gentleman raised many times.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) asked a specific question about the baseline. The baseline of the number of police personnel working in neighbourhood policing, which is measured from 31 March, was 17,715. Today that figure is 20,687.
I will tell a story about my recent visit to Cumbria police. I visited a call centre, where brilliant work was being done, and where I met some brilliant domestic violence advisers. However, the people staffing the call centre were warranted police officers. I do not think that warranted police officers should be staffing the call centres in police departments.
Jess Phillips
I will make some progress.
I do not think that those warranted police officers should be doing that. That is why we are tilting to increase the number of police, getting 12,000 of them from behind desks to where they need to be: working on the frontline.
The consensus from Members in the House today, including my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and others from different parties, is that some unfairness exists in the funding formula. It would be ridiculous to reform the police funding formula, carry out all of the police reforms that will come out of the planned review of policing, and then paste the funding formula on to that completely new programme.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon has already laid out his questions about the White Paper, but the point is that there will be a review of policing. I like the way hon. Members have started to use the term “mega-forces” as if they will be a bad thing. To me, they sound quite cool, like something out of “RoboCop”—which is not Government policy. It is for the hon. Gentleman and every other Member to take part in that review, ask questions, such as the ones he asked today, and represent their areas.
The hon. Members who have spoken today largely come from rural or semi-rural communities. From listening to that debate, people would be forgiven for thinking that where I live is basically a police state, where if someone calls the police, they will be out in five minutes. I recognise exactly the same issues that Members representing rural constituencies raised—that the police do not always come when people need them—and the needs of their police forces. One of the forces mentioned was West Mercia and there seemed to be an idea that that force would suck resources away from Birmingham, but I feel the same way about other bits of Birmingham, and indeed other parts of the country. That is why we need to reform the system.
I was in a meeting this morning with three of the most senior police officers in our country, who are part of the new violence against women and girls policing unit created by this Government. We were talking about the disparity between the 43 different police forces—stalking or honour crime may be tackled well in one area but not in another—and the domestic abuse risk assessments that they use. In that meeting, I thought, “Gosh, we are going to have the opportunity to start from first principles.” If I were to design the police force today on behalf of women and children in our country, I would not be designing the systems that we have today, so I ask people to enter into the issue of police reform in that spirit.
On the policing funding formula, there is no doubt, as hon. Members have mentioned—I suffer from this in Birmingham, as well—that a council tax base that is low has a disproportionate impact. When the funding formula is reformed, as part of the overall reform of policing, it will absolutely have to rely on need, deprivation and demand, as was laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East. Need can do a huge amount of heavy lifting for things like seasonality, which was raised by a number of hon. Members.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jess Phillips
I will give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash).
Ben Obese-Jecty
The Minister mentions the factors that will go into the police allocation formula. That formula is currently based on the 2014 population size, and density and sparsity figures from 2001. However, since that formula first came into effect, an additional 300,000 people now live in Cambridgeshire. Will that be factored into the formula? From what date will the population data be taken? Will it be the 2021 census or the 2011 census?
Jess Phillips
To answer the hon. Gentleman’s first question, yes, of course that will be factored in. Did he say 2001? I really enjoyed the conflab in the debate about who was to blame for what—it went back to things being blamed on the last Labour Government. I would like to remind hon. Members that we have to be careful about the way we are seen, because I was not old enough to vote when the last Labour Government came to power. Perhaps we should update some of the references. The idea that the figures we use will date from 2001 seems completely and utterly ridiculous, but the review that will be undertaken will look at that. All I can say is that it will be as recent as one would expect and as recent as is possible with data. [Interruption.] I can see that people are keen for me to be quiet.
Mr Brash
My hon. Friend talks about a new funding formula needing to be based on need and the challenges that the precept creates. We are never going to get fairness if the council tax system is the method of doing this. Is she ruling out getting rid of the police precept as a method of raising funding?
Jess Phillips
Far be it from me to have the authority to do that right now—I have to be honest. My colleagues who are responsible for local government and policing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), are sat on the Front Bench, and they will have heard the concern about that interplay. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) is absolutely right: this is about need and trying to ensure that we look at the different things that different areas face.
We are committed to giving the police the resources that they need, and that is exactly what this settlement does. We want to see robust neighbourhood policing that engages with the public to build trust and confidence. We are grateful for all the work that the incredible men and women of our police service do, and we are therefore determined to provide them with the capability and flexibility that they have asked for through the funding, in order that they have the tools they require. The removal of arbitrary targets for officer numbers means that local chiefs have more flexibility to shape their workforce, meet the demands of modern policing and do the vital work behind the scenes.
This settlement is only the first step. The 2026-27 settlement provides the police with the immediate resources needed to continue their invaluable work, alongside the opportunity to invest in the future, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2026–27 (HC 1638), which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.
Local Government Finance
(3 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:06 - The House divided: - Ayes: 277 / Noes: 143 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 279 / Noes: 90 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2026-27 (HC 1604), which was laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2026-27 (HC 1605), which was laid before this House on 9 February, be approved.
Steve Reed
Before I begin, I notify the House that the local government finance report has been updated with small corrections on pages 7 and 13. These corrections have been passed on to the House in the proper way ahead of today’s debate. Like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its careful consideration of these reports.
I believe in local government, because I have lived it. As a councillor and as a council leader, I saw the difference that councils make to people’s lives. Local government is the part of our democracy that is closest to people and the things that they care about the most—their family, their community and their home town.
Labour took office after 14 years of ideological cuts imposed on local government. The Tories devolved the blame for their failure in national government by imposing £16 billion of cuts on councils and local communities. Even worse, they targeted the worst of those cuts deliberately on our poorest communities. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), was filmed standing in a leafy garden in Tunbridge Wells boasting about how the Conservatives had stripped away funding from struggling towns so that they could play politics with public money.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Has the Secretary of State made an analysis of the division of Pride in Place funding between Labour and Reform seats versus Liberal Democrat and Conservative seats?
Steve Reed
I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to stand up and apologise to the House for what his Government did in diverting money away from the poorest communities. I am very disappointed that he did not take that opportunity, and I suspect that I am not the only one—perhaps he will take the opportunity later on. I remind him and his colleagues that under the Tories, only three in 10 councils received funding that aligned with deprivation; with this Government, the number is more than nine in every 10.
Local people were forced to pay a staggeringly high price for Tory venality. High streets were hollowed out and boarded up. The number of people sleeping rough on our streets doubled. The number of families stuck in temporary accommodation doubled. There were more potholes on our roads than craters on the moon.
Steve Reed
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can apologise for that.
Mark Garnier
I was going to say thank you for the Pride in Place money, actually; I am very grateful that the Government have given £20 million to my constituency.
On the subject of funding for councils, the Government are requiring district councils to pay for food waste recycling. That is not an unreasonable proposition, but there was a principle under the previous Government of new burdens funding, whereby when a new burden was presented to a council, the Government would sort it out. Why have the Secretary of State’s Government decided not to support councils with new burdens funding?
Steve Reed
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s words about Pride in Place. I am glad that he has answered the question of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), because that money is being distributed to constituencies represented by Members right across the House. On the point that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) makes about food waste recycling, funding for that has been built into the settlement, so it is present. The new burden is being funded in that way.
Mark Garnier
The Secretary of State is being incredibly kind. He talks about the settlement, but the settlement does not work. Wyre Forest district council has had a 0% increase in core funding. Dare I say that across the whole of Worcestershire, where there is a district council with a Conservative Member of Parliament, there has been a 0% increase, but where there is a district council with a Labour Member of Parliament, there has been an increase of up to 5%. Can he explain why that has happened?
Steve Reed
The settlement follows a funding formula and takes account of the costs of delivering food waste recycling in the way that the hon. Gentleman described earlier.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Steve Reed
Let me return to my theme for a moment before I take any more interventions.
The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and colleagues across the House will remember that the Tories used to belittle local councillors as part-time volunteers and took away their pension rights to deter people from risking a career on the frontline of local government. Today, it falls to this Government to fix the foundations that the Tories smashed apart.
We are rebuilding local government so that councils can rebuild their communities. We are making good on our promise to introduce multi-year funding settlements so that councils can plan for the future with certainty. We are reconnecting funding with need so that we can take off the Tory shackles that have held back so many of our towns and communities for so long. We are ending wasteful bidding wars for funding, freeing councils to focus on filling in potholes, not forms. We are putting fairness back into a system that the Tories bragged about breaking. We reject the decline that ripped the heart out of towns and communities up and down this country. We choose change.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Shropshire council is about to see a 10% cut in its core funding from central Government, having been terribly badly run by the Conservatives for the previous 16 years before the Lib Dem administration took over in May. The Government have given the council permission to put up its council tax by 9% without a referendum, but that does not even touch the sides of the cut in funding from central Government. How is Shropshire, which needs to receive exceptional financial support in this year, ever going to fill the ever-growing black hole unless the funding from Government reflects the costs of delivering services in rural areas?
Steve Reed
I believe the hon. Lady has had several meetings with my colleague the Minister for Local Government. It is right and very important that we should align funding with need; that is the only way to ensure that funding is fair across the whole country. That is what we promised to do in our manifesto, and that is what we are doing with this settlement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve Reed
I have taken an awful lot of interventions so far, and I do not want to leave no time, but I will take one last intervention.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is being very generous with his time. Like him, as a councillor I saw appalling pressures put on our local council in Reading while funding went up in neighbouring Wokingham, which is a much better-off area and was then controlled by the Conservatives. I appreciate his work on readjusting the settlement to reflect need. That should be a fundamental point in any allocation of resources to local government. Would he like to say a little more about his work on this, and how it is going to benefit residents on the lowest incomes in the most disadvantaged communities?
Steve Reed
At core, what we are hearing from all parts of the House at the moment is people’s views on the fact that under the previous Government, the alignment between funding and deprivation was broken, and this Government are bringing it back. Because the previous Government did nothing about it for 14 years, funding became extremely detached from deprivation. We are putting that back in and making sure that funding goes where the need is greatest, so that stealing money from the poorest communities to pork barrel Tory areas—which the former Prime Minister bragged about—can no longer go on.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is being a little unfair to the Tories. The biggest cuts under austerity from 2010 to 2024 came from 2010 to 2015 when the Lib Dems were in coalition, so perhaps they should share some of the blame.
Steve Reed
I certainly agree that the Lib Dems should share the blame for austerity. I was a council leader while the Lib Dems and Tories were in coalition together. I think they cut our council by a third just over the first one or two years that they were in power. Now they have the chutzpah to stand up and complain that this Government are putting some of it back. I really think they should reflect on that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve Reed
I have taken an awful lot of interventions, more from the opposite side of the House than from my own side, so with your kindness, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a little progress.
I thank all who contributed to the provisional settlement consultation. We listened carefully to views expressed by councils and MPs, and today I am pleased to announce an additional £740 million in new grant funding over and above the provisional settlement. This means that by the end of the multi-year settlement, councils will benefit from a 15.5% increase in core spending power, worth over £11.4 billion, compared with 2025-26.
When this Government took office, we introduced the recovery grant, targeted on those areas held back the most by Tory and Lib Dem austerity. This year we have maintained that grant, so every upper-tier council that received it will see a real-terms boost. I can announce a £440 million uplift to the recovery grant over the multi-year settlement targeted at councils the Tories hit with below average funding increases. By the end of this Parliament, we will have invested a total of £2.6 billion in the most deprived councils through the recovery grant, over and above what they receive through the settlement.
I have also listened carefully to feedback from the sector about business rates pooling. As a result, I am compensating any authorities that would have lost funding this year so that they have time to adapt to the new arrangements.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
I was council leader at St Helens for five years before coming here in July 2024. I just want to say thank you to the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government, and the Ministers in post before them, for the engagement, because the relationship now is different from what it was before. The conversation we have had since the provisional settlement has been constructive—it has been good; it has been done in good spirit—and I am very grateful for the result that we have for St Helens. In 2010, St Helens got £127 million a year from the last Labour Government, but when the Conservative party opposite left office it was £13 million a year. Does the Secretary of State share my absolute shock at the brass neck of Conservative Members?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Brief interventions can be just as productive as lengthy ones.
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. What he is seeing is the realignment of funding with deprivation, and that is as it should be.
Graham Stuart
The Secretary of State has been tremendously generous in giving way. He has also been making his usual barnstorming political knockabout speech, but perhaps he should start to act more like a Secretary of State, because low-income residents of the East Riding, of whom there are many in Beverley and Holderness, are going to have a £200 council tax bombshell. The smallest house is going to be paying £200 more in three years’ time and will have reduced overall funding to support public services after the increase in costs imposed by the Government. That is the reality. The Secretary of State said he wants to focus on need; why has rurality been removed from the category of need, when it is such a real issue?
Steve Reed
Well, the easy answer to that is that it has not been; it is still there.
Above all, this settlement is about fairness, because this Government reject the Tory belief that our poorest communities should be left to sink with less funding and worse public services than other parts of the country. That approach pulled our country apart; and, in doing so, was profoundly unpatriotic. Our settlement reflects a council’s ability to raise income locally, and it reflects the fact that it costs more to deliver services in different parts of the country, retaining rurality funding for social care, because we recognise that workers in those areas have to travel longer distances. We have used the most up-to-date data on deprivation to make sure funding accurately follows need.
We are introducing changes gradually over the period of the settlement so councils have time to adapt, and we are protecting councils’ income, including from business rates growth. Today’s settlement is a milestone in returning councils to a sustainable financial footing, and in restoring fairness to local government funding.
Lincoln Jopp
I am incredibly grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He calls it a milestone; I call it a millstone. He talks about fairness. Stanwell in my Spelthorne constituency hits the markers for the double deprivation criteria that would qualify for the Pride in Place funding, but that is diluted by the more affluent areas in my constituency. How is it fair to the people of Stanwell that they do not qualify for Pride in Place funding just because they are surrounded by more affluent areas? Rather than helping, is the Secretary of State not just going to engineer the continuation of pockets of deprivation?
Steve Reed
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood how it works. An area does not get diluted. The scheme looks at super-output areas on a very small level so we can ensure that the funding goes to those areas with the highest levels of deprivation. I would be happy to write to him about the process if it would help him to better understand how it works.
For the vast majority of councils, increases in council tax will be restricted to 3%, and 2% for the adult social care precept.
Steve Reed
I am going to make some progress, I am afraid.
There are a few councils facing extremely challenging financial pressures that the previous Government turned into a crisis by ignoring their problems for over a decade. In response to requests from those councils, I am giving them flexibility to increase their council tax above referendum principles next year. Unlike the previous Government, we will not agree any increases that could lead to households in these areas paying above national average council tax, but we will not let councils go to the wall and see their residents punished with failing services. These flexibilities will apply to Warrington, Trafford, Worcestershire, Shropshire, North Somerset, Windsor and Maidenhead, and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. One fire authority will also be granted additional flexibility. These are caps, not targets, and no area with additional flexibility will see bills rise above the national average.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for making that point about council tax and flexibility for local councils. Does he agree with the Local Government Association, which is worried, stating that
“council tax is not the solution to the financial challenges facing local government. It places a significant burden on some households”,
including the poorest. Does he agree that we should now be looking at council tax reform?
Steve Reed
I agree with the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that council tax cannot be the only means to fix these problems. That is why we have increased the level of funding overall and reconnected it with the deprivation indices that tell us which areas have the greatest need, and should therefore get a fair share of the available funding.
The Home Secretary and I have also agreed an additional £3.50 council tax flexibility for six police and crime commissioners in 2026-27, where that was critical to financial sustainability in maintaining law and order. It is for councillors, mayors and police and crime commissioners to set their own council tax, and to take into account the impact on households when making those decisions.
Nationally, council tax will not increase by more than it did last year. Six local authorities set council tax bills between £450 and £1,000 lower than the national average because of the high value of homes in their areas. The previous Government made no adjustment in the funding formula for this, creating unfairness. It is not fair that people living in our poorest communities should subsidise rock-bottom bills in some of our wealthiest areas, so I am giving those councils additional flexibility to manage their budgets as we align funding with need, as we should.
For councils that need some support to balance their budgets this year, we will no longer just sign off borrowing or the sale of assets without a credible approach to reforming services to get back to financial stability. Later this month, I will confirm arrangements for supporting councils in the most difficult positions, but they will be expected to bring forward plans for more effective and sustainable services, built on sustainable budgeting into the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve Reed
I want to make some progress, because I have taken quite a lot of interventions, but I will give way before I conclude.
Local government is still under pressure, and we will not bury our heads in the sand or dodge the difficult decisions. The adult social care system is in crisis, and we are facing up to that by transforming it. This settlement makes available around £4.6 billion of additional funding for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, including £500 million for the sector’s first ever fair pay agreement. That means more carers getting better pay and having the time to provide the high-quality, compassionate care they want to give. It will get us moving towards a national care service that gives people better-quality care, joined-up services, and more choice and independence.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
We are very grateful for the settlement and the announcements that the Secretary of State has made today. Both Redbridge and Waltham Forest in my constituency are receiving significant uplifts from this Parliament, and Ministers have been excellent in listening to the arguments of both those London boroughs. Although this measure will not be enough to fill the immediate financial gaps left by the Tories, it is a step forward. However, given that temporary accommodation costs have risen so much in London—by about 75% over the last five years—will the Secretary of State set out how the Government are acting to expand the supply of socially rented homes?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for recognising that funding is now following deprivation. He will find the answer to his question in the homelessness strategy, which I will come to. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, you are indicating with your wrist that I need to speed up, so I will make some progress.
On children’s social care, the system was again left on its knees. That is why this Government are driving forward the biggest transformation of children’s social care in a generation by rolling out the Families First Partnership programme. We have backed the programme with nearly £3 billion over four years, including an investment of over £2.4 billion in this multi-year settlement. It gives local authorities, police and health partners the tools to provide families with the right support at the right time, shifting the system from expensive statutory provision towards early intervention and preventive support. It will help families stay together, divert thousands of children from care and transform the outcomes and wellbeing of children across the country.
The investment in the Families First Partnership programme marks a milestone in transforming the children’s social care system, but we recognise that the children’s social care residential market is fundamentally broken. Local authorities are being pushed to the brink, while some private providers are making excessive profits. This cannot—and it will not—continue. Instead, we are working to reduce reliance on residential care and move towards a system rooted in family environments through fostering. Last week, the Government set out a plan to expand fostering for 10,000 more children by the end of this Parliament. The evidence is clear that taking this approach will be better for children and better for the local authorities that provide the services. Using the new powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we will explore the implementation of a profit cap in the children’s social care placement market to ensure that public money delivers value and care, not profiteering.
It is obvious that the current special educational needs and disabilities system is not working for children and families. We know that it is not working for councils either, as they are seeing funding for neighbourhood services diverted into a broken system. The Government are bringing forward ambitious reforms that will create a better and financially sustainable SEND system, built on early, high-quality support for kids with SEND to improve their time at school and maximise their potential throughout life. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will set out the details of those reforms in the upcoming schools White Paper.
Crucially, we are taking action now to support local authorities as we move towards that reformed system. We will deliver this in phases, the first of which will address historic deficits accrued up to the end of 2025-26. All local authorities with SEND deficits will receive a grant covering 90% of their high-need deficit up to the end of 2025-26. This is subject to local authorities securing the Department for Education’s approval of a local SEND reform plan.
On homelessness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) has said, we know that temporary accommodation is a growing financial pressure on councils, with near record levels of rough sleeping and declining social housing stock. The final settlement also provides a £272 million uplift to the homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant, taking total investment delivered through the settlement to £2.7 billion. On the ground, that will mean families off the streets; kids out of temporary accommodation and instead living in safe, secure homes; and people’s lives put back on course. We are matching that landmark investment with our national plan to end homelessness, led by the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, to put the full might of the state behind preventing homelessness before it happens.
Today’s settlement is about keeping a promise—a promise to repair the broken foundations of local government, and a promise to put the heart back into our communities. When the last Conservative Government slashed councils to the bone, the consequences were severe: the services people use every day were undermined, streets became filthy and people’s lives got tougher. The hard work of councillors, mayors and frontline staff kept vital services running during those hard Tory years, and we thank them for the work they did in those circumstances. Our aim is a future where councillors, working with their communities, have the freedom to innovate—rebuilding public services and investing in high streets, youth clubs and libraries. We are fixing the foundations so that councils and their communities can build the public services, renew the high streets and shape the future they want to see.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before I call the shadow Minister, I will announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026. The Ayes were 362 and the Noes were 107, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Secretary of State and I will have had long experience of working with Morgan McSweeney during the many days he spent as head of the Labour group at the Local Government Association. I think that influence is reflected in the very political speech we have just heard from the Secretary of State. Despite its political excellence, I am struggling to reconcile his speech with what is actually in the finance statement he has laid before the House to agree this afternoon. We have a high level of agreement that local government touches all our lives in our communities. We recognise its huge potential to develop our economy, improve public health and give children a great start in life, and we know that the average local authority in this country delivers over 800 different services. They are there for us literally from cradle to grave, and are led by democratically elected councillors who run budgets that are bigger than those of many Government Departments, in organisations that are more complex than many a FTSE 100 business.
However, having served—like the Secretary of State—as a councillor under the last Labour Government, we see a swift reversion to type. Announcements of funding for social housing may arrive towards the end of the decade; funding for schools from VAT on fees for private education amounts to a real-terms cut in state school funding; and at the heart of what the Secretary of State has set out is a massive diversion of funding away from the legally enforceable statutory duties placed on councils by this Parliament and towards generalised poverty as a driver of those allocations.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the Labour Government have abolished the rural services delivery grant, a decision that has cost Somerset council £4.1 million and has cost other rural counties many millions of pounds—rural counties in which it is more expensive to provide services? Does he agree that this is Labour diverting money from rural areas that are desperately in need to Labour strongholds in the north?
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. The analysis produced by the County Councils Network makes a comparison between the funding pressure on statutory services facing the urban councils that are the beneficiaries of the Government’s largesse, which totals £180 million a year, and the budget gap facing rural areas as a result of this Government’s decision, which is a £2.7 billion black hole.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
That is nothing new. In every one of the last 29 years, people who are lucky enough to have a modest property in the New Forest and a mansion in the city have come to me to complain about how much more their modest property in the forest costs them in council tax. I have told them that the one is subsidising the other, but people who are not in that fortunate position—young families in my parliamentary constituency with only one property—are subsidising the north and the cities, and they cannot afford it.
David Simmonds
I hesitate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but it was not ever thus. The rural services grant referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) was a measure to address those additional cost burdens, including direct costs arising from statutory duties. It was a funding stream that is being removed by this Labour Government.
Gareth Thomas
The shadow Minister will remember that when the Conservative party took control of Harrow council four years ago, it did so on a promise of freezing council tax, which he presumably campaigned on. Instead, council tax has risen by 20% over the past four years. Will the shadow Minister take the opportunity to apologise to the people of Pinner—indeed, of Harrow more generally—for his party saying one thing when it was campaigning and then doing exactly the reverse, increasing the cost of living for his constituents and mine?
David Simmonds
Without wishing to be parochial, I am sure the hon. Member would also like to join in the apologies for the appalling level of corruption that had taken place under Labour in the London borough of Harrow. As has been covered extensively in the local and national media, it left an astonishing legacy of cost overruns in the local authority’s highways department, which has taken a good deal to recover from. I am sure we would not want the House to be inadvertently misled about the impact of those cost overruns.
Graham Stuart
It is far from my typical habit to get involved in political knockabout, but following that astonishing intervention that showed a total lack of self-awareness, does my hon. Friend remember the now Prime Minister saying that council tax would go up by “not a penny”? This settlement assumes an increase of 5% a year on low-income people in rural East Yorkshire at the same time that core funding is cut. That is a £200 hit for the smallest house in our area, while—as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said—very valuable homes in central London seem to pay a fraction of the amount.
David Simmonds
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. When Ministers talk about additional resources being provided to local government, we need to reflect on the fact that two thirds of the funding in this settlement comes from the maximum possible council tax rise across the country, and a large chunk of the rest comes from a huge rise in business rates.
Mr Betts
It is interesting to hear the hon. Member completely remove from his memory what happened in the 14 years of his Government. I ask him to remember back to when this began in 2010, when council tax generated about 20% of council funding, and how it has grown over the years under the Conservative and coalition Governments to deliver more than half of local government funding. How can he say that this is a problem when his Government originated that process?
David Simmonds
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will be pleased to know that that prompts me to move on to the next part of what we need to say. Let us recall for those who cry austerity at Conservative Members that the last Labour Government spent on average 10% more in every year of its final decade in office than they raised in taxes, which left a colossal legacy of debt that we have scarcely begun to repay. Millions were squandered on projects such as building schools for the future that were cancelled at the tail end of the last Labour Government by Alistair Darling, as they ran out of money. When we look at the reports of what this means at constituency level, councils such as Surrey, which embraced this Labour Government’s devolution agenda, have now lost the opportunity for the mayor that they were promised. They report that they have been left £60 million a year short. Members will be ill-served by the consequences of the Budget.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I am sure the hon. Member did not mean to inadvertently mislead the House, but as I was a councillor in Hartlepool in 2010, I can tell him with absolute surety that it was the Conservatives who cancelled the building schools for the future programme. I think he should take the opportunity to correct the record. You cancelled it; we initiated it.
David Simmonds
One of my tasks in the world of local government was to engage with that last Labour Government and the disastrous consequences of their overspending. They were completely clear with authorities such as mine that stopped work on BSF that they did not have the money to see through the promises that they were making to the public. We were told that by the Department for Education. I am very confident that my constituents understand the consequences that a Labour Government have on their politics.
Danny Beales
The hon. Member is very generous with his time. I always have a lot of time for him. He is talking about our constituents in Hillingdon. Is it not the case that the financial settlement of the previous Tory Government, which also included council tax, had a 7% cut to core spending power for our constituents in Hillingdon? This spending settlement has almost a 40% increase in core spending power for our constituents. [Interruption.] hon. Member seems rather depressed about this announcement. Surely that is fantastic news for our constituents. Does he not agree with me that thank God we have a Labour Government for Hillingdon?
David Simmonds
I appreciate that he knows rather more about Camden council than he does about Hillingdon council, but let us reflect a little further on the history. Our constituents last had a Labour council in 1998. I went to that budget meeting at which our constituents were faced with an 18.7% council tax rise—£60 million of unfunded efficiency savings by a Labour council. I think they understand where their political priorities lie and who has their interests at heart.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Simmonds
I will make a little progress, because I know that Madam Deputy Speaker will want others to have time.
History is repeating itself. Let us not forget that this is a statement that leaves two thirds of councils in England worse off, from the analysis that has been done by the Local Government Association. That piles additional costs on top of things such as last year’s national insurance contributions rise, which left councils £1.5 billion net worse off. This settlement tightens ringfencing, removing the ability of local leaders to deploy homelessness funding flexibly to meet local needs, for example. It also comes at a time when this botched reorganisation of local government has created chaos across the sector, with a hokey-cokey of elections promised and then cancelled, sometimes within 24 hours, from that Dispatch Box.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the current process for local government reorganisation is that there has been no direction on how the funding will work out? We have some proposals on the table that would leave enormously vast rural communities in constituencies such as mine neighbouring towns and urban centres that will see this as an opportunity to get what they want. This settlement does not give those rural councils any confidence that they will get the money they need once local government reorganisation has taken place.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend draws attention to another significant issue facing local authorities: the level of uncertainty. Money has been promised, then withdrawn. Budgets have been allocated, then reduced. In that context, I am sure that her constituents will be as concerned as I am that so much of this money is simply built into massive tax rises across the country.
I will turn briefly to business rates. We know, including from the question that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) asked at Prime Minister’s questions, the pressure being felt acutely on our high streets, especially in hospitality and retail. A business owner in my constituency told me yesterday that across his food franchise, the business rates rise alone is an additional £100,000 a year. That is a lot of entry level jobs at risk. It means price rises for consumers, fuelling inflation. The rise is a barrier to investments in our high streets, and that situation is replicated across the country.
Let us not forget that under the previous Government—this is one of the things of which we are most proud—an average of 800 new jobs were created every single day we were in office. Let us never cease to remind those on the Government Benches that unemployment has risen in every single month of this Labour Government. They are a Government who clearly do not respect our local colleagues. They refer to leaders as mere community convenors. They seek to reduce our councillors’ level of discretion. They create uncertainty through a lack of clarity on reorganisation, on special educational needs and disabilities deficits and on whether mayoral elections are going ahead. That comes at a time when thousands of voters are being denied a say by this Government through the cancelling of elections. That situation is caused solely by the Secretary of State’s abject failure to deliver the Government’s devolution plans to the proposed timetable. It is one thing to cancel elections in a council that is about to be abolished, so that voters can instead choose its replacement. It is very much another thing to defer elections indefinitely while we wait for the Secretary of State to get his act together. Our councils and our communities deserve a better settlement than this.
I will conclude with some points that I hope the Minister will address in the summing up. One of the most striking things about this settlement is that the Secretary of State has come to the Chamber and said that the key priority for this Government is addressing poverty and deprivation. Poverty and deprivation do not feature in this local government funding settlement. They are not part of this formula that the Secretary of State is asking us to agree. What is striking is the things that he says are important. He talked about vulnerable children in education, but it is cash flat, same as last year. Virtual schools are cash flat. The revenue support grant for local authorities is cash flat. Personal advisers to care leavers are cash flat. Money for supporting local authorities with social care, which was specifically described as a priority, is cash flat. Buy one, get one free campaigns intended to reduce obesity in the public health environment have a 50% reduction. Even Awaab’s law, which was championed at the Dispatch Box just a short time ago by the Minister for Housing and Planning sees a cut of £26,000 from its paltry beginnings.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will reflect that what he is announcing is essentially a massive shift of funding away from the statutory duties and obligations that this Parliament has placed on our local authorities to those favoured political areas that the Government see as their priorities for the future.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Harrow council was on the verge of bankruptcy until Ministers announced substantial extra funding in the local government settlement. Council officers told councillors that they were facing a budget deficit of more than £32 million, and they were planning to use virtually all the council’s reserves to fill the gap if the settlement for Harrow was not as generous as in fact it was. They were even contemplating having to ask for exceptional financial support status, so I particularly welcome the 31% increase in funding for Harrow over this Parliament that the Government announced in December. The last multi-year funding settlement for the council, under Theresa May and Boris Johnson, delivered just a 5% increase, so a 31% uplift over this Parliament is a significant step forward.
Harrow certainly needs that uplift, because over the last four years residents have become increasingly concerned about how the council has been managed. Council tax has increased by more than inflation every year. Rents and service charges imposed by the council have rocketed. Crucial parts of the council’s responsibilities have been rated as inadequate and needing improvement. Basic critical services such as street cleaning have been cut to the bone, and new housing to ease the housing and homelessness crisis has been stalled, delayed or just axed. Council officers have told senior councillors that without that increase, Harrow would have faced having to approach the Secretary of State; it would have been at risk of bankruptcy, and of needing exceptional financial support.
Although a combination of recent mismanagement of council finances and a decade of austerity has done considerable damage to our public services, Harrow remains one of the lowest-funded councils, both in London and nationally, so I say gently to the Secretary of State that I hope he will understand when I tell him that I will continue to press for further funds to improve our local services. It is worth underlining that between 2013-14 and 2022-23, the council saw cuts in its funding from the Tory, and Tory-Liberal Democrat, Governments of more than £50 million, and a reduction of a shocking 97% in the revenue support grants. One of the consequences of that level of austerity was vastly weakened public services.
Gareth Thomas
I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman a way into the debate, but he might prefer to sit down and make a longer contribution later.
Sir Desmond Swayne
No, no. The one thing that the Secretary of State got right when he was wagging his finger to my left was his implication about the Liberal Democrats. I was at the heart of that Administration. Danny Alexander was Chief Secretary to the Treasury and had to be restrained by George Osborne, so gung-ho was he about making greater cuts. Personally, I would have given him his head, but don’t let them escape!
Gareth Thomas
I am happy to join the right hon. Gentleman in again condemning the role that the Liberal Democrats played, but if he was the sane voice in the Government at the time, I hope he will forgive me for being—slightly—even more concerned about what was going on.
One of the understated problems resulting from the austerity that Harrow has suffered has been the decline in the quality of vital local services. Children’s services were rated inadequate by Ofsted just last year, and immediate improvement was required in eight areas. They included leadership stability, particularly relating to management and oversight of staff and social workers; the
“quality of support, advice and guidance for care leavers”;
the “quality of help” for children who were homeless; the
“quality and consistency in the response”
when care leavers went missing; and the consistency of staffing to support children. Some of the most vulnerable children in my community and across Harrow more generally have been let down by Harrow council. Two years earlier, the Conservative councillors who led Harrow council had driven through major cuts to children’s services of over £2.5 million. Astonishingly, the current Conservative leadership locally is proposing another round of major cuts to children’s services.
One particular case in my constituency stands out. At a nursery, parents reported significant bruising on their child, in what looked like the shape of a child’s footprint. The matter was referred to social services. The parents were arrested and went to court, and the child was taken into emergency foster care. Eventually, the case against the parents was rightly dropped when the court accepted that the original bruising was caused by a child’s foot. In the meantime, during supervised contact that was arranged by Harrow social services, the parents found extensive injuries on the child and reported them to the social worker. Given the scale of the injuries, there should have been a serious investigation at the time, but there was not. In the nearly three years since, the council has struggled to get answers to its questions, and the parents inevitably remain profoundly affected by what has happened to their child, and by what they have been put through as a family. I wish I could say that was an isolated case, but it is not. Although I welcome the additional funding that the council will get, which it will be able to put into social care for young people, there are other measures that I hope the Secretary of State will consider further down the line.
It is not just children’s services that have been affected; the Care Quality Commission has said that adult social care run by Harrow council requires improvement. That certainly did not come as a huge surprise to many carers, elderly people and other vulnerable adults in Harrow. Just last year, the council was ordered to pay compensation to an elderly resident with dementia and her family. The resident needed medical help after she was neglected and let down by the care home in which she had been placed by Harrow council.
Since 2022, Harrow has become the third most expensive council in London for council tax, behind Tory-run Croydon and Liberal Democrat-led Kingston upon Thames. Harrow’s Conservative councillors have put up council tax by the maximum possible every year they have been in power, and they plan to continue doing so—a 20% rise in council tax since 2022, despite their promises to freeze it.
Council tenants have been hit with the maximum rent increases allowable in each of the past four years, while leaseholders’ service charges have rocketed. Astonishingly, some leaseholders in properties owned by Harrow council are expecting to see their service charges rise by 70% this year. One family, currently paying £2,000 annually, have been sent a bill for £3,400 for next year. Those rates are simply unacceptable in the midst of a cost of living crisis, and I hope the council will review them urgently.
Lincoln Jopp
Does the hon. Member believe that people who promise not to raise council tax should not raise council tax?
Gareth Thomas
Conservative councillors in Harrow promised not to raise council tax but duly did so. I hope the hon. Gentleman will join me in urging the shadow Secretary of State to ask the leader of the council to explain to the people of Harrow why he reneged on his promise.
Regeneration should be an opportunity to build more affordable and social housing, and to help tackle the housing crisis that we face in communities like mine. It should surely involve local communities, create opportunities for them to come together, and provide for key local services. Instead, the completion of the redevelopment of the Grange Farm estate has been delayed multiple times—again, a product of the lack of funding and poor leadership locally.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, and I am very sorry to hear about the challenges that his residents have with their council. Some local authorities are doing the exact opposite of what he describes. In my area, Reading borough council recently opened 46 new council houses, built on its own land, as part of a programme to build nearly 800. There are local authorities that are able to grip this issue, and I am very sad to hear about the situation at his council. Perhaps it could learn something from Reading and other councils around the country.
Gareth Thomas
I would certainly welcome the news that the Conservative councillors in Harrow responsible for housing were looking at councils that are committed to building more council homes, like those in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
The failure to complete the redevelopment means that residents have had to put up with mice, damp and substandard accommodation for too long on the Grange Farm estate. On other regeneration schemes in Wealdstone, plans for affordable housing have been axed, no new council housing that had not already been planned by the previous council has been built, and a primary school that was due to be provided has been axed. Developers are not being held properly to account, and a major opportunity to lift the quality of life in the borough has been missed.
A consistent complaint that I have heard from constituents of mine is that they find it very difficult to get to see anyone at the council. They do not know where to go to meet council staff to sort out problems and discuss issues in their neighbourhood. Shortly after the local Conservative party took over running Harrow council, it closed Harrow’s civic centre. It was due to be replaced by a smaller set of council offices in Wealdstone, on what is currently the Peel Road car park. That would have given Harrow residents access to council staff, and helped increase the number of people using businesses on the local high street. It would have freed up council-owned land for much-needed affordable housing and for new workspaces, retail and commercial spaces, as well as a new primary school, a new library, a new park for residents to enjoy and a new town square. However, the civic centre remains closed—derelict and boarded up—and major decisions on regeneration have been delayed or cancelled. No new set of accessible council offices is planned, and no one knows when, or indeed if, new promised housing will go ahead. Instead, local Conservative councillors have spent thousands of pounds doing up their council offices, yet members of the public are not allowed in.
Gareth Thomas
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have given way to him once, and I leave him to hope to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The public will get their say on the situation in Harrow in May, but the failures at Harrow council raise other questions. Reversing the decade and more of austerity for local services is clearly a priority, and the settlement that was announced in December makes a good start on that objective. Harrow certainly needs a serious examination of its funding formula, but surely raising the quality of local services needs to be more than just the responsibility of local people. In 2015, the Opposition parties decided to abolish the Audit Commission, a body that usefully challenged councils much earlier on, and helped prevent many poor management practices of the sort we regularly see in Harrow from developing and getting out of control.
Danny Beales
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Rightly, this Government are putting more money back into local government for the first time in many years. That is long overdue, but that money has to be well spent. Unfortunately, what he describes in Harrow is quite similar to the experience of my residents in Hillingdon. The independent auditors are quite damning about the council’s budgeting approach. Millions of pounds have been misallocated, and there were no opening and closing balances, well into the financial year. It was recently reported by the press that the council, in a secret deal, had written off a former Tory councillor’s debt, all while applying for exceptional financial support from this Government, so I completely agree with him. Do we not need more independent oversight and audit of local government finance?
Gareth Thomas
We certainly need more independent oversight of the way in which Conservative councils in outer London are managing their finances. I am completely with my hon. Friend on that score, and the story of what has happened in Hillingdon is almost as bad as the situation we have faced in Harrow over the last four years. The one bright spot has been the increase in finance that the Secretary of State has delivered for Harrow. We need a review of the funding formula for Harrow, but I welcome the settlement we have had, and I look forward to continuing to persuade him of the case for more funding in Harrow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
In our manifesto, the Liberal Democrats called for multi-year settlements for local government; for councils to be freed to generate more revenue, including by charging more council tax on second homes and from increased planning fees; and for an extra £2 billion on education, including for special educational needs and disabilities. It is right that funding for local government is rebuilt after the consequences of the 2008 crash and the famous letter left by the outgoing Labour Government that they had spent all the money and there was none left. The moves forward in the areas I have mentioned through this settlement are positive and we welcome them.
The announcement that 90% of SEND service debts that councils have unavoidably built up will be met by central Government also begins to address the crisis in SEND, but I am afraid it does not finish the job. The promised SEND reforms have again been delayed. Whatever the outcome of those SEND reforms, they must not be a precursor to weakening the protection disabled children rely on and their parents expect.
Our five tests for SEND reform would guarantee that children’s rights to SEND assessments and support are maintained, and that the voices of children and young people with SEND, and those of their families and carers, remain at the centre of the reform process. Secondly, capacity in state special school provision must be increased, alongside improvements to inclusive mainstream settings. Thirdly, national Government must top up funding for each child whose needs exceed local authority provision within a given cap. The Government must get on and introduce a cap on the profits made by private sector SEND companies. Fourthly, early intervention must be improved and waiting must be times cut. Lastly, schools must be incentivised to both accept SEND pupils and train their staff.
The additional funds for housing and homelessness, while small, are welcome, including those for Somerset council in my constituency. The extra funding through the recovery grant is also welcome, but places such as Kingston upon Hull tell us that it does not go far enough and will not fill the gaping hole in financial stability that persists. It is disappointing that social housing does not get a mention in the settlement. We need a new generation of council and social rented homes. Our plans are for 150,000 per year and Shelter’s are for 90,000 per year. Both would be a good proposition. The Government’s proposal for 18,000 per year just will not meet the level of need out there.
The additional funding, along with provision for SEND deficits, will help councils like mine in Somerset to keep the council tax rise to the 4.99% norm across the country. In a cost of living crisis, people cannot afford more than the minimum increase. That is something Somerset MPs and the council pushed hard for, and I am grateful to the Local Government Minister for meeting us and engaging with us on that. It is notable that 70 out of the 74 Liberal Democrat-led councils have kept the council tax rise to the norm minimum of 4.99%. The four that are, exceptionally, going above that all inherited from their previous Conservative administrations a social care funding time bomb.
Voters will take note that Reform-led Worcestershire county council is increasing council tax to the highest level allowed in the country. Typically, Reform Members are not here to take part in the debate on local government finance. The message is clear: vote Reform and pay more tax than anyone else in the country.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech outlining how Liberal Democrat councils up and down the country are doing their best in this cost of living crisis. Oxfordshire county council finds itself in a £24 million deficit as a result of the settlement. Meanwhile, residents on the doorstep are saying to us, “What about my potholes?” He is right to point out that social care is part of that demographic deficit. [Interruption.] Does he agree that we need to tackle the core issues and that one of those is social care, because sorting that out helps everything to do with local government finance?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Conservative Members ask, from a sedentary position, who runs the council, but I use the phrase “inherited time bomb” advisedly. The well-respected Conservative former leader of Somerset county council, Dave Fothergill, was one of the first in the country to identify this issue. He told “Panorama” back in 2019 that adult social care was a time bomb that was ticking. That time bomb has now gone off around the country, and council tax payers are having to bail out the broken social care system.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
For Torbay council, on which I still serve, incredible assumptions are being made about the levels of council tax being collected. That results in a deficit of £13 million in years 2 and 3 for a small unitary authority. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party has been learning from the Conservatives, and is planning to balance the books of councils on the backs of local tax payers?
Gideon Amos
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, who champions Torbay on a regular basis in the Chamber. Councils are suffering reductions in their funding settlements across the country, which is one of the reasons we cannot support the amount of support they are getting from central Government.
Mr Betts
There is again memory loss on the Lib Dem Benches. It was the coalition Government who made the biggest cuts to local government funding and started passing funding responsibilities over to the council tax system—that all began with the Lib Dems in the coalition Government. Why does the hon. Gentleman not apologise to the Chamber and to people up and down the country for what the Lib Dems did to them when they were in government?
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is right that massive savings were made after the financial crash in 2008—some would say around £40 billion over the coalition years. He would be horrified to learn that the only people suggesting cuts greater than £41 billion were those in the Labour party in their 2010 manifesto, which proposed £56 billion in cuts. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, he can look at the headlines of the time: “Alistair Darling: we will cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher”. That was Alistair Darling in his 2010 Budget. Who began austerity? Who began the cuts? It was the Labour Government, who were planning to go further, faster and deeper, according to Alistair Darling, than the Liberal Democrats or the coalition did.
David Simmonds
I just want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with the Labour leader of Sheffield council, who says:
“Cost pressures continue to outstrip increases in funding, both specific inflationary pressures in major service areas, particularly for care, accommodation and construction, and the increasing volume of demand in housing and care.”
Is the Labour leader in Sheffield correct?
Gideon Amos
I hesitate to get too involved in the politics of Sheffield.
I am concerned that we are seeing reductions in Government funding for councils across the country, particularly in the case of rural authorities, which are especially hard hit by this settlement. Rural authorities find delivering social care and other services far more costly than in tightly drawn urban areas; Somerset’s 4,000-mile road network, for instance, is a massively more onerous proposition than a network in a tightly drawn urban area.
It is inexplicable that despite a consultation that considered maintaining the remoteness funding uplift across the country and across all funding heads of local government, it has been taken away from all funding heads apart from adult social care. Why would it be less costly to provide children’s services than adult’s services in a remote, rural area? Why would it be less costly to provide flood relief and flood protection than adult services in a rural area? A whole range of really remote authorities are affected, including Westmorland and Furness, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, all of which are particularly badly hit.
Remote authorities have much greater areas to protect from flooding. I have spent recent days with families in Stathe and Burrowbridge on the Somerset levels in my constituency, where I have seen how heartrending it is for families to watch the water coming closer and closer to their homes. Some people are going to bed with the water 200 metres away, but by the time they wake up the next morning and look out of their window, it is only 20 metres away. In some of the places I visited, the water is lapping up against the houses themselves.
When Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron came down in 2013-14—the last time we had severe flooding—he promised Somerset that money would be no object. It turned out that he meant that Somerset residents’ money would be no object, because Somerset’s new rivers authority became the only one in the country not to be funded by central Government and to have to rely on local taxpayers.
When the Flooding Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), came down to Somerset yesterday, she said that Somerset will not be forgotten. I ask the Local Government Minister what extra support the Government are providing to Somerset council to deal with this flooding major incident, which could easily become a national emergency if effective measures are not taken now—and I mean in the next few days. Water levels are still rising, Minister.
Finally, we need an end to the massive expense of all this top-down reorganisation of local government where people do not want it. Forcing change on the structures of the natural communities that people know and love can only distract from the important work of reducing flooding, delivering care and all the other priorities that councils put first. No one I have met in Taunton and Wellington, in Somerset or on the levels has told me that what they really want to see is a metro-style mayor for their area coming down the road. Is spending almost half a billion on mayors really going to help any of our constituencies in the way that known, understood and strengthened local councils would?
While we welcome the limited extra funding, the settlement leaves too many questions unanswered on how SEND costs will be met. It is still going to lead to big cuts in services for rural and remote authorities, and on social care it leaves council tax payers bailing out a broken system. For all these reasons, we cannot at this stage support the settlement.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State, who is not in his place, for opening this debate on the settlement. I know the work that he and the Local Government Minister have led on in bringing forward this statement, and they have been strong voices for our local government colleagues. I should declare that the Secretary of State and I served at Lambeth council, and the Minister served as a councillor in Southwark, one of my neighbouring boroughs. I also want to pay tribute to the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for the work he did with many councils to get us to the place we are at.
I know that many local authorities across England will be delighted to see that the Government are going to be covering 90% of the debt that has built up through supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities. The issue of SEND appears in all our inboxes, and it has been a big ongoing issue for many councils, regardless of which party leads them. The issue is how we continue to support some of the most vulnerable children, so we must ensure that councils are adequately funded in this area.
If we are honest, SEND costs are not of councils’ making. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), highlighted, the costs are a result of the broken system, which is finally being addressed by this Government. I hope that the Government will continue to address this issue in the upcoming schools White Paper.
One of the first things that everyone across local government asks for is certainty from the Government—certainty that authorities can make long-term investments in infrastructure; certainty that they have the funding to build the homes that we need; and certainty that they can start turning around the 14 years of under-investment in local government. I know that Opposition Members do not like to hear about it, but we saw 14 years of under-investment in SEND, temporary accommodation and adult social care. We should all welcome the first multi-year settlement in a decade, which ends the year-on-year waiting game that held back investment for too long.
This settlement has been called for not only by the current Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee but by its predecessor Committee, which was chaired by my wonderful colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). It is good to see that the Government are finally listening on this issue.
We welcome the reduction in the number of grants. We have been asking our cash-strapped councils to continually bid for small pots of money. That means officer time being taken away from frontline services. Councils are bidding for those pots when, in some cases, they will not even be successful. That is not a good use of vital officers’ time, and in some cases the councils had to justify submitting the bids in the first place. We really do welcome this crucial change.
There are two other areas I want to focus on, one of which has been raised by right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon. The reality is that even with this welcome funding, a number of councils will still face budgetary issues. The Local Government Association anticipates that more councils may apply for exceptional financial support. When we see more councils having to apply for emergency funding, there is nothing exceptional about it. We cannot have a situation where councils have to rely on emergency funding to carry out day-to-day services and to avoid declaring bankruptcy. I hope that the Government will look at this area.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. I am concerned that the Government’s support package for councils such as Woking borough council—which effectively went bankrupt several years ago following Conservative mismanagement—is allowing them to borrow more money to pay off their Government loans. Does she agree that the exceptional financial support process needs to change immediately?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Member, an excellent colleague on our cross-party Select Committee, for his intervention. The Committee looked at this in our report on local government finance, and he will remember that our report stated:
“Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) by means of capitalisation direction is a stopgap measure that avoids section 114 notices and allows councils to produce short-term balanced budgets, but can weaken councils’ finances and capital investment in the long term.”
There is an issue, and we cannot keep sweeping it under the carpet and thinking that it is going to go away—it is not. In the long term, we are building more debts for those councils, which we have to look at addressing. I am pleased that the Government are going to ensure that councils applying for ESF have a wholesale root-and-branch review of how that money is to be allocated.
We know that this multi-year funding process will not solve the underlying issues facing all our councils. Another area at the heart of this issue, which I have mentioned on many occasions and on which there is growing cross-party support, is the reliance on the most regressive form of taxation to pay for mandatory demand-led services, where councils have little control over that demand. Council tax amounts to about half of the settlement total, with an assumption of the maximum increase across the board, despite the fact that the Government have little control over how much that figure will be. The Secretary of State has highlighted that in boroughs where the referendum principle will be lifted, the Government are assuming that increasing council tax will help, with some councils having to increase their council tax by over 30% just to reach their core spending powers and the figures in the settlement.
I think we all understand the challenges the Government face when it comes to balancing the books and the inheritance they were left with after 14 years. These are difficult decisions that we have to make, but let me take us back to when the former Local Government Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, told us:
“There is a real danger to the democratic process if there is not a link between the tax that people are paying and the quality of public services that they are getting in return.”—[Official Report, 5 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 850.]
Mark Garnier
On exactly this point about the democratic process, my constituents were promised by the Reform candidates that they would cut council tax, but Worcestershire county council’s council tax is going up by 9%. It is a shame that not a single Reform Member of Parliament has turned up to defend what they have done. The worrying point is that we are being denied a referendum even though this goes above the 5% threshold. That bit of the democratic process has been removed from Worcestershire.
Florence Eshalomi
I agree. I think many residents are feeling the pinch. Yes, we have seen fantastic initiatives and new legislation from this Government, but that is not trickling down quickly enough. Many residents will be seeing their council tax bills in the next few months, and for a number of them, those bills will be going up. It is important that we look at that democratic link.
Graham Stuart
A £200,000 house in the East Riding of Yorkshire will be paying between £3,000 and £4,000 in council tax, depending on its 1991 valuation. A £2 million flat in Westminster will be paying £2,000. There is an opportunity to put that right. I know that the hon. Lady is from London and the Secretary of State is from London—it feels to a lot of us out in the provinces that everybody in charge is from London—but this system is so egregious and wrong. Does the Chairman of the Committee not agree that something needs to be done about this? We did not do it in our years in office, but this Government said they would have a fairer system, but it is not fair yet.
Florence Eshalomi
I think it is fair to say that successive Governments have put the issue of council tax in the “too difficult” box. I hope that it will fall on this Government to finally address that and bring an end to this regressive form of taxation.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the work being done on the draft local government settlement to get us to this final local government settlement has actively put the principles of fairer funding into place? My local authority in Sandwell—the fifth most deprived local authority in the country—is getting an extra £28 million as a result of the continuation and increase of the recovery grant. That money will go on crucial services that we were deprived of in my area during 14 years of Conservative austerity. I know my hon. Friend will want to join me in welcoming the work being done by the Local Government Minister and our friends in the Treasury to make sure that the principles of fairer funding are put into place.
Florence Eshalomi
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for her constituency and for her council’s needs. I think it is fair to say that the outdated and opaque previous funding settlement caused a number of issues for councils up and down the country. It is good to finally see this Government responding to that and ensuring that we have a fairer and more simplified settlement, so that our councils can get on with the day job of providing vital services for residents.
We have to be honest and ask: if councils have to impose a council tax hike just to fulfil mandatory services—going back to the question raised by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier)—where is that democratic choice for residents? If council tax is collected locally, how can it be right that what it is largely spent on is dictated by central Government? We know from the settlement today that the Secretary of State and the Minister have shown a boldness by ensuring that they continue to engage with local leaders, the Local Government Association, and cross-party colleagues and councils, to get to grips with the day-to-day issues facing local government, but I urge the Minister to continue on that road of being bold. The Government need to continue working, especially with Treasury colleagues, to properly address the growing demand on the mandatory costs that councils face, from SEND to adult social care and temporary accommodation. That demand for those core services will continue to grow no matter how much money the Government put into them.
There is a real need for a fundamental review of council tax and wider council funding. I urge the Government to go further and bring about a cross-party consensus, and to truly reform council tax and bring an end to this regressive form of taxation once and for all.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
This settlement is supposed to deliver fair funding; that is what the formula says on the tin, but it fails the Ronseal test. Norfolk’s core spending power in the first year of the settlement is lower than the national average, and the largest increases in core spending power are going to urban authorities. This simply fails to recognise the needs of large rural counties such as Norfolk. The County Councils Network’s assessment is that rural counties and unitaries face the highest pressures, collectively amounting to £7 billion of costs by 2028-29.
Natasha Irons
I appreciate the hon. Member’s concerns. My constituency is an outer-London borough that has long been deemed as having inner-London support through finance, and it has inner-London problems—it is not particularly leafy, and deprivation is tough and takes a massive toll on our councils. Does he understand that addressing deprivation, the cost of housing and things like temporary accommodation are crucial for places like mine?
James Wild
Indeed. I am sure that if the hon. Lady catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, she will elaborate on that.
Here is my point. Perhaps the kernel of the unfairness is the lack of recognition of remoteness and its impact beyond the adjustment for adult social care. It has been removed from most of the formulae—
James Wild
I will not give way; lots of people want to speak.
This is a serious cost pressure on rural authorities that the Government have chosen to ignore. Of course, this has been compounded by the removal of the rural services delivery grant in 2025—the loss of funding that had been put in place specifically to acknowledge the high cost of rural service delivery. That was a political choice made by a very political Secretary of State.
People in Norfolk can see in plain sight how this Government view rural areas, in the light of the farm tax, the lowering of the bus funding that the previous Government had put in place, and the scrapping of road and rail schemes in our area. I ask the Minister, who is not currently in her place—I hope the Whip on the Front Bench will make a note of my question—why Ministers rejected the evidence that Norfolk and other rural authorities submitted about the additional costs that they face and the importance of remoteness.
After remoteness, there is the recovery grant, which is supposed to be a one-off formula intended to give local authorities the funding they need. The formula was meant to be replaced, but the Government have decided to continue it for the next three years. However, there is no funding for Norfolk county council, despite the allocation, and the additional element of the final settlement, supposedly being targeted at upper-tier authorities—only Labour upper-tier authorities, it seems. It is little wonder that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
“Maintaining…allocations of the recovery grant does not look like a principled decision”.
I think that says it all. The policy is designed to shove all funding to Labour councils. Let us be clear: this is about shifting resources away from rural areas and into unitaries.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I declare an interest: I am a Central Bedfordshire councillor. Central Bedfordshire will have to find £17 million off the back of this so-called fairer funding formula. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is nothing short of pork barrel politics?
James Wild
I agree. The figures simply bear that out. As a result of the settlement, council taxpayers in Norfolk—it is probably the same for my hon. Friend’s constituents—will bear the brunt through much higher council tax. Maximum council tax increases are assumed for the full three years of the settlement.
Let me touch on internal drainage boards, which are responsible for managing water levels and reducing flood risk. They play a vital national role in protecting key areas, including the prime agricultural land that is so important for our food security; yet the cost of IDBs falls on council taxpayers. In the borough council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, 40% of council tax goes towards IDB levies—costs that other local authorities do not face. Funding should reflect the nationally important role of IDBs. Additional support was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. It has been continued by this Government, but they are not uprating it with inflation to take account of the high energy costs that IDBs pay. We do not know if that support will continue in future years. If it does not, will the Minister commit to working with the local and district authority groups that have been set up precisely to find an equitable solution?
Of course, Norfolk is losing out further still because of the Labour Government’s decision to cancel the Norfolk and Suffolk mayoral election and the county council election—two political choices with which I fundamentally disagree. Not only have our elections been scrapped, but my constituents—and those in Suffolk—were due to benefit from an annual investment fund of £37.4 million a year, which the Government have now cut for Norfolk. We will lose out on £48 million in the next two years. Why? Because of decisions taken by these Ministers. It is another sign that this Government neglect the people of Norfolk.
I welcome the announcements on SEND deficits, but it is clear overall that this is not a fair funding settlement. There is an over-reliance on council tax increases for my constituents, there is no recognition of the true costs that rural authorities pay, and ministerial decisions will lock in inequalities for years to come. The Government should think again.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Life in my constituency is tough for many families. Too many live with the daily consequences of poverty, ill health and insecurity. Many people are vulnerable, and the impact can be soul-destroying. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for her work at Christmas time. She was the one who really started our campaign, and I pay tribute to her.
Healthy life expectancy in Knowsley is 50, and in St Helens, which is most of my constituency, it is 57, for both men and women—it was a shock when I read those figures. The call for significant healthcare support is tremendous, and starts much earlier than in some other places, but in St Helens housing and social care is integrated, which has helped with that increasing demand.
Many children do not benefit from the excitement of dance classes, gymnastics, trips out or holidays. Sadly, many are lured into county lines and drug taking. Many of our children need special educational provision, and some wait for a special and unique service. The cost can be enormous, and provision is rare and very often not local. Those children lose out, and their families watch and worry while they wait for the solution to arrive.
Revenue support grants are always complex, mysterious and hard to nail down. Added to that, 14 years of austerity did not help. St Helens borough council lost £127 million. We were capped in the poll tax, and we had to put the rates up by 2%—I was the leader of the council at the time. We were one of 21 areas that were capped. We had to deliver over £10 million overnight or we would have been surcharged. We had three months to deliver a new plan. We were very poor in St Helens.
Our councils are struggling to meet statutory responsibility in social care and SEND provision, not because of inefficiency in the councils but because the funding bears no resemblance to the actual needs of the people on the ground and the lives that they have to put up with. There are ever-growing numbers of people with complex needs, higher costs and a lack of provision. Two thirds of council funding in St Helens is spent on adult social care and children. We lost £127 million from Government, so we have either £9 million or £11 million left—that is what we have.
I have always said that we need a settlement that addresses the real pressures on health and disability, and provides care, attention, safeguarding and protection for the vulnerable, the aged, the abused and children in need. The council gets very little income from the Government now, so money has to be raised from council tax. More and more efficiencies have had to be made, but we could not get more efficient councils than those in Knowsley and St Helens. I go to the council meetings—I have been a councillor at St Helens for 39 years and I praise what I see in Knowsley. Those councils are so efficient and so focused on the people of the area. They are good employers, but they are not focused on the people who work for the councils but on how they can serve and care for local people.
Due to the deprivation of our area and the lack of assets that can be sold, which other councils have, we can raise only a fraction of the amount that councils in the south-east, London and the cities can raise. There is very little we can raise, so everything depends on council tax and our ability to be more efficient in new and different ways—what the council manages to do is ingenious.
The settlement that we were first presented with, which we consulted on, seemed fair and good, but I have to say that when the provisional announcement was made just before Christmas, I was horrified. Housing had been included in the index of multiple deprivation, but we are not suffering from that deprivation in Knowsley and St Helens. I am not saying that it should not be there, but it should certainly not be there with the weighting that it has. That is where our money went; it went down from the first figure that we were consulted on just like that. St Helens would have been high and dry, but I will not go into the details.
I have got the figures on what the impact would be for Knowsley, which are the same figures as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley. I knew that St Helens would be bad, but I could not get the figures. My hon. Friend went off and started the work, and we did what we could to get this going.
Although this is called “fair funding”, it is not fair funding, because we are all different. I have listened to what Members said about people living in rural districts, and I have sympathy. We need to have a system that really looks at what costs are the highest and what is needed. No one can criticise the people who have this extra funding now, but it will not be there forever.
Following sustained lobbying, we have 90% off our high-needs deficit. That is the deficit that we have on SEND provision. Knowsley’s high-needs deficit is tremendous—far greater than that of St Helens—so that will and does help. What goes on is just wonderful.
We will get £14.7 million through the recovery grant over the three years, but that does not resolve the problem, because it is not part of the formula. We will have to commence straight away looking at what we are going to do, because we would have been much worse off than we were already. That is just one council; I know that there will be others like it, so we need to look at that issue.
I pay tribute to Ministers for the work that has gone on, as well as local authorities, chambers and finance departments. I also pay tribute to MPs and councillors for the work that they have done. It cannot have been pleasant for them to see what they saw. Having looked at this matter, I know that they have recognised things, but we will need to look again at fair funding in the future.
I sincerely thank all those who have been involved in coming to help for some of the worst affected boroughs in the country. I can assure hon. Members that this has not been party political. We do not think like that—I certainly do not, and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Knowsley and for Bootle (Peter Dowd) do not either. Our Benches are full of former council leaders from our area who have done this for many years. I have been in local government and Parliament for 48 years, so I know what I am talking about—I see what I am talking about—and it is not made up.
I will support this measure tonight, but that does not mean an end to the lobbying; we will obviously start again. I am sure that Ministers will listen to what other people have said. Maybe there needs to be flexing here and there, but we need to recognise the needs of each area. We cannot leave them to deprivation and deny their needs.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I am incredibly proud to have been a councillor until last year, because local government is the foundation of so much that matters in people’s daily lives. It keeps our streets clean, supports vulnerable families, funds social care, maintains roads, protects our environment, ensures that our children can get to school safely, keeps our bins emptied and keeps our potholes filled, but not everywhere. When councils are stretched to breaking point, it is residents who feel the strain.
I welcome the move to a multi-year settlement, which we have long argued for. Councils need certainty and to plan beyond a single financial year. That stability matters, but let us be clear: a longer settlement does not in itself fix a broken system. The Public Accounts Committee has warned that deficits could reach nearly £4 billion a year by 2027-28, and that is not sustainable.
On top of that, we now have rising demand, inflationary pressures, increases in the national living wage and the hike in national insurance contributions, and councils are expected to absorb all of this. Further, making any material changes—for example in the assumptions about the level of business rates pooling and effectively reducing councils’ funding allocation between the provisional and final settlement—will cause serious challenges for many councils, including Stratford-on-Avon district council, which could see a big cut of 5% or more of its total spending power. If I heard correctly, the Secretary of State pledged to refund those councils affected by this material change, and I would like those on the Treasury Bench to confirm that. Our constituents are the ones who are going to be impacted, and the provision of valuable local services will be affected.
I am deeply concerned about the impact on rural areas like mine. The shift to a need-and-demand model risks overlooking the real costs of delivering services across large, sparsely populated areas. Rural councils often receive less grant funding yet face higher transport costs, greater recruitment challenges and weaker public transport networks. That reality must be properly recognised in any fair funding formula.
In my constituency, I see the pressures on local government every day. Stratford-on-Avon district council, led by the Liberal Democrats, has shown what responsible local leadership looks like even in tough times. It has delivered the third highest recycling rate in England. It has rolled out natural flood management. It has installed solar panels on leisure centres to cut running costs and reduce emissions. It has allocated £600,000 to a cost of living mitigation fund to support our most vulnerable families. That is practical, sensible, community-focused governance. That is what can be achieved when councils are run competently and with a clear sense of purpose.
We can contrast that with the chaos we have seen at Warwickshire county council, now run by Reform. Last week, after a gruelling 10-hour meeting, the minority Reform administration failed to pass a budget. The Liberal Democrats put forward an alternative that would have invested £20 million in tackling child poverty, protecting youth services, improving home to school transport, and investing in infrastructure for the future. For an extra 39p a week, we could have protected services for thousands of young people and vulnerable residents. Instead, Reform doubled down on cuts that would hit families hard, including changes that could leave children walking up to five miles to school, often along unlit rural roads. Reform and the Conservatives combined to block that investment, and then still could not agree a budget of their own, leaving the council in limbo. This Tory-Reform stitch up is costing residents in Stratford-on-Avon and across Warwickshire. As we look ahead to local reorganisation in Warwickshire, these choices matter even more.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
On the point about Reform councils and the promises they made and the reality of that, in Lancashire they are trying to balance the books by initially consulting on closing 10 care homes and day centres and narrowing that down now to just the day centres. Does the hon. Member share my surprise that Reform MPs are not here to defend their record on what they promised versus the reality of a Reform-led council?
Manuela Perteghella
Yes, the Reform Benches are empty, as we all can see and as the British public can see, and this is really important because, as I have said, local government is the foundation of our places. It gives us our civic pride in our areas and is on the frontline of delivering services, so this is really disappointing, and there is chaos in Warwickshire; we are still without a budget. Stratford-on-Avon district council has made a clear case for a south Warwickshire unitary authority that reflects the real communities and keeps decision making closer to residents. Reform is pushing for a single county-wide super-authority that would centralise power, moving it further away from local people. At a time when trust in politics is fragile, we should be strengthening local democracy, not weakening it. We must keep local government local.
Local authorities are ready to play their part in delivering growth, tackling the climate emergency, insulating homes, improving air quality and building the infrastructure that our communities need, but they cannot do so if they are permanently firefighting. If we are serious about having strong communities and a strong economy, we must get local government finances right and not defund rural councils. We need to support them, so that they can deliver for their residents, rather than leaving them to pick up the pieces of national Government failure.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I first congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government on this settlement; it is a welcome change. I also thank the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), for his work in both opposition and government to get us to this better place.
I am now the deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and we recently produced a report on local government funding. I want to read out our cross-party conclusions:
“Local government finance is in a perilous state…Funding has not kept pace with population growth, demand for services, complexity of need, or the rising costs of delivering services. As demand for targeted services such as social care, special educational needs, and temporary accommodation has grown, there has been a significant reduction in spending on commonly used discretionary services, such as street cleaning and lighting, parks and gardens, and leisure services.”
That is a truth that councils up and down the country have experienced and dealt with for many years.
I congratulate councillors of all parties, in all councils across the country, for how they have performed during the years of austerity—they have continued to work, and to deliver efficiencies that some central Government Departments, as the PAC can testify, would do well to emulate.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for listening to my representations and those of my council. My experience of Tory Secretaries of State is that having them listen, let alone act, is about as rare as rocking-horse dung. The Opposition, who did not properly fund local government for 14 years, are now complaining and whinging about the position we are in. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is their responsibility, not the responsibility of this Government?
Mr Betts
Absolutely. I think that goes for both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, as my hon. Friend will understand.
This Government clearly face a serious situation, and we must say that they have got some things very right indeed. First, we have the multi-year settlement, which has been called for, cross-party, for many years—it was certainly something that we called for when I was on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and the Committee is again calling for it now. It is good that we have one; it gives councils a degree of certainty, so that they can look to the future and plan ahead.
Fair funding has always been a subjective term; one side will say that something is fair funding, and the other will say that it is not. I just point out to the Opposition that Greg Clark, when he was Housing Secretary 10 years ago, promised a fair funding review on behalf of the then Conservative Government. However, we are still waiting for that review in 2024. The Opposition had their chance, but they did not take it. We now have a review to deal with the simple matter of some figures and data in the funding settlement being at least 20 years old.
Natasha Irons
I join colleagues in thanking the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government for their work on this matter. We talk about outdated data; places like my Croydon East constituency, in an outer-London borough, have been treated as though we have an endless pot of cash, or are endlessly wealthy. However, my constituency has pockets of some of the highest deprivation in the country—an issue that this funding formula seeks to address. Does my hon. Friend agree that this fresh approach, which brings an end to Tory austerity, is exactly what our councils need?
Mr Betts
I certainly do. My next point was going to be that deprivation is properly recognised in the funding settlement. The problem is that councils that have deprivation either across their area, or in part of it, have borne the burden of the cuts over many years. Under previous Governments, both coalition and Conservative, councils with the greatest need—which previously had the largest grants to reflect that need—faced the biggest cuts. This funding settlement gives the biggest increases to councils that faced the biggest cuts under the last Government; we are getting some restitution for the funding reductions that we suffered. The recovery grant is right, because councils need recovery when their funding base has been decimated, after grants that they needed were taken away from them. My one challenge to my hon. Friend the Minister is that the recovery grant lasts for three years, so there is a danger of a cliff edge in 2029, when those councils that now get it may suddenly lose it. The Minister is obviously trying to think ahead, which makes a change from previous Ministers, so let us start to think about that problem before it hits us.
I welcome the settlement for Sheffield. I think the comments made by the leader of the council—which is a cross-party council—were about the council’s concerns and the challenges it faced prior to this funding settlement. The finance director of Sheffield council has said that
“The figures announced in the LGFS back up the Government’s commitment to redressing the unequal cuts seen during the austerity years of the previous Government, and its aim to deliver more funding to deprived areas of the country.”
I think that is a fair statement from the officer responsible for the council’s finances. In this funding settlement, Sheffield has got about £55 billion more over three years than was anticipated under the previous proposals, which sort of fills the hole. In the past, we have been making cuts to essential services, but for the first time in 15 years, we can start a budget process without immediately looking at cuts to those services. Year after year of cuts—that has been the situation. Now, the budget can be balanced without those cuts, which is a fundamental change. We can start to look at some improvements and preventive measures for the future that will bring about the sort of change we all want. I say well done to the Government for getting us to that position.
I also say well done to the Government for dealing with the ringfences—not just in the Minister’s Department but across Government, whether they be in transport, health or education. There are ringfences all around that restrict local councillors’ ability to do the right thing for their communities, so it is good that the Government have moved in the right direction. The current Select Committee and previous Select Committees have called for that change, and the Government have listened. To be fair, when Michael Gove was Secretary of State, there was an agreement that this needed to happen, but not much evidence that it did happen. I think we have moved in the direction that everyone wanted us to take.
This settlement is a good start. It steadies the ship after the cuts that councils with higher levels of deprivation have had to suffer, and it brings in a strong element of fairness. Now, I am going to challenge the Minister—I know she would not expect me to be completely complimentary. I come back to the point that the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), made about the need for change. This is a good start, but there is a need for radical change. We came in with a manifesto of change; we have a large majority, and with willingness, we can deliver on it.
There are major issues in social care. I am still disappointed that we will not make changes to social care funding until 2029, after the review. I think we could make them more quickly. We are clearly moving on special educational needs and disabilities, but we need to move on children’s social care as well. There are things that some councils can do to help themselves; for example, Warrington council has started to build its own children’s home, so that it does not have to send children to very expensive private homes.
Gideon Amos
We may not agree on the cuts, which began in 2009, but the hon. Member has not yet touched on the removal of the remoteness uplift. Does he agree, in a cross-party spirit, that including a remoteness uplift just for adult social care, but not for children’s services or any other services, is contrary to common sense, and affects remote rural authorities more than others across the country?
Mr Betts
I will not go through every detail of this settlement. There is always a balance to be struck in local government settlements, and Ministers have to make their own judgments about that. It is the overall impact that I want to judge the settlement by. For me, this is a fairer settlement for those authorities with high levels of deprivation and some of the worst cuts in the years of austerity.
Mr Snowden
It is all very well to say that this is a fair settlement. On balance, councils that have Labour constituencies benefit from it, and councils that are represented by Conservative Members do not. The fairness can be derived from that.
Danny Beales
I am an MP with a Conservative council, and a colleague from the Conservative Croydon council area—[Interruption.] Conservative Members cheer; unfortunately, it is a bankrupt Tory council, but luckily this Government are stepping in, have followed the deprivation and the need, and are properly funding that council, regardless of its political colour.
Mr Betts
Absolutely. Councils should be funded according to need, not according to political representation. [Interruption.] Before Conservative Members start, I do not know whether they are old enough to remember Dame Shirley Porter and Westminster council, and how they were stuffed with money over visitor nights, just to ensure Conservative victory at the local elections. But we will move on from that. That was a long time ago.
I say to the Minister that these are big challenges that need to be addressed. We have to get to grips with them. We also have a local government finance system that is fundamentally broken. The Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee commented on that in her excellent speech. Moreover, the Select Committee in the previous Parliament made the same recommendations as her Committee did. In the modern age, how can we continue to fund local authorities using a council tax system based on valuations from 1991? It is nonsensical. It is not sustainable. Imagine asking someone how the value of their new house had been arrived at, and them saying, “Well, this is a guess at what it would have been worth in 1991, had it been built then.” This is ridiculous, and we must change it. It is also regressive. Michael Gove, the former Secretary of State, said that the system was regressive, and it is. Poorer households pay disproportionately more in council tax. It simply is not fair.
In every year since 2010, council tax has taken a higher and higher share of local government funding, placing a greater and greater burden on that part of the funding settlement, which is regressive. When the Chancellor made commitments during the election campaign not to increase certain taxes, council tax was omitted. Therefore council tax has been going up disproportionately. It is an unfair, regressive tax that hits the poorest hardest. We simply have to do something about that.
This comes back to the democracy point that the Chair of the Select Committee made. While this is going on, poor families have to pay disproportionately more, but in terms of local government spending, more is going on social care, homelessness and special education needs—the things that are really important, but which most people do not receive. That means that most people, particularly those on lower incomes, are paying more tax every year and getting less in services, because of the cuts to other services, as the Public Accounts Committee recognised. That is not sustainable. It undermines trust in local authorities. People say to me, “The council has put up my council tax, but I am getting less for it.” This really has to change.
Mr Brash
In Hartlepool, 70% of every penny the council spends is on social care, and my constituents pay, as a proportion of their property value and as a proportion of their income, far, far more than the more affluent areas of the country. As my hon. Friend has said, they do not receive the services that they need. Is it not time to abolish the council tax system?
Mr Betts
The reform needed is so fundamental that the system would not be recognisable from what we have now. That is how we have to try to move forward.
We were promised business rates reform, but what we have had so far is not reform, but some minor changes. Yes, we have had good changes to try to help pubs and leisure facilities, but it is not fundamental reform. We could look at what Denmark and Australia have done to reform their whole system of council finances based on land values. That is one alternative. Let us at least have a look at it. Let us at least accept the need for change, even if we cannot agree at this point on precisely what that change should be.
In bringing about that change, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we should look at giving local authorities more power to determine their own levels of taxation. We are an outlier in Europe in how centralised our local government finance system is. That is another challenge. It partly comes from the great inequalities we have between different parts of the country, which are much greater than in most other European countries. I welcome the ability for councils to introduce a tourism tax, but that is a minute step towards more say for local councils about the money they can raise. It is a welcome but very small step.
I congratulate the Minister on the reforms and improvements to the existing system. Those are welcome, and my city and my constituents welcome them. However, big challenges lie ahead in making more fundamental reform to the system and giving more powers back to local councils to determine what money they can raise. The Minister will probably not stand at the Dispatch Box today and say, “We completely agree. We are going to get on with it,” but the Government should at least start thinking about it.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
I will keep my comments brief, and they will be focused on council tax. The reason they will be brief is that I was hoping to intervene earlier on the Secretary of State. He said that he did not want to dodge difficult topics and wanted to talk about promises, but he did not take an intervention from me, probably because he knew what was coming.
I will talk about broken promises and about difficult topics. The primary one affecting my residents right now across Bromsgrove and the villages, as well as people across Worcestershire, is the Government’s collusion with Reform to hike council tax by a staggering 9%. That will be the highest council tax increase that Worcestershire county council has imposed on its residents. It will likely be the highest increase in council tax across the country this year, and it is reprehensible, because prior to the general election in 2024, the Labour party stood clearly on a manifesto that said it would freeze council tax. Labour Members know as well as I do that they have no will to deliver that.
Bradley Thomas
I will not give way, because the Secretary of State would not give way to me. I will not give way and be lectured to by Labour MPs who are not upholding their promises.
The Government stood on a manifesto to freeze council tax, knowing full well that they would not be able to deliver that. Worse still, last May, prior to the local elections, the Reform party stuffed leaflets through the doors of residents across Worcestershire and across the country pledging that it would cut council tax. Reform spoke about this DOGE—Department of Government Efficiency—programme for local government. It is interesting that not a single Reform Member of Parliament is here in the Chamber today to defend their record.
Where is this DOGE programme? Why has it revealed nothing? Reform thought that it could turn the sofa upside down, give it a good shake and £100 million would fall out. Well, that did not happen. Instead, I can tell the House what has happened in Worcestershire. Since last May, the overspend by the Reform administration has been £100 million. As a result, it has come cap in hand to the Government for emergency funding and for a council tax rise way in excess of inflation and of the 5% threshold for a referendum.
Mark Garnier
My hon. Friend and neighbour is raising incredibly important points about how our constituents were promised that their council tax would be cut and have been royally let down by Reform councillors. Can I embarrass my hon. Friend? It is worth remembering that many Conservative district councils do well. My hon. Friend led Wychavon district council within the last 14 years, and for five years it was deemed the most financially resilient district council in the country, and at the same time it did not increase council tax by a single penny. That is what Conservative councils deliver.
Bradley Thomas
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour; he is far too generous. I was leader of Wychavon district council in south Worcestershire for five years, and we proudly froze council tax for five years consistently without cutting a single service. Local government is lean. It can be run efficiently and effectively without duping the taxpayer.
But let us return to that dupe. The Reform administration on Worcestershire county council went cap in hand to the Government, and the Government have granted it emergency funding. They have agreed and, in effect, colluded with Reform. Two parties have agreed to put up council tax for residents when both had promised that they would not do so, and Worcestershire residents are paying the price. My message to the Minister is very clear: if we want to maintain trust and integrity in politics at all levels, it is important for such promises to be stuck to and abided by, or else not to be made in the first place.
Most importantly of all, in the last 48 hours more than 1,100 Worcestershire residents have signed a petition opposing this increase. It is crucial that the issue goes to a referendum, and that the people of Worcestershire have their say.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
May I start with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), who did not give way when I asked him to? I will happily give way in a moment should he wish to correct the record, but he said that the 2024 Labour manifesto on which we stood promised to freeze council tax. No such promise exists in that manifesto, and I invite him now to correct the record.
Bradley Thomas
Residents across the country knew ahead of the general election that the Prime Minister had made various very public pledges that the Labour party would freeze council tax should it come to office. If there is a mistake on my part and those words were not in the manifesto, I apologise for that, but—here I return to my point about trust in politics—if we want residents across the country to have faith in the political system, it is important for politicians to stand by their promises, whether they are written in a manifesto or uttered on television.
Mr Brash
I would say that if we want there to be trust in politics, we need to be accurate in what we say in this place, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s correcting the record.
The Minister understands exactly what I am going to say. I know how sympathetic and supportive she is in this respect, and I hope that in the coming days we will be able to deal with the issue that I am going to raise. I thank her for her support in recent weeks.
I want to be clear about what Hartlepool is facing, and about why I cannot regard the current settlement to be fair and also believe it to be self-defeating. Hartlepool now has the third highest number of children in care in England. That pressure has been made worse by other local authorities placing families in my town, leaving us with a £6 million overspend in children’s social care alone. My brilliant Labour council has already taken decisive action, halving that projected deficit in-year and establishing a robust, credible plan to eliminate it entirely. That plan is exactly what the Government say they want to see: it means fewer children coming into care, more early intervention, stronger families and better outcomes. It includes strengthened early help and family support, a dedicated edge-of-care team, a refreshed in-house foster care model, safe reunification pathways, wholesale SEND reform, enhanced support for care leavers, and better workforce planning. This is a serious, preventive change, not a sticking plaster solution.
But here is the problem: these reforms require short-term stability to succeed. The settlement does not recognise the sheer number of children in care in my constituency. It undermines prevention, which means that we are likely to see more children in care, more long-term costs, and worse outcomes. That is why I see this settlement as self-defeating. Ministers will rightly point to percentage increases in funding, but those percentages mean far less in Hartlepool than they do almost anywhere else, because our baseline is already so low. The cost of a child in care is exactly the same in Hartlepool as it is anywhere else.
When we look at it in cash terms, the reality is stark. The increase in the Government grant for Hartlepool this year is just £3 million, which is equivalent to funding around six children in care. After weeks of discussions and representations, the final settlement for Hartlepool has remained unchanged, yet down the road—this sticks in the craw for me—Reform-led Durham county council has received an additional £3.7 million this year, which means that it is reducing the amount by which it is increasing council tax. The increase in Durham’s final settlement is more than our entire increase this year. I cannot describe that as fair funding.
As we have heard from many Members from across the House, the unfairness is compounded by a broken council tax system. Hartlepool has one of the weakest tax bases in the country, with a high proportion of homes in band A. A 1% increase in council tax in Hartlepool raises a fraction of what it raises in wealthier areas, yet our residents already pay far more, both in real terms and as a share of their income, than those living almost anywhere else in the country. The settlement simply does not change that reality.
Governments of all stripes talk about core spending power, but half of that core spending power is achieved by raising council tax. That hammers the poorest communities the most, and it is a regressive tax. That is not fairness; it is entrenched inequality. To make matters worse, changes to deprivation measures and population assumptions mean that Hartlepool’s needs are being systematically underestimated. Official forecasts put our population at under 94,000, yet the Office for National Statistics data shows that it is already closer to 100,000—growth that is driven in large part by other councils discharging their homelessness duties into my constituency. Hartlepool is not asking for special treatment; we are asking for support to deal with a problem that is not of our making.
Mr Snowden
The hon. Member is touching on an important issue that affects a lot of councils across the north of England, including Blackpool, which neighbours my constituency. Larger metropolitan areas are effectively exporting their children-in-care problems to much cheaper areas, such as Blackpool and Hartlepool, which the hon. Member represents. Some kind of restriction on how far councils can move children who are being put into care might stop the dumping of children in care in areas where housing is cheaper.
Mr Brash
I thank the hon. Member for his comments, and I endorse them wholeheartedly. I have heard stories of London boroughs and Birmingham city council putting families in taxis with the threat, “Get in the taxi, or you’re homeless.” They do not know where they will get out at the other end, and they discover that they are in Hartlepool only when they arrive. It is left for our council to deal with the pressure and the additional SEND needs, and for our council to deal with the children, who sometimes end up in care. It is a disgraceful practice that should rightly be cracked down on. I know that the Minister is alive to this problem, and it needs to be dealt with.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I thank both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for their comments. My hon. Friend is rightly talking about the financial consequences. Does he think—as I do, and as I am sure the hon. Member for Fylde does—that the abysmal outcomes for children are what we should care about? I am sure he agrees with me that this issue ought to be a priority.
Mr Brash
I absolutely agree. Just this week, there have been stories in my local press about a family with children who have been moved to a place where they have no connections, no familial links and no understanding of the local community. The Minister is absolutely right: those children are suffering as a result of the behaviour of councils.
Natasha Irons
I want to add my voice on this point. In Croydon, we find ourselves in a similar situation, in that inner London boroughs put their children into our part of London because the housing is slightly cheaper. I also have constituents who have faced exactly the situation that my hon. Friend outlined: being threatened with homelessness, with the council discharging its duty, if they do not take a placement in Birmingham. In some cases, that means people losing their job, their children losing places at school, and losing all connections with their family. There needs to be a holistic look at how we support councils to keep families locally, but also at how we prevent councils having to pick up the tab for these terrible situations.
Mr Brash
I absolutely endorse all that; part of that work needs to be taking a very close look at the funding settlement. We need to look at whether councils that may have done very well out of the settlement are still moving people out of their areas, even when they have extra finances from this Government.
Mr Snowden
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, as he gives me a chance to respond to the Minister as well as to himself. As a former police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, I saw at first hand the impact on communities of cities miles away in effect dumping children into high crime, high deprivation areas simply because the housing is cheaper. Dealing with the damage that has on children’s life chances—let alone the impact on communities already struggling with regeneration by adding to the problems—is paramount. I would be more than happy to meet the Minister and the hon. Member to discuss how we take forward this issue not only on the Fylde coast, but across the north.
Mr Brash
I will take up the hon. Member on that invitation. He mentioned Blackpool, and I know that the Members who represent Blackpool and Stoke—in the top three areas for the number of children in care—would also be very interested in his offer.
Without support to deal with the gap in our in-year funding for children’s social care, the risks are clear: prevention will fail, costs will rise, and vital community services such as youth provision, libraries and community hubs will be under threat. I fully support my Labour council colleagues, who have been clear that they are not prepared to make those cuts, which would be so self-defeating in the round.
This is a moment of profound seriousness for my constituency. Hartlepool has a plan for children’s social care that is aligned with the Government’s agenda, but we now need a settlement that gives us a fair chance to deliver it. I have spoken today with our council leader and colleagues in Hartlepool, and they are distraught, despondent and profoundly worried about what the future holds—in just a matter of days, when the budget is due to be set in Hartlepool—so I appeal to the Minister for any piece of support she can give me.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The settlement is unfair, and it is a disaster for my constituents. Wokingham borough council is already the lowest funded unitary authority per capita in the country, as it was under the Conservative Government for more than 10 years. As a result of this so-called fair funding review, the Labour Government are cutting a further £43 million from Wokingham borough council’s budget.
Wokingham is a Liberal Democrat-run council, and it has done its best over the last four years to balance the books while coping with massively growing adult social care costs. When I was leader of the council, I tried to improve the settlement, and my successor has continued to do so. These cuts will drive councils that are already struggling with rising costs for social care and children’s services to possible breaking point.
For 2025-26, Wokingham borough council allocated 39% of its budget to adult social care and 25% on children’s services. So much of the council’s budget is allocated to vital statutory services provided to residents, whether that is supporting SEND education, home-to-school transport or social care for vulnerable adults. The Government’s cuts to funding will have significant implications for these services—implications that need to be to be grappled with and planned for by councils. The settlement, though, provides little information for local authorities such as Wokingham on how to manage SEND costs until 2028, or on how existing deficits, which increase every day, will be resolved. I urge the Government to provide a clear timeline for when councils will receive certainty on the SEND deficit. Without a clear timetable, responsible financial planning is not possible.
We cannot just consider short and medium-term solutions. I have spoken to many local care providers, and I have seen through casework that there is a real problem with spiralling provision costs and availability. The Government must bring forward a fully funded long-term plan for adult social care reform, ensuring that local authority funding settlements are not determined by the escalating costs of a social care system that is bankrupting councils and placing unsustainable pressure on the NHS. Action needs to be taken now, after years of Conservative neglect.
From 2016, David Cameron and the five subsequent Prime Ministers promised reform to adult social care, and yet they achieved nothing. Ultimately, the Government need to re-think their fair funding review 2.0 if they want to avoid starving councils like Wokingham of much-needed cash to run their vital services.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
After 14 years of the Tories and coalition Governments, councils like mine in Knowsley were cut to the bone. When I was elected, my constituency was the third most deprived constituency in the country—we did not just experience pressure; we were absolutely stretched to breaking point—and deep and sustained cuts went hand in hand with a huge and rising demand for services. That is the legacy the previous Government left behind: unfair, fragmented and underfunded, and stacked against places like mine.
I welcome that the Labour Government are taking a fundamentally different approach, and one that sees local councils as part of the solution to rebuilding Britain, not part of the problem. It marks an important change, far from the days of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), boasting at a summer garden party in Tunbridge Wells about changing funding formulas to divert public money away from deprived urban areas like Knowsley; those days are over. Instead, areas like mine—those hardest hit by historic funding cuts—will see greater investment, based on need and deprivation.
I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for listening to me, to my colleagues in this place—including my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), who is in her place next to me—and to all those across the Liverpool city region, as well as to my council’s representations on the provisional settlement consultation, which would not have met the challenges we face in Knowsley. It was absolutely right that they engaged with us constructively and worked to address issues that would have left Knowsley struggling.
In Knowsley, after being battered by the Tory and coalition Governments and austerity for so many years, the pressures we face remain very real. People really need to feel better off in their everyday lives, with improved public services, children’s services and adult social care. They really need to feel the benefit of a Labour Government to truly demonstrate that austerity is over. We need to more, and I echo the words of so many of my Labour colleagues about the regressive nature of council tax.
Labour Governments invest in and improve lives in communities like mine: youth provision that gives young people safe places to go; positive role models and real opportunities; better support for the children who need it; help for families who have too often been left fighting the system alone; community spaces and parks, so we can feel pride in place and in where we live; and living high streets, libraries, leisure centres and more. I know the Government are committed to doing that for Knowsley and I know that progress takes time, so today I celebrate, but tomorrow—it will be no surprise to the Minister to hear this—I will fight again for better still.
I want to pay heartfelt tribute to Knowsley’s council leader, Councillor Graham Morgan, who was first out of the traps on what we needed. He has been relentless throughout the consultation, making the case for not just my borough but the whole of the Liverpool city region, standing firm to ensure that the settlement is fairer. His persistence and counsel, along with that of colleagues across Knowsley, gave me the arguments and evidence I needed to stand up for our community in this place. It was true teamwork in action—the benefits of Labour MPs and a Labour council working together. I also want to put on the record the work of our metro mayor, Steve Rotheram. He, too, fought for a fairer settlement for our city region with passion, clarity and determination.
This is the start of the road to a brighter future for Knowsley. Today marks a clear turning point from austerity, instability, cuts and neglect under the Conservatives to investment, fairness, partnership and certainty under Labour. I welcome the change of direction, but I will continue to fight for more and for better every single day for my constituents.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, which has had a number of distinguished contributions, not least from the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley). As she rightly said, at a time when the cost of living is biting so much on so many, people really need to feel better off.
The hon. Lady also highlighted the regressive nature of council tax, which is why it is so regrettable that this settlement is built on the basis of putting up council tax on everyone. It is exactly what the previous Labour Government did, too; they doubled the level of council tax over their 13 years in office. In contrast, over the 14 years of the Conservative Government, council tax grew only a little more than inflation, as it was held down for many years, although it did go up and down over time. That is the history: Labour puts up council tax. Its spokespeople speak about how terrible and regressive it is, and then in government it visits that on people in constituencies across the country.
The Government have used the expected 4.99% annual rise in council tax in all their figures to claim that there will be increased spending power. That is based on sticking up tax by 5%, and then another 5%, and then another 5%—it is compounding.
Graham Stuart
I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a while.
The impact for those in the cheapest or lowest-value homes in the East Riding—very often people in rural areas, with poorly insulated homes, costly transport and low income—will, by year three, be £200 a year out of already taxed income. That is the reality of what this Labour Government are visiting on poor people in my constituency and other constituencies around the country, while they crow about it being fair. There is nothing fair about it.
The local government finance settlement will mean only one thing for families in Beverley and Holderness: higher council tax bills, at a time when every other bill is soaring—thanks, again, to this Government. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is signing up for the most expensive deals imaginable and putting up the price of energy, while the jobs tax—one of the most economically irrational taxes imaginable—taxes jobs and brings in no money, because employers simply employ fewer people. That is what that £26 billion hit on the economy comes down to.
Graham Stuart
I will come to the hon. Gentleman, but I will make a little more progress first.
I know the reality from talking to my constituents. Jenny in Cherry Burton says that she cannot really afford to shop for healthy food as half her money is gone before she even gets home, forcing her to make choices that no family should have to make simply to get through the week. Andrew in Beverley faces rising energy bills, which I have touched on, and rising food prices, all while supporting his two children, who are at university and cannot find part-time work; previously, they would have done, but now they cannot find part-time work because those jobs have tended to disappear. There are fewer and fewer opportunities for young people to get on the jobs ladder and, for those at university, to supplement their income while they pile on student debt, which will only go up even more as time goes on.
These are not abstract pressures but lived realities, and this settlement will pour on yet more misery. The Prime Minister says that every minute not spent talking about the cost of living is a minute wasted, but warm words do not warm homes.
Mr Brash
The right hon. Member made a point about core spending power. I share his irritation at the use of core spending power, because such a large percentage of it is in council tax, but it was introduced in 2016 by the last Conservative Administration. The concept of core spending power including council tax was introduced by the Conservatives. What did he say about it at the time?
Graham Stuart
I do not remember the specifics of that, but I can say that, whereas the last Labour Government doubled council tax despite it being regressive, that did not happen under the Conservatives, whatever introductions there were. Those taxes were held down, because that is what conservatives do. They recognise that it is better to leave money in the pockets of people to make their own decisions, not take it away from them.
Families across the East Riding are now asking a very simple question, because they know that promises do not pay bills. How will this local government finance settlement, and the £200 council tax bombshell that follows it, help them cope? Let us be clear about what is happening: the Chancellor underfunds, councils are squeezed, council tax rises, and families pay. Council tax is, as many Labour Members have said, regressive. The lower the income, the heavier the burden. The smaller the home, the sharper the hit. At the very moment that household budgets are tightest, this Government tighten them further.
Nowhere is that clearer than in social care. In the first Budget since Labour came into office, the Chancellor allocated over £20 billion to health. Why did they not recognise that so many of the problems in the NHS actually come from the failure of funding in social care? It could so easily within the same spending envelope have eased the pressure on the NHS by better funding social care so that to keep those who are ready to leave hospital from occupying the beds that they do—they have for the past few years, and they do today.
The Government did not put sufficient additional money into social care, and in Beverley and Holderness, with an ageing population and rising adult care needs, that imbalance matters. Instead of funding care properly at source, Ministers shift the cost on to council tax payers—and then they claim that they have fixed it.
I saw the real-world cost of squeezed council budgets when I visited Sunk Island last month. On Sunk Island Road and Brick Road, residents endure patch upon patch of repairs that are never truly repaired. They are paying more yet still waiting for lasting fixes. This is the pattern: more tax, less certainty, higher bills, patchwork results.
Government should strengthen communities, not squeeze them, so I ask the Minister: when families are stretched to breaking point, why is this Government’s answer yet another bills hike? In Beverley and Holderness, the only change that this Government appear to deliver is the small change left in people’s pockets after the Chancellor has emptied them.
Ms Rimmer
What can councillors do to fund the statutory duties? People were given much better in the past, but we have to ration the services. They are quality services, and the integrated health has helped us with our social care. I do not want to go into party things, but the fact is that, under the Conservatives, St Helens lost £127 million a year from the support grant. We were left with something like £9 million or £11 million from the Government—that is all it was.
The only way councils can get the funds to provide services is from the Government and income to the councils. Where should we get the funds from? We have no assets to sell, and we get very little. Yes, we have low-paid jobs, so it is a hike, but what we should be doing is taking it from the broadest shoulders; they should be bearing the burden. It is inappropriate and incompatible that the people on the lowest pay the biggest proportion of their incomes on the necessities of life, while others have mansions—some people have a cottage and nothing else. We do not all have a mansion in London, so we need to look at wealth.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady, who always speaks passionately and with deep knowledge of her community. As she says, she does not make unnecessary party political points.
The one thing that unites the House, including the Government Front Bench, is a recognition that the funding system is broken. I spent many years campaigning, across different funding pots, on the distribution. Everyone looks at the quantum, but they do not look at the distribution. It is easy to get into a world of complexity, and the number of people who turn up for meetings on distribution gets very small, but it is actually critical. We need a new funding settlement, and how we deliver that, given the political realities, is to go in early and hard. Unfortunately, this Government have not done that. They are delaying and delaying, and as their political potency weakens, it becomes harder and harder to deliver. It is a bit like the police reorganisation we touched on earlier today. It is unlikely to happen in the dribs and drabs of a Government who are struggling.
We need a long-term settlement that is based on need. There is no perfect assessment of that, but what we have is complexity, as we heard in the brilliant speech from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on the Lib Dem Benches earlier. The system has elements about how many pubs there are and what some level of cost was in 1991 and all sorts of other things. The truth is that, in this most fundamental set of services—my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) rightly identified 800 of them—for the constituents in the deprived areas of the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and in mine, nobody can see the transparency. Perhaps we should look on the Back Benches initially for a cross-party view on building a fairer funding system.
There is one more thing, and I do not know why no one has talked about it very much in my 21 years in this place. The fact that a £200,000 house in Beverley pays a lot more council tax than a £2 million flat in central London is absurd, and very rarely does anybody mention it. We need to fix things, but if we cannot fix something as absolutely inexcusable as that—and, collectively, we have not—it is no wonder the public are looking at us so askance.
I would be happy to talk to the hon. Members for St Helens South and Whiston and for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and others to see where we can make some common ground on having a more rational system, because at the end of all this, the complexity and lack of transparency end up in social failure. As the hon. Lady rightly and passionately says, it is those who are the most vulnerable and the least able who pay the highest price, and whether that is in her part of the world or in mine, that is not acceptable. We have all come here to make it a better place, and one of the things we need to fix is this.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I was first elected back in 2008, when I stood in a by-election for my local town council. I was 22. It was by chance, really, that the opportunity came up to put myself forward to stand to represent my local community. As it happened, I beat the headteacher of the local high school in that by-election. Up until recently, it was my favourite election win. I went on to stand for the district council a few years later, and a few years after that, I stood for Norfolk county council.
I ended up spending more than 12 years in all three tiers of local government in Norfolk, and what I found was a world of local government officers and local councillors working incredibly hard to serve their local communities and trying to save money and almost work the impossible by constantly striving for efficiencies by doing whatever they possibly could. Good councils and good councillors are a real force for good. They can achieve so many wonderful things, but they are overshadowed in many ways by national Government. I want to put on the record my thanks to local government. We saw this during covid, because it was local government, particularly, that really rose to that challenge to serve.
I was elected, as I say, in 2008, and for the vast majority of my time as a local councillor, we saw cut after cut after cut. Every single February budget-setting council meeting was a constant battle to try to save money. Both councils—Breckland district council and Norfolk county council—were Conservative-led under a Conservative Government, and we were cutting services constantly. We ended up with massively weakened resilience, and the services that bound our communities together were eroded. These were not just numbers on a balance sheet. In Norfolk, it meant we were closing children’s centres, removing support for disabled people, closing the youth service in Norfolk entirely, and selling off assets. It was just this constant battle. I understand the predicament the Government are in and have a significant amount of sympathy because it will take years to undo those constant cuts and the eroding of that resilience; it will not be easy to turn that around.
I want to make three points to the Minister. The first is about rural services. I am proud to represent South West Norfolk, a very rural constituency. I cover half of two districts: Breckland, and King’s Lynn and West Norfolk. They are very rural councils, and it is expensive to provide services to a rural community. I am pleased that social care in particular is being acknowledged as expensive. Social care is particularly expensive across the whole county of Norfolk, but other district council services in rural areas are expensive too, specifically planning. We are a Government that want growth. We want growth all across the country, including in rural areas. We massively need to support planning services in rural areas to achieve growth potential and not have lingering planning applications sat waiting on determination. It is difficult to recruit planning officers for rural district councils, and that is a barrier to growth in rural areas.
The other area is housing. I have been constantly shocked and concerned about the state of housing in my constituency. There are huge issues with rural housing, such as damp, mould and draughts—all sorts of challenges that we are dealing with in my office. Housing challenges in rural areas are expensive, and we as a council often have to transport people from one end of the county to the other or out of the county because there is a lack of suitable temporary and emergency accommodation.
The second point I want to make is around hidden deprivation. The council ward I represented was, despite being in a rural area, within the top 10% most deprived in the country. We had very low wages, poor health and low skills and educational attainment. I am concerned that intense deprivation in rural areas is masked by more affluent surroundings in so many Government metrics. I hope the Government come up with a system that properly accounts for and recognises intense deprivation in rural areas and does not just look at the overall council boundary.
The last point I want to make, which was touched on by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), is about internal drainage boards. I appreciate that it is slightly niche because this is relevant only in a certain number of constituencies in the country—certainly in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. These critical pieces of infrastructure remove water from significant amounts of land, both residential and agricultural. If we did not have IDBs, so much of our land, particularly agricultural land, would just not be usable, and it would weaken this country’s food security.
I have dozens of IDBs in South West Norfolk, and I have spent a lot of time visiting them. They do incredible work, but the finances of councils that have internal drainage boards in their areas are experiencing great impacts. In King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, for every pound of council tax paid, 43p goes on IDB levies. In the 2025-26 financial year, the council is spending £3.7 million just on levies. Many councils obviously do not have that expense—they are unique pressures for those areas—but the costs of IDBs have gone up a lot because the electricity cost of manning the pumps is also going up.
My constituency has the largest pumping station in Europe at Wiggenhall St Germans, and there is a network across the area. That give me the opportunity to mention a pumping station in Welney that I visited a couple of weeks ago, where I met Ken Goodyer, Patrick Clabon and Carl Nunn.
My real concern about IDBs is that the infrastructure is 50 or 60 years old, costs a fortune to maintain, and will fail at some point. We need to invest in IDB capital and revenue costs. I urge the Government to continue support for councils affected by IDBs, because it is crucial infrastructure.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
We have heard a lot about the coalition years and austerity, to the extent that I began to wonder whether I had misread the title of the debate. Whatever the rights and wrongs of austerity, it was the conventional wisdom at the time. Had we been in coalition with Labour, I think the same thing would have happened, perhaps under another branding. At the time, I was living and working in the Republic of Ireland, which carried out a much more severe austerity, and its economy bounced back very well. Whether that was because of or despite austerity is an argument for the economists.
I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for her comments about not wanting this to be a zero-sum game, taking away from some at the expense of others. I very much agree with her and other Members who said that deprived areas and inner urban areas had been unfairly treated over a very long time. I wholly agree that something needed to happen, but not at the expense of rural areas such as the one I represent.
I applaud the Government for taking action on this issue—it had been kicked down the road for many years—including by writing off 90% of SEND deficits. That must have been a difficult decision, but it had to be done; those deficits could never have been paid for by local authorities. The Government are committed to centralising SEND spending for 2028-29, but we are not sure how far that commitment will truly go. Will it cover only the high-needs block deficits, or will it reflect other costs around SEND provision, such as home-to-school transport? In counties like West Sussex, where my constituency is, SEND transport costs have risen dramatically over recent years. Those pressures do not sit neatly in one budget line; they rip across children’s services and transport budgets.
We are still awaiting clarity on what will happen with education, health and care plans. Michelle Catterson, the head of Moon Hall school, has spoken clearly about how vital EHCPs are to families. Sustainability cannot be achieved by weakening the legal right to EHCPs, or by diluting councils’ duties to fund them. I am concerned that that is about to happen. When Ministers are asked directly about what will happen to EHCP protections, the answers are far from clear. Parents must have certainty. EHCPs must not become a back-door route to cost-cutting.
I also have serious concerns about the evidential basis for elements of the settlement. My local council, Horsham district council, was initially projected to operate with a healthy surplus, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has now flagged miscalculations in the business rate valuations, and the council’s position has been inverted into a deficit. Many councils operating with business rate pools, as Horsham district council does, have found that funding formulas did not properly account for those arrangements until very late in the process. As the District Councils’ Network has warned, changing allocations between the provisional and final settlements because of revised policy assumptions is deeply destabilising. Councils are entitled to ask on what evidential basis those formulas are constructed.
Departmental research from 2018 suggests that population is often a more accurate predictor of need than deprivation alone, yet the settlement has put all the weighting into deprivation. Why? Can we see the justifications and rationales? Deprivation exists across the country, including in rural communities, such as mine. It may be in pockets, but it is still there, and it is felt just as deeply. We know that geography is a major cost driver for councils. Rural councils face longer travel times for care workers, higher transport costs for schools, dispersed populations, thinner provider markets and recruitment challenges, yet metropolitan councils are projected to receive significantly higher per-head funding increases. In some comparisons, Government-funded spending power rises by around 20% in metropolitan areas, but just 2% in rural areas. In county areas like West Sussex, when it comes to the funding increases, approximately 98p in every pound will have to be raised locally, as opposed to just 58p for metropolitan areas, which is a terrific difference. That imbalance raises legitimate questions about fairness between places.
That brings me to what may be the most fundamental inconsistency. The Government recognise remoteness as a cost factor in adult social care, so why is remoteness not consistently recognised in children’s services, school transport and wider service delivery? How can distance and sparsity increase costs for adults, but apparently not for children? If geography drives costs—in rural counties, it definitely does—then that must be reflected consistently across all funding formulas.
Finally, the reintroduction of the recovery grant is welcome in principle, but why is its allocation still based on deprivation indicators from 2019, when more recent data exists and has been used elsewhere across Government? When millions of pounds are being distributed, councils deserve clarity that allocations reflect current realities, particularly given the economic shifts of recent years. Without that transparency, we have mistrust. Councils stand ready to work with Government, but in return they must have fairness, clarity and clear evidence.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The final settlement for local government finance does not bring good news for Devon. Research by the Rural Services Network has shown that urban councils will have significantly more Government-funded spending power per head than rural councils.
By 2028-29, urban councils will have seen a 20% increase in Government-funded spending power, compared with an increase of just 2% for rural councils, yet on average, wages in the rural economy are lower than the national average wage. The settlement will place a significantly greater expectation on council tax payers in rural areas to cough up. Let us consider what effects that might have on residents of mid and east Devon by noting what things are already like for people living in one village in east Devon.
Dalwood is a village with a population of about 460. It is half a mile from the main road—an A road—and one of the two access routes to the village has been under water since November. I heard from one resident that the state of the road is so poor that she was charged £1,000 for car repairs as a result of negotiating the pitted, crumbling access road. She makes the point that east Devon residents pay some of the highest rates of council tax in the country. In a league of the highest rates in the country for a band D property, east Devon is rated 305 out of 350, where residents in the 350th local authority are paying the most.
The Government announced last month that they will be making available £7.3 billion for road maintenance over the next four years. When people in Devon hear numbers like that, they wonder whether officials and contractors are going to the cash machine, drawing out the money, mixing it with paste, using it to make papier-mâché and filling the potholes that way. The reality is that the money is not finding its way to Devon.
Devon has the largest road network in the country, at 13,000 km. Last March, the repair backlog for the roads in Devon alone would have required an extra £384 million. The reality is that Devon was able to spend little more than £60 million on road maintenance last year. To take another example, one resident of Sidmouth wrote to me recently to say:
“I for one have paid out for damages to my vehicles in five and a half years the sum of £5,100.”
They continued:
“Here we are living in the UK, an advanced country, with the lanes, A roads and B roads in an appalling state of repair”.
That is the context of the local government settlement as it relates to Devon.
The local government settlement has removed the remoteness uplift from the area cost adjustment. The settlement does this in all the relative needs formulas, with the one exception of adult social care. I am glad that the Government have acknowledged that adult social care costs more when it is delivered in a rural area, but they have shown themselves to be blind to the needs of rural communities by removing the remoteness uplift from other areas of local government, including road maintenance.
Councils in rural areas do not enjoy the same economies of scale as urban areas. The countryside requires more bases from which services can be delivered. It has fewer contractors and less competition. I urge the Government to think again about the remoteness uplift.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Prime Minister said that there would be no tax rises on working people. I imagine that the working people who are about to receive a £500-a-year increase in their council tax, the working people in Westminster expecting an 82% rise in their council tax, and those in Wandsworth expecting an 87% rise in their council tax as a result of this settlement will wonder if “working people” was a phrase that applied to them. Those in our business community who heard the Prime Minister say to them that a Labour Government would introduce “permanently lower business rates” will wonder where the massive rise in their business rates bill has come from.
There are things in the reports before us that give us the opportunity to make tweaks and changes, and make progress. I am grateful to the Minister for the interest that she has shown, for example, in the way that the local growth fund—the method of distribution of which is having a huge impact, particularly on colleagues in Northern Ireland—offers scope for some adjustment. However, it is very clear that the recovery grant that the Secretary of State spoke about still bears little or no relation to the pressures arising from the statutory duties on local authorities. As we have heard from Member from across the House, it leaves councils tens of millions of pounds short of the money that they need to do the minimum required of them by this Government, and that is before addressing some of the broader, more general issues.
We have two motions before us. One of them is on the report on local government finance, and the other is on the report on the referendum limit. I am sure that we have all noted the complete absence of any Reform Members in the Chamber. I pay tribute to the champions of Worcestershire, my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who spoke up for residents against an authority that, having been part of a party that promised no rises in council tax and cuts in office, is now looking to top the league table with the largest council tax rises in the country this year. It should be ashamed of its misinformation to residents during election campaigns.
Let me mention some of the things that I hope the Minister will address in her summing up. The first is what the measures in the report do to support housing delivery. We know from the recent report by Savills that 23 of London’s 33 boroughs report that the net figure for new homes being commenced this quarter is zero. Lambeth council has been very public about that, and has reported net zero new social homes. The Secretary of State and the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), are particularly familiar with that. It is clear that housing delivery is collapsing at a time when lofty ambitions are being set, and at a time when the grants for homelessness are cash-flat, as are care costs, and costs relating to vulnerable children and care leavers.
It is clear that for all the bluster, the smoke is clearing, and the mirror is not particularly shiny. The impact of the relentless rises in national insurance contributions and business rates, as well as an additional £750 million of costs to local authorities from changes to the emissions trading scheme, will put huge pressure on the ability of local authorities to deliver.
It having been said that the Secretary of State wanted to move away from a bidding process, we now hear that the funding that has been announced, without any detail, for special educational needs deficits will be the subject of a bidding process to the Department for Education, and there will be a requirement for a reform plan. It will be interesting to hear how that plan differs from the safety valve agreements that many authorities already have in place, which are reducing SEND deficits year on year.
What is clear in this settlement is that the Government are not meeting even their own standards on local government. Local democracy is paying the price, with elections cancelled and taxes relentlessly rising. This statement must be seen for what it is: it is a council tax bombshell; it is a business rates bombshell; it is part of a picture of a Labour Government who simply cannot manage the money.
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is my pleasure to close this debate, despite the fact that I must apologise to the House. Many Members will know that I suffer from chronic migraine, and I have been having an attack over the past couple of days, so my contribution might not be as long as it might otherwise have been. In show business and in politics, the show must go on, albeit my speech might be slightly shorter than it would have otherwise been, but I think that will be a cause of joy for many Members—[Interruption.] Calm down.
The Secretary of State and I know what a difference the hard work of councillors, frontline staff and all our mayors makes, and we pay tribute to them for everything they do for their communities, as many Members across the House have done. But we also know the consequences of the unfairness of the funding system. The last decade and a half of austerity was felt by the most deprived local authorities, because the link between funding and deprivation was broken.
The shadow Minister seemed to imply in his remarks that he thought that the link ought to simply be with statutory duties, rather than any consideration at all being taken of the impact of deprivation. I would just say to him that those communities that suffered most, that were left out for far too long and that have struggled with the consequences of deprivation will wholeheartedly disagree with him. That is why today we are restoring the link with deprivation and ending the irrational inequality of the previous funding system. We are, as many have said, providing the first multi-year settlement in a decade, we are investing in changing our public services, and we are simplifying funding for local government.
Alison McGovern
The right hon. Gentleman has had ample time to contribute, and while I would normally give way with gusto and have a bit of political knockabout with him, today is not the day for that.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman and everybody else who has contributed today and also to thank those who contributed to the consultation on the provisional settlement and the Members who made representations to me directly. There could be no quick fixes. We cannot undo over a decade of damage overnight, but the settlement we are discussing today is our most significant move yet to make English local government more sustainable, and I am committed to going further in coming years to fix the pressures our councils are facing. The Secretary of State set out the various mechanisms that we are employing to do that in his opening speech. This Labour Government have backed local governments through action, and since coming to power we have made available a nearly 25% increase in core spending power in ’28-29, worth £16.6 billion.
I shall briefly turn to the points Members made. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) relayed the situation with regard to flooding on the Somerset levels. I send my support to his constituents and will work with the Flooding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), as required. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and the former Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), told me to be bold and I will try, but I look forward to their support in persuading all our colleagues in this place to vote for whatever bold solutions we come up with. Members including my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) and the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) talked about failures in children’s care, and I feel sure that we will work together on that.
Many Members talked about their experiences of councils struggling yet often achieving, despite that struggle, to provide great innovative services on lean budgets, and we applaud them all for that.
Alison McGovern
I am determined not to give way, if that is okay—I think we need to bring this debate to a close. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) asks me about remoteness from a sedentary position. I have discussed this issue in detail with many Members on a one-to-one basis, and I repeat that there are other ways in which the settlement accounts for the actual costs of providing services, such as the area cost adjustment and other means. I do not agree with what has been said, but I do not want to detain the House any longer.
I had a wonderful January engaging with many Members across this House on the settlement; it was a fascinating opportunity to hear about the uniqueness of every area. I particularly thank my colleagues from Knowsley, St Helens, Gateshead and Banbury for the way in which they engaged on this settlement and contributed to how it looks today.
I thank all Members once again for their valuable contributions today. The Government are under no illusion about the scale of the challenge that local authorities face as they continue to deal with the legacy of the previous system, but our changes will make a big difference. They will get money to where it is needed most, creating a fairer and evidence-based funding system and—most importantly to me and many others—restoring the link between funding and poverty.
Question put.
Storm Chandra Flooding
(3 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I am grateful for having secured this debate on the Government’s response to flooding as a result of Storm Chandra. Before I begin, I want to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of everyone involved in the flood effort in Somerset. I would also like to take a moment to recognise the impact that flooding has on people’s mental health. Victims of repeated flooding describe living in a “permanent state of anxiety”, and this has been palpable when hearing from residents across the Glastonbury and Somerton constituency over the last few weeks. There has been a feeling of déjà vu, and of “Here we go again!”
Between 26 and 27 January, Storm Chandra, hot on the heels of Storms Goretti and Ingrid, brought exceptional rainfall to Somerset: 50 mm of intense rainfall fell across large parts of Somerset causing widespread flooding and set new 24-hour rainfall records in many parts of the south-west. Somerset council acted swiftly, and declared a major incident as 50 homes across the county fell victim to floodwater. The major incident remains in place following persistent rain over the following two weeks, with yet more rain in the forecast and high spring tides imminent. Because the ground is fully saturated, local rivers are highly sensitive to further rainfall, while five flood warnings and 11 flood alerts remain in place across Somerset. Roads are still flooded and communities are cut off.
This issue will not disappear of its own accord. Climate change pushes the extremes, and Somerset, which is so often at the forefront of climate change, will see further extreme weather, with prolonged droughts and intense rainfall becoming common. The Environment Agency projects that there will be a 90% increase in properties at risk from river and coastal flooding, alongside an increase in surface water flood risk by the 2080s. Physical damage alone is estimated at £2.4 billion annually, and it could rise to £3.6 billion annually by 2050. Insurers are set to pay out £1.6 billion for weather-related property claims made last year alone, as the UK battles with the impact of climate change. The Government response to flooding incidents such as Storm Chandra must not just focus on helping the communities currently dealing with flood water, but on how we can better protect those communities and help them to be more resilient in future. Building flood-resilient communities is desperately important and it must be a priority, because these events are getting more frequent and more serious.
Before I move on, I would like to reflect on what we really mean when we discuss resilience. Constituents in Glastonbury and Somerton are dealing with flooding with ever more regularly. Louise owns GingerFred dance studio in Langport. She told me that she has been battling the floodwater that has been lapping up against at her dance studio door for the past two weeks. Despite questioning whether she might have to move her studio, which she has been running for 14 years now—that has been some hard graft—she is absolutely determined to fight on. She wants to fight on, but she also wants to learn how she can better understand flooding, be resilient to it, and help to protect other businesses and help her community.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I say respectfully that the friendship we have had over the past few years is one that I appreciate very much. In her time here she has been assiduous and hard working on behalf of her constituents, and tonight is an example of that. She will perhaps not be aware, but the storm hit Northern Ireland with ferocity and our schools had to close. The aftermath saw the loss of even more trees, which have taken a hammering in an unending list of named storms. That loss has had an impact on our natural flood defences and that was very clear in the aftermath of Storm Chandra. Does she not agree that natural flood defences need to be shored up, or we will create an unsolvable problem for the very near future?
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for his intervention. Indeed, nature-based solutions and natural flood defences are absolutely important—I know that the Minister is also an advocate for them—and I will come on to that later on in my speech.
In this place, I have advocated for communities to receive the support they need to develop their own bespoke extreme weather resilience plans. I pay tribute to the tireless work done by people such as Flood Mary in helping victims of flooding and raising awareness of flood risk and property flood resilience. Communities who regularly suffer flooding are resilient, but they deserve action and investment. Flood resilience in Somerset cannot be achieved on a shoestring budget and people deserve better. The Prime Minister has spoken about
“national security for national renewal”.
We must remember that resilience to flooding is part of our national security.
I thank the Minister for joining me in Glastonbury and Somerton yesterday. We visited Langport, Thorney and Drayton to see the impact Storm Chandra has had on the area. I am sure she would agree, after hearing from the farmer Mike Curtis, who took us on his tractor and showed us some of his land, that Somerset communities are resilient, but much more must be done to protect them from flooding. If flooding does happen, they must have the tools on hand and the support in place to help their communities mitigate it.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on the amazing work she does on her side of the Levels and Moors that span our two constituencies—I hope I do similar work on my side. She may be coming on to this point, but does she agree that one of the key messages I hear most strongly from residents in Stathe and Burrowbridge, some of whom have water lapping up against their houses right now as we sit in this Chamber and are frightened about what is going to happen tomorrow and the next day, especially with the long forecasts for rain, is that they need better communication, so they have the maximum information about what is happening with the Levels—when pumping will or will not start—as well as about the long-term plan that is needed after this flooding event to reduce flooding?
Sarah Dyke
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I wholeheartedly agree. Every flooding incident is different and sometimes it is difficult to dictate where flooding incidents will happen, but there is certainly a lot more we can do. The Minister and I talked about the trigger points with the Environment Agency yesterday, which it has committed to looking at. I also agree that communication with local authorities and a collaborative, joined-up approach should be better.
I also feel that communities should have better real-time information on flooding. There is a really good example of that in the River Cam catchment, where flood monitors have been put on bridges and an app tracks the flow of water so that communities within the catchment are aware of any significant increase in the water levels. I hope that that can be rolled out so that our communities can be better protected and can better protect themselves in these instances of terrific rainfall.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an exceptional speech. There was an excellent debate this afternoon in Westminster Hall on tree planting, with thoughtful contributions from a number of Members. Does the hon. Lady agree that tree planting is essential not just to biodiversity, lowering temperatures and carbon capture, but for preventing flooding?
Sarah Dyke
In a previous life, before being elected to this House, I was the lead member for climate change and environment on Somerset council. Somerset has a lower-than-average tree canopy cover at 8%, compared with the national average of 14%, so we committed in our 10-year tree strategy to plant more trees. There are lots of community groups doing that across Somerset, including Reimagining the Levels, which brings together volunteer networks to plant trees. I was out on Ham Hill a couple of months ago planting 3,000 trees for exactly that reason: once those trees become established, they can soak in more moisture and play their part in slowing the flow through those catchment areas. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady.
According to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report into flood resilience,
“the UK is not on track to be fully…flood resilient by the time”
the Flood Re programme ends in 2039. It further states that without clear standards, flood resilience is just
“a vague ambition rather than a deliverable goal.”
I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on what she means when she talks about resilience, especially at community level. Some communities have spent time and money putting in place property-level mitigations but still face flooding. How can they better understand what it means to be flood resilient?
The memories of the devastating 2013-14 floods are still painfully vivid in the minds of those who experienced them. Following those floods, the Environment Agency carried out what was, at the time, the single largest pumping operation ever undertaken in Somerset. Following flooding in January 2023, the EA once again put in place another large temporary pumping operation on the levels and moors.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this essential debate. Her speaking of 2014 reminds me of the previous great storm, which took out the railway lines in Dawlish. This January, we had three storms in quick succession, as we did last January, so there appears to be more of a pattern now —it seems to be something we can expect every year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need more Government funds to call upon to clear up areas after they have been hit so hard by these devastating storms, as Dawlish and Teignmouth were by the storms in January?
Sarah Dyke
I could not agree more. We need mitigation, resilience and protection, but we also need to support our communities through the aftermath. That is absolutely crucial. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
While it is yet to be confirmed, it looks like the ongoing pumping operation this year will once again supersede its predecessors that I mentioned. What does that tell us about flooding in Somerset? Despite the Government’s claim that they are investing a record £10.5 billion in flood defences, the reality is that these problems are critical now, and they are continuing to grow. Despite that, analysis by Flooded People UK shows that capital spending commitment is at a lower annual rate than the previous capital regime.
In Somerset, we need action and investment to ensure the availability of critical assets in emergencies, when they are needed to mitigate flooding. Every £1 spent by the Government prevents £5 in damage, and means £2 in direct savings to the Exchequer, yet national flooding budgets have been cut in real terms. It is crucial that the Government invest in cost-effective strategies relating to flood preparedness, prevention, traditional flood defences and nature-based solutions, so that communities like those in Somerset and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) are not left to fend for themselves.
Communities that are deemed to be at flood risk have long felt abandoned by Government and their agencies; the Environment Agency’s recent decision to withdraw from main river maintenance owing to funding shortfalls is a clear example of this. With no consultation, riparian owners in Somerset were issued with withdrawal notices last summer, and were left with the responsibility for undertaking maintenance work alone—a decision that has rightly heightened anxieties about further flood risks. Appropriate maintenance of main rivers reduces the likelihood that channel capacity will be exceeded or assets will fail. The likelihood, extent, depth, and duration of flooding, and the damage caused by it, is then significantly reduced. We do not need to go back very far to understand the profound impact that this can have. Main river maintenance reduced over several years leading up to 2012, and what followed was a catastrophic flood in 2012, and then, of course, the extreme flood during the winter of 2013. It has been evidenced that had regular main river maintenance been undertaken, those events would have had much less of an impact. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for an urgent review of the decision to effectively abandon main river maintenance.
We are also calling for a further £5.3 billion of investment to ensure that flood defences are built quickly and provided to all necessary communities to increase local preparedness and resilience. It is not in doubt that the cost of flood defences and resilience is significant, but the cost of getting this wrong or doing nothing is far greater. Some £6.1 billion in gross value added has been lost from downward pressure as a result of flooding in the last five to 10 years. Given that one in four properties nationally, and some 1,500 in Glastonbury and Somerton alone, will be at flood risk by 2050, the costs will only rise. That scenario opens up a broader question about communication and how different bodies—including the Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the EA, internal drainage boards, the Somerset Rivers Authority and Somerset council—work together with communities and individuals. In the meantime, many riparian owners are confused about what their responsibilities are, and more must still be done to improve communication and understanding. This lack of clarity is causing frustration and yet further anxiety.
I was pleased that the Minister found time to meet the Somerset internal drainage board with me yesterday. The board has called for a collaborative approach, but that must be backed with appropriate local and national funding to move it forward, and it must be sustainable. Any change will take time to implement, so it is paramount that the necessary main river maintenance works continue until alternative solutions are in place.
Alongside the importance of ensuring that dredging and regular maintenance take place, I would like to highlight the importance of natural flood management and its part in making Somerset more resilient to flooding. I am aware that the Minister shares my appreciation for such solutions, but as the Environmental Audit Committee report made clear, these interventions remain undervalued and underused in England, and must take their place alongside hard engineering projects.
The urgent need to build more homes has led to there being full or conditional planning permission for more than 7,000 new homes in England on previously undeveloped floodplain land. I am clear that new developments should not be built on floodplains, because they increase the speed of run-off and the risk of flooding downstream, putting homes and communities at risk. We desperately need new homes, but if Somerset is to hit the Government’s house building targets, the question must be: where do the houses go?
Surface water flooding is the fastest-accelerating risk affecting areas of the country that are not traditionally expected to flood. The Liberal Democrats have led calls to ensure that new homes are built with a range of measures to enhance their flood resilience, and to ensure that sustainable urban drainage systems do their job and are maintained properly. We also believe that older homes should be retrofitted to help mitigate the risk of flooding.
I pay credit to my constituent Tim Adams, the flood warden for Blackford, just outside Wincanton. Tim has undertaken research on the rapid run-off of surface water from the A303, which has often been recognised as materially increasing flood risk. His work has shown how attenuation ponds or wetlands could reduce peak flows, improve water quality and deliver biodiversity gains. In my view, it is essential to use citizen science, local knowledge and natural flood management techniques in a catchment area approach to flood mitigation.
We must also recognise the key role that farmers play in flood management by storing floodwater on their land, protecting those downstream, and consider building natural flood defences, because 58% of grade 1 agricultural land is situated on a floodplain, while 9% is at high risk of coastal flooding. If there is not appropriate insurance in place to compensate farmers for holding water on their land to prevent communities from flooding, we put those businesses under increased financial pressure after each and every flood event.
Yesterday, Mike Curtis told the Minister and me that he had reared cattle in Thorney for over 30 years, with his herd peaking at 750 head of beef cattle 10 years ago. He now keeps less than half that number, because his land spends so much time under water. While Mike’s land saves thousands of homes downstream from flooding, he is unable to access any Government compensation for these losses to his business. Sadly, Mike is not alone in facing this. Trish and Ron from Bineham City Farm near Knole also have hundreds of acres under water, and will run short of feed for their dairy herd before they are able to turn their cattle out this year. This is having a massive, catastrophic impact on their business. That is why farmers who store water on their land to protect housing or other critical infrastructure—they are providing a public good—should be properly recognised for doing so and compensated fairly.
Liberal Democrats would tailor the qualifying criteria for the farming recovery fund to reflect the realities of flooding for rural communities and farmers. We would also raise the environmental land management scheme budget by £1 billion, to support farmers in their transition to environmentally sustainable farming, and to recognise their key role in accepting and managing flood water.
Flood defences in Somerset cannot be run on a shoestring budget. We urgently need to ensure that critical assets are available and able to operate at capacity during flood events. We must use the multitude of flood defence techniques available to ensure that our communities are resilient to future extreme weather events. There is much work to be done to ensure that England has a strong framework that recognises the role of the multiple bodies and agencies that work together to make flood-resilient communities.
To conclude as I began, flooding can have a profound impact on mental health, affecting individuals and communities long after the waters recede. We must always remember the very real and persistent anxiety that flood victims experience; that must be central when considering future Government support for communities at risk of flooding.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I thank the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for calling this debate, and for providing an opportunity for us to hear and discuss the steps that this Government have taken in advance of, and in response to, Storm Chandra.
Storm Chandra brought heavy and persistent rainfall to the United Kingdom between Monday 26 and Tuesday 27 January. For many communities, particularly in the south-west, this succession of storms has felt relentless. It has been a cycle of anxiety, disruption and uncertainty that has tested both infrastructure and resilience. During Storm Chandra, rain fell on ground that was already waterlogged. The consequences have been felt most acutely in Somerset and across the wider south-west, where three severe flood warnings were issued. This is the highest category of alert, signifying a genuine danger to life. Thankfully, all three severe flood warnings could be lifted by the afternoon of Thursday 29 January. However, the challenges have not ended, as I saw when I visited the south-west yesterday.
In preparation, local resilience forums stood up their response arrangements, and local partners have worked side by side to support residents—sharing information, evacuating households at risk, pumping water, patrolling flooded areas and helping vulnerable people. The Environment Agency operated its Somerset moors and levels flood plans at full capacity, deploying pumps and managing flood storage areas around the clock. As river levels rose, local authorities led evacuations in Dorset and Somerset. Their professionalism and compassion have been vital for affected communities. Work is ongoing with around 300 flooded households to determine when homes can safely be re-entered. Nationally, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs activated its emergency operation centre to co-ordinate cross-government activities.
Gideon Amos
The Minister is right to pay credit to the Environment Agency, which has rolled out pumps faster than ever before. One of the key questions I get asked is, could we not have permanent pumps? That would mean we did not lose five days bringing them down from Yorkshire. Apparently, the crane that puts them on site, which has to wait two or three days, costs £80,000 a day. The pumping stations were last built in the 19th century. Surely it is time to have permanent installations. We could save several days or a week, and that could create space for millions of cubic metres of water.
Emma Hardy
Yesterday, in the meeting we had with the internal drainage boards and the Environment Agency, the EA, recognising the importance of that issue, said that it would look at the costings.
The events of the past few weeks have brought back memories of the catastrophic floods of 2013 and 2014, when entire communities were cut off for weeks, and livelihoods were deeply affected. My deepest sympathies go out to every individual, family and business affected by this flooding. For some, it is the first time they have faced this disruption, but for many of us, it is heartbreakingly familiar. Flooding is not just an inconvenience; it is a profound emotional and financial shock. It disrupts daily life, damages treasured possessions, and leaves people feeling vulnerable in their own home. I want those affected to know that we are committed to supporting them, not only in the immediate aftermath, but in the months and years ahead.
As of this morning, the Environment Agency has reported that approximately 308 properties across England have been flooded, of which 16 have been on the Somerset levels and moors. An estimated 22,850 properties have been protected by flood defences, and assets have stood up well. The Environment Agency has not reported any issues or had any reports of asset failure resulting in flooding, but of course, the Department will carry out a post-event assessment with resilience partners to identify where lessons can be learned.
I want to express my sincere gratitude to the first responders, Environment Agency staff, emergency services, local authorities and volunteers who have worked tirelessly to keep people safe. Their dedication, often in the most challenging and dangerous conditions, has been extraordinary.
Although Storm Chandra has now passed, further rainfall has triggered Met Office yellow rain warnings across the south-west and other regions. We expect a sustained operational response to continue for several weeks on the Somerset levels and elsewhere. That will involve ongoing pumping operations, continued monitoring of river and groundwater levels, and close co-ordination between local authorities, emergency services and national agencies.
Yesterday’s visit to Somerset with the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton to see the situation at first hand was invaluable. We witnessed the extent of the flooding across the Somerset moors and levels. We spoke with Environment Agency staff; local farmer Michael Curtis; internal drainage board members, including Rebecca Horsington from the Association of Drainage Authorities, Iain Sturdy, the Somerset IDB chief executive, and Tony Bradford, IDB chair; and community representatives who are working tirelessly to protect homes, farmland and infrastructure.
I saw the impact of the 16 days of incident response, villages cut off by flooded roads and the impact on people’s mental health. I am pleased to say, following my visit, that the Environment Agency has committed to reviewing the issues around water level management in Somerset once this incident has come to an end. It will work closely with the internal drainage boards and the council as part of the wider recovery plan. The review will consider several important questions: when pumps should be activated, whether the current trigger points are right, and whether installing permanent pumps in certain locations could offer better value for money in the long term. I also acknowledge the vital contributions of Somerset council, Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, the police and ambulance services, members of the IDBs, and anyone who has played an essential role in the multi-agency response.
Flooding of that sort was always going to happen, but we can shape how prepared we are. The Government are investing at least £10.5 billion by March 2036 to construct new flood and coastal erosion schemes and repair existing defences. That record investment is an average of £1.4 billion per year—an increase on previous investment—and will benefit nearly 900,000 properties. It includes a record £22.65 billion over 2024-25 and 2025-26.
Emma Hardy
We are taking that decisive action to halt the steady decline in the condition of flood defences under the previous Government by shifting an extra £108 million into the maintenance and repair of existing assets. We are also boosting the delivery of new defences by making available £140 million to 31 projects that are stalled because of funding gaps.
In October, following consultation, we announced major changes to our flood and coastal erosion funding policy. Those reforms will make it quicker and easier to deliver the right flood and coastal defences in the right place by simplifying our funding rules. The new funding policy will improve the balance of funding between building new projects and maintaining existing defences, and will ensure that deprived communities continue to receive vital investment. We will use Government funding to unlock investment from public, private and charitable sources, making every £1 of Government investment go further. We will invest at least £300 million into natural flood management over 10 years—the highest figure to date for the floods programme, although I am always keen for it to go higher still. Those new funding rules will be brought in for the new floods programme, and will take effect in April 2026.
I saw once again the crucial role that internal drainage boards play in flooding events. Our £91 million IDB fund supports greater flood resilience for farmers and rural communities. Ninety-four IDBs are delivering projects that are already benefiting over 400,000 hectares of farmland and over 200,000 properties. The Environment Agency estimates that the fund will avoid around £10 billion in economic damage.
Martin Wrigley
I deeply thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) for highlighting the dreadful things that have happened in Somerset, and I join them in thanking all those who have responded.
I very much welcome what the Minister says about ensuring that the Environment Agency has the money to maintain assets and build new ones. My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of sustainable urban drainage systems, which we debated in Westminster Hall just last week. In that debate, the Minister talked about ways of maintaining SUDS. I asked for the maintenance of SUDS to be a statutory responsibility for the agencies set out in schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The Minister suggested that there was a route by which section 106 funding could be used to create permanent maintenance for SUDS. Might I ask the Minister how that could be achieved, given that section 106 money is finite and limited?
Emma Hardy
I think the best answer to that is for me to get the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is responsible for that policy, to give the hon. Gentleman a full answer. I recall from that debate that the Department is considering how the long-term maintenance of SUDS can be achieved, but I am mindful of the fact that it is another Department’s responsibility.
Through the internal drainage board fund, we are further investing in resilient infrastructure that can withstand more frequent and intense storms, supporting communities with clear information, accessible resources and long-term recovery assistance, and enhancing natural flood management by restoring wetlands—that is brilliant—improving soil health and working with nature to slow the flow of water.
In April 2025, the Environment Agency proposed pausing main river maintenance in certain low-risk areas of Somerset. However, it became clear, following a query raised by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton in November 2025, that the initial process did not provide sufficient opportunities for engagement with local communities and stakeholders. As a result, a new consultation period is now open, running until April 2026. This consultation will allow residents, landowners and local organisations to share their views and to help to shape the future of flood risk management in their area.
I fully recognise the importance of flood risk maintenance, particularly in areas like Somerset, where the landscape and hydrology create unique challenges. DEFRA and Environment Agency officials are already in discussion with key stakeholders, and this formed part of a wider conversation at December’s floods resilience taskforce meeting, which I chaired. These discussions are essential to ensuring that our approach to maintenance is fair, transparent and grounded in the needs of local communities. My letters to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) in February 2025 detailed the actions being undertaken in support of this.
The Environment Agency needs to prioritise its funding rigorously, and focus on those areas and activities that deliver the greatest overall benefits for people and property, including reducing flood risk and ensuring value for money. It is spending significant resources every year on pumping and managing the Somerset levels. Its work is essential to maintaining the delicate balance of water across the landscape, supporting agriculture, protecting homes and preserving the unique ecology of the area.
Sarah Dyke
I am pleased that the consultation is open, and that will be good news for riparian owners across Somerset. Should the consultation come back saying that riparian owners need to continue to do their own maintenance work, what support will be put in place for those who do not have the equipment or the wherewithal to support that? If we are looking at a holistic approach, then if one riparian owner decides not to do any maintenance, what will be the knock-on effect? How do we then ensure that our network of rivers is resilient and does not flood other areas?
Emma Hardy
The challenge that the hon. Lady sets out is the next step. For me, the first step is to see what the response to the consultation says and then we can continue the conversations. However, I recognise her point about riparian ownership and responsibility, and the challenge of what happens if everyone does not respond to the responsibility in the same way.
As we look to the future, we must ensure that the investment continues to be targeted, effective and sustainable. Beyond the technical and financial considerations, we must recognise the human dimension of flooding. Behind every statistic is a person—someone who has had to leave their home, someone who has lost possessions, someone who is worried about the future. Flooding affects mental health, financial stability and community cohesion. It can take months or even years for people to fully recover. That is why our response must be compassionate, comprehensive and long term.
We must acknowledge the broader context in which these events are occurring. The increasing frequency and intensity of storms like Chandra and Ingrid reflect a changing climate. While no single weather event can be attributed solely to climate change, the pattern is clear: we are facing more extreme rainfall, more volatile weather systems and greater pressure on our flood defences. This reality demands that we strengthen our resilience, not only through infrastructure but through planning, community engagement and environmental stewardship. That is why protecting communities from the dangers of flooding is a key priority for this Government.
This year has started with record-breaking rainfall, amounting to nearly twice the long-term monthly average in the south-west, which has been deeply challenging. Strengthening local and national co-ordination to ensure that agencies, councils and emergency services can respond swiftly and effectively is crucial, as is listening to communities, as we were yesterday, valuing their lived experience and ensuring that their voices help to shape future policy.
This Government’s record investment in flood defences will better protect communities from flooding right across the country. Not only that, but it will boost economic growth in local communities by protecting businesses, delivering new jobs and supporting a stable economy in the face of the increasing risk of flooding as a result of climate change. This Government are committed to acting to ensure that communities are better protected from flooding in the first place. We will continue to deliver and repair flood defences, improve drainage systems and develop natural flood management schemes.
The emergency services, the Environment Agency, local authorities, voluntary organisations and Government Departments stand ready, as ever, to support affected people in any future flooding event. This is a personal priority and it is a privilege to be the Minister responsible for flooding, and I will continue working to make sure that this Government respond as effectively as possible to floods.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
(3 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
That the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 13 January, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 362 / Noes: 107 - Question accordingly agreed to.