Local Government Pensions
Luke Hall Excerpts(2 years, 12 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
The Government are committed to public service pensions which are fair to public sector workers. In 2014, reforms were made to the local government pension scheme in England and Wales (the LGPS) to make the scheme more sustainable and affordable for the longer term. These reforms followed the prior recommendations of the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission and were part of similar reforms made across the public sector. The Government believe the 2014 changes to the LGPS balanced the interests of local government workers, employers and taxpayers fairly, and it remains the right package of benefits for the sector.
In July 2020, MHCLG consulted on changes to the local government pension scheme in England and Wales (LGPS). That consultation outlined proposals to amend LGPS “transitional protections” following a December 2018 Court of Appeal finding that similar provisions in the judicial and firefighters’ pension schemes gave rise to unlawful discrimination. Transitional protections had been introduced by the Government to exempt scheme members nearest to retirement from the impact of the reforms made to public service pensions in 2014 and 2015.
In the LGPS, transitional protection was provided through an “underpin”, providing protected members with the higher of their pension under the reformed, career average scheme and the pension they would have been entitled to under the previous final salary scheme. In our consultation, we proposed extending underpin protection to younger qualifying members.
The Government received responses from a variety of stakeholders. These were detailed and varied, and the Government are grateful for the consideration and thought given to the issues covered in the consultation. Responses were largely supportive of the key elements of the proposals.
After consideration of the responses, we can now confirm the key elements of the changes to scheme regulations which will be made in due course. The overarching aim is that the changes will address the findings of the courts and provide protection to all qualifying members when their benefits are drawn from the scheme. The key points are:
Underpin protection will apply to LGPS members who meet the revised qualifying criteria, principally that they were active in the scheme on 31 March 2012 and subsequently had membership of the career average scheme without a continuous break in service of more than five years.
The period of protection will apply from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2022 but will cease earlier where a member leaves active membership or reaches their final salary scheme normal retirement age (normally 65) before 31 March 2022.
Where a member stays in active membership beyond 31 March 2022, the comparison of their benefits will be based on their final salary when they leave the LGPS, or when they reach their final salary scheme normal retirement age, if earlier.
Underpin protection will apply to qualifying members who leave active membership of the LGPS with an immediate or deferred entitlement to a pension.
A “two stage process” will apply for assessing the underpin so that, where there is a gap between a member’s last day of active membership and the date they take their pension, members can be assured they are getting the higher benefit.
Scheme regulations giving effect to the above changes will be retrospective to 1 April 2014.
A full Government response, containing further detail on the matters addressed above, and on other issues which were covered in the consultation, will be published later this year. This will include the Government’s decision on whether members will be expected to meet the underpin qualifying criteria in a single period of scheme membership for the underpin to apply.
It is anticipated that regulations giving effect to these changes will be made after new primary legislation in relation to public service pensions has completed its passage through Parliament, and the Government’s intention is that regulations will come into force on 1 April 2023.
Ensuring that future pension accrual for all LGPS members is on a career average basis from 1 April 2022 will mean that local government workers continue to receive some of the best pension scheme benefits available in the UK, but that provision is more sustainable for the long term and more affordable for the taxpayer.
[HCWS26]
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Hall Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
The UK shared prosperity fund will help to level up and create opportunity across the United Kingdom. The spending review 2020 set out the main strategic elements of the UKSPF in the heads of terms, and we will publish a UK-wide investment framework in 2021 and confirm a multi-year funding profile at the next spending review. We are providing an additional £220 million through the UK community renewal fund to help those areas to prepare for the introduction of the UKSPF.
Jessica Morden [V]
Wales received £375 million a year under the EU structural funds but this Government’s levelling-up fund is giving Wales only £30 million a year, while the community renewal fund’s pilot projects split £220 million across the four nations. Can the Minister see why my constituents are already sceptical that this Government will fulfil their promise that Wales will receive “not a penny less”?
Luke Hall
Levels of investment from EU structural funds will be higher across the United Kingdom in ’21-22 than they were in ’20-21. We are also finding additional UK funding to support our communities to pilot programmes and new approaches. The hon. Lady mentions the levelling-up fund. Her local authority will receive £150,000 capacity funding support with that bidding process. As we set out in the spending review, funding for the UKSPF will ramp up so that total domestic UK-wide funding will at least match EU receipts, reaching £1.5 billion a year. These funds will have a real, lasting impact on communities that will make a significant difference to tackling deprivation and inequality, and binding together our precious United Kingdom.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for recognising when I met him last week that the UK shared prosperity fund will need to be more transparent in a way that the towns fund clearly was not. If he intends to keep this promise of more transparency, when will he consult on the UK shared prosperity fund that his Department committed to three years ago, and will his Department publish how much funding English regions will get?
Luke Hall
The point that I made to the hon. Lady last week is that we have published all the details in the technical note that is set out on gov.uk. We thought that was the right thing to do. At the spending review last year, we set out the main strategic elements of the UKSPF in the heads of terms. The funding profile will be set out at the next spending review and we will publish further details in a UK-wide investment framework later this year. In the meantime, the community renewal fund will deliver real, lasting change into communities right across the country. It will tackle inequality and deprivation in some of the communities that need it the most and were neglected for so long by Labour, and of course one of its key aims will be to work to bind together our precious Union.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
Along with the Secretary of State, I met the Minister for Trade, Innovation and Public Finance in the Scottish Government last month to discuss the levelling-up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund. We will continue to engage with the devolved Administrations and, importantly, with local authorities and communities in Scotland directly and wider public and private sector organisations to ensure that funding is used to best effect and to support citizens right across the country.
Kirsten Oswald [V]
A joint statement by Ministers from the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments criticised the UK Government for using the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to bypass devolved Administrations. Is it not the case that the UK Government intend to use levelling-up funding to shore up support for the Union and to undermine the very basis of devolution? If not, what are the Minister’s plans to devolve the funding within the framework of the devolution settlement?
Luke Hall
I can confirm that we want to do everything possible to enhance and protect our precious Union. We will work with communities directly in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to deliver this important funding. We have already committed to providing capacity funding to local authorities in all the devolved Administrations, to get them started on preparing for these funds. We are excited about working with them, and they are excited about working with us on delivering these funds. We have had huge interest from councils and communities that want to work with us to deliver real and lasting change for their communities, and that is why there is such a high level of enthusiasm and engagement.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Sixty-six per cent. of Scots are deeply concerned about the way that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act seeks to undermine Scotland’s Parliament. Alongside the unilateral decision making of the UK Government regarding the shared prosperity fund and the levelling-up fund, despite what the Minister just said, this is being used to aggressively assert Unionism in Scotland and bypass Scotland’s Parliament. Meanwhile, 33 of the last 41 polls show majority support for independence in Scotland. Does the Minister think that this aggressive and assertive Unionism, trampling all over Scotland’s Parliament, is endearing the people of Scotland to the Union?
Luke Hall
I urge the Scottish nationalist party to trust their local councils and local communities, which are so passionately engaging in this project and working with us, using the capacity funding we have committed to them to start this process. They will work with us on delivering these funds, which will tackle deprivation and enhance communities right across Scotland, and we look forward to working with them with determination and enthusiasm in the weeks, months and years ahead.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
The levelling-up fund will be allocated competitively and is open to all local areas. As we set out in the prospectus published at Budget, the index used for the levelling-up fund places areas in category 1, 2 or 3 based on their need for economic recovery and growth, improved transport connectivity, and regeneration.
Richard Thomson
If the Minister does not mind my saying so, that index seems to be working in a rather curious way. It has not escaped anyone’s attention that some Tory target areas in England seem to have done extraordinarily well out of this fund, yet areas such as mine in the north-east of Scotland—Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council—are languishing in levels 2 and 3 of the fund, despite being forecast to be hit hardest by Brexit. We know there was a power grab with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Is not the truth that we are now seeing a corresponding cash grab, because the Conservative Government know that not even all the rhetoric in the world about shared prosperity and precious Unions can spare their party from the hiding it is set to get from Scottish voters on 6 May?
Luke Hall
It is hard to see how the £150,000 per local authority that we have already committed to is a cash grab from Scottish communities. We are investing directly in Scottish communities, with £125,000 in capacity funding already. This is a bidding process, and rightly so, but we are providing that capacity funding, and for the first round of funding at least 9% of the UK allocations will be in Scotland. As I said earlier, we are hugely excited about the opportunities we have now to work directly with communities in Scotland. We have already been in touch, of course, with Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council to ensure that they have a good understanding of the levelling-up fund, including, importantly, securing support from Members of Parliament. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will play a full part in that process.
Stephen Flynn
I am afraid that answer simply is not good enough. Not only are the Tories seeking to bypass devolution; they are also seeking to bypass the needs of Aberdeen. One hundred and twenty-three local authorities have been placed in pot 1, yet Aberdeen has been dumped in pot 2. The consequence of that is clear for all to see: it means that we will not have access to the funding that we need at this moment in time. Aberdeen accounts for a third of all job redundancies in Scotland since the start of the pandemic. If that is not a criterion for funding, what is?
Luke Hall
It is published fully and frankly on the Government website. The hon. Gentleman can have a look at it; I would advise him to do so. Authorities are already receiving capacity funding, so it is not true in any way to infer that every single Scottish local authority will not receive support through this initiative. We are hugely excited about the opportunities this presents us with. We are going to be investing directly into communities. There is huge support for this funding. I strongly urge the hon. Gentleman both to read the documentation on the website and to get involved in playing a full part in the process.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
We have so far allocated over £9 billion directly to councils since the start of the pandemic and local authorities are expected to receive over £3 billion of additional support in 2021-22, responding both to expenditure pressures and loss of income. This takes the total support that we have committed to councils in England to tackle the impacts of covid-19 to over £12 billion.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
On 11 November, I and other representatives from Sheffield met the Minister to express concern that the loss of income to leisure centres in Sheffield was not being refunded to the council because the centres are managed by an arm’s length trust. I understand now from the council that the Government have recognised that the extra expenditure given from the council to the leisure trust to compensate for loss of income has been refunded —at least significantly—by the Government. I thank the Minister for that and for the help that he has given. Unfortunately, locally the Lib Dems have tried to claim that some of this money has gone from the council to the trust not to fund services in Sheffield, but to fund leisure centres in Scarborough. Will the Minister reassure me and residents in Sheffield that the money that he has given to Sheffield City Council has gone properly to fund services in Sheffield and nowhere else, and indeed, as the chair of the trust has confirmed, that all the money given to the trust by Sheffield City Council is funding leisure centres in Sheffield and nowhere else?
Luke Hall
I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for that question. I was grateful to meet him and Julie Dore last year, and I know how important this matter is to the hon. Gentleman and his community in Sheffield. We have provided councils with a range of support for covid pressures on local leisure services, including unring-fenced grants, income compensation and the specific national leisure recovery fund. In all cases, Sheffield will comply with the funding conditions. My expectation would be that all that funding should be used locally to support local services in Sheffield and—he is absolutely right—not be transferred to other areas.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Bay Local Authority in North Lancashire and South Cumbria
Luke Hall Excerpts(3 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) on securing this hugely important debate. We strongly welcome her interest in ensuring that her constituents, the businesses, local organisations and voluntary groups, and everyone who lives and works in the area, can have a real say about the future of local government reform. It is hugely important. Of course, all the hon. Lady’s constituents can continue to contribute to the consultation, which is still open. If they have not had the opportunity to do so I certainly encourage them to join the process.
Perhaps it is right for me to begin by setting out the Government’s policy. We consider that locally led changes to the structure of local government, whether in the form of unitarisation or district mergers, can be an appropriate means of improving local service delivery, saving taxpayers money and improving local accountability. We are clear that any reform of an area’s local government is most effectively achieved through locally led proposals put forward by those who know the area best. That is the essence of localism, to which we are committed. There is no question of any top-down imposition of Government solutions in that area. That brings me to the proposals that we have received from councils in Cumbria for local government reorganisation.
On 9 October last year the Secretary of State invited all the principal councils in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset, including the unitary councils, to submit locally led proposals for unitary local government. The councils in those three areas had been developing ideas about restructuring local government for some time, and were well advanced, which is why they were selected. We consider it right that Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset councils had the opportunity to present their local proposals for unitary reform. Late last year, on 9 December, we received four proposals from Cumbria councils: one from the county council proposing a single unitary council for the area, and three from different groups of district councils, each proposing two unitary councils.
As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood outlined, one of the two unitary proposals is from Barrow Borough Council and South Lakeland District Council, which they have developed with Lancaster City Council. Under the current statutory process, only councils which have received an invitation can submit a proposal. However, that proposal may cover areas outside of those councils. That is the case here, where the proposals submitted by Barrow Borough Council and South Lakeland District Council include Lancaster City, an approach that the city council supports.
On 22 February this year, we launched a consultation for proposals in line with the statute, which requires that before implementing a proposal a Secretary of State must consult any council that would be affected by, but did not submit, that proposal, as well as such other persons he considers appropriate. That closes on 19 April.
I know that Lancaster City Council has been working closely with Barrow and South Lakeland on their proposal, which includes Lancaster City as an area outside Cumbria that is part of Lancashire in terms of the statute. As the hon. Lady has outlined, this is known as a type C proposal. While Lancaster City supports this proposal and has been playing a part in its development, the position under the statute is that Lancaster City is not a proposing council.
We are consulting Lancaster City Council and Lancashire County Council on all the proposals put forward by the Cumbria authorities. We are also consulting the Lancashire police and crime commissioner and fire and rescue authority, along with the PCC and fire and rescue authority for Cumbria. It is also important to stress that residents and organisations in Lancaster can comment on the proposal, just like the residents and organisations in Barrow and South Lakeland.
That is extremely important feature, and the fact that hundreds of people in Lancaster City have already commented shows that the process is working; it is open, it is available, and it remains open until 19 April. In fact, we checked this morning, and—as an example—well over four fifths of email responses alone are about the Bay proposal, and nearly two thirds of the total emails for Cumbria are from the hon. Lady’s “Back the Bay” campaign. I think it is clear that we are encouraging views from anybody who is interested, whether that is businesses, the voluntary sector, organisations, or local residents in Lancaster and elsewhere in Cumbria, Lancashire and beyond.
The hon. Lady asked for confirmation that young people’s views will be taken into account, which is absolutely right and vital, and I can certainly give her the reassurance that they are submitting to the consultation. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to weigh up all the representations he receives, including from young people, and we have specifically asked proposing councils to actively increase awareness of and access to the consultation. Clearly, that would include young people as well, and they are able to use their resources to do that. In the case of Barrow and South Lakeland, with the help of Lancaster City Council, that will no doubt include raising awareness in those groups, and among those who live and work in Lancaster.
The hon. Lady also mentioned access to the consultation through the website, and she is right to highlight that the consultation website meets the commonly applied web content accessibility guidelines to help it be more accessible to a wide range of people. If she thinks there are ways that can be improved further for future consultation, of course we will be happy to listen to that.
On the wider point of access to the consultation, we ask all councils to facilitate the widest possible awareness of the consultation. We believe it is right that the councils that know their communities best and understand the requirements of local people are best placed to generate interest from a wide range of organisations using the connections and information that they have. For example, that could include a council making both the consultation and the proposal available digitally or in other accessible formats. It is also important to put on record that people can respond in writing or by email to the consultation, and the details of that are available on the consultation website. Councils can, of course, use that to promote access to the consultation, including to the groups that the hon. Lady has highlighted.
I just want to touch on the elections. As the hon. Lady will be aware, this year’s elections to the principal councils in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset have been rescheduled to May 2022. There is precedent for such a one-year postponement of elections where unitarisation is under consideration. For example, the same occurred in the Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire unitarisation exercises.
Rescheduling those local elections avoided creating a situation where the electorate would be asked to vote for councils a short time after being consulted on proposals that, if they are implemented, would result in the abolition of those councils. Rescheduling the elections also avoids members being elected to serve for potentially very short terms, a maximum of two years, where a shadow authority is established.
The order that postpones the elections also extends for a year the terms of office of councillors who would otherwise have retired following the May elections this year, and makes consequential provisions to ensure that by-elections to vacant seats can still take place. The order postponing the elections has been made without prejudice to any subsequent decisions on the unitary proposals that are under consideration, and does not affect the police and crime commissioner elections, the town and parish council elections or any other scheduled by-elections, which will still occur on the 6 May.
In practice, that means that elections to Lancashire County Council will go ahead in May this year, unlike elections to Cumbria County Council. That reflects the fact that, whatever Cumbria proposal may be implemented, there is no possibility of Lancashire County Council being abolished. In May of this year there are no ordinary elections to the city council.
Following the consultation, the Secretary of State will carefully consider the proposals and has a duty to take into account three criteria if the proposal were to be implemented: whether it would be likely to improve local government and service delivery in the area; whether it would command a good deal of local support; and whether it would lead to unitary councils covering a credible geography. The representations that the hon. Lady has made today and throughout the process will be taken into account as part of that.
The Secretary of State will then decide, having regard to all of the representations he has received on the proposals, including those received through the consultation exercise, and all other relevant information available to him, which proposal, if any, to implement. We envisage those decisions to be taken and announced before the summer recess.
If the Secretary of State decides that a proposal should be implemented, he will seek parliamentary approval for the necessary secondary legislation. Clearly such an order would need to be considered and approved by each House. If Parliament approves legislation implementing any proposal, the rescheduled elections in May 2022 would be cancelled. It is envisaged that they will be replaced in May 2022 by elections to either the new shadow authority or a continuing authority, which is to be the new unitary authority.
The expectation is that any new unitary authority would take on the full powers of a unitary authority from 1 April 2023. Those elected to the shadow or continuing authority in May 2022 would continue as members of the new authority, most likely serving a total five-year term, one year as members of the shadow or continuing authority and four years as members of the full unitary authority.
I am grateful we have had the chance to have this debate and to the hon. Lady for her speech and for putting on record all of the points she has made. I hope she understands that I cannot comment on the individual representations that she has made about the quality of any of the submissions, because the process is ongoing, and I encourage people to continue to take part in that until the 19th of this month.
By submitting their proposals for unitary local government, councils in these areas have an important opportunity to move forward with reforms, which can open the way to significant benefits for local people and businesses, delivering service improvements, facilitating economic growth and contributing to the levelling-up of opportunity and prosperity across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Covid-19: Support for Businesses
Luke Hall Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
Covid-19 has presented a significant challenge for businesses in all sectors. The Government response to the pandemic has been unprecedented in scale, with more than £280 billion provided to protect millions of jobs and businesses, and the Budget in March setting out an additional £65 billion of support in 2020-21 and 2021-22.
On business rates specifically, at Budget 2020 the Government announced a 100% business rates relief to all eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, given the acute and direct impact of covid-19 restrictions, non-pharmaceutical interventions, on these sectors. This was worth around £10 billion in 2020-21 and, alongside other business rate reliefs, ensured that over 1 million properties paid no business rates this year. At Budget 2021, the Government announced that it would extend the scheme for the first 3 months of 2021-22 at 100%, followed by a 9-month period of relief at 66%, subject to a cash cap for businesses. Taken together, this amounts to business rates relief worth £16 billion for retail, hospitality and leisure properties.
While support has been needed to support these sectors, our business rates system is designed to provide a stable source of income for local councils and help fund vital local services, such as street lighting and keeping streets safe and clean. It is based on the principle of regular revaluations, with changes in property values reflected at these revaluations. Market wide economic changes affecting property values, such as from covid-19, can only be properly considered at these general revaluations, which is why we have changed the date of the next revaluation to 1 April 2023, based on rental values at 1 April 2021, to ensure it can better reflect the impact of the pandemic.
Between these revaluations rateable values should only change for material change of circumstances, which is a process intended to consider individual cases like roadworks near a property that affect its value. A number of businesses that do not qualify for our existing reliefs have sought to challenge their business rates liability by seeking reductions to their property’s value through this material change of circumstances provision.
Relying on this system to help businesses that need further support from the pandemic is not the right mechanism. These appeals would seek to reduce rate bills, and funding for local councils, based on the estimated impact of covid-19 on the market value of a property, and not on the economic circumstances of the business. This system was not designed to address the challenges we face and would mean significant amounts of taxpayer support going to businesses based in offices—like banks, large online retailers and technology businesses, law firms and consultancy firms—many of whom have been able to operate successfully throughout the pandemic.
The process of resolving these appeals and litigation through the courts could take years and would not provide the support now when it is most needed. It would also expose local authorities to uncertainty about their financial position, including whether they would need to return money spent on their response to covid-19, and how much.
Without action and legislation, there would also be a significant impact on the entire business rates system, as the Valuation Office Agency faced working through these cases, further valuation tribunals, wider separate cases, and preparing for the next revaluation in 2023. This would be at the detriment of other ratepayers who would suffer as a result of the valuation system grinding to a halt.
Nevertheless the Government recognise that businesses outside of the retail, hospitality, and leisure sectors have also been adversely affected by the pandemic, including through limitations on how their property can be used. So we are now going even further than the £16 billion of relief since Budget 2020 and providing £1.5 billion of additional support to businesses that have not already received business rates relief. This is the fastest and fairest way to support businesses outside the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors who have been adversely affected by the pandemic.
The new relief will ensure a fairer and more proportioned allocation of support, by awarding funding through local authorities, who will able to use their knowledge of their local businesses and the local economy to award dedicated support to those businesses who need it most. Funding will be allocated to councils taking into account the economic impact covid-19 has had on specific sectors. This approach will ensure relief is awarded quicker than would be the case if businesses sought support under the sometimes drawn out process of a rating appeal, which can often last years.
At the same time we will legislate to ensure that the Government response to covid-19, including restrictions on the use of property, is reflected at the next revaluation in 2023, in line with the principle of the business rates system, and not through complicated and protracted property-by-property litigation. We will do this through:
Introducing primary legislation with retrospective effect, when parliamentary time allows, to clarify that covid-19 and the Government response to it is not an appropriate use of material change of circumstance provisions; and
Laying a statutory instrument today with the same effect prospectively and bringing it into force on the same day.
Taken together, this will ensure support for covid-19 continues to be directed to ratepayers through rate reliefs—including the additional £1.5 billion of support—in the fairest and fastest way, and not through valuation appeals made by rating agents. We will work with and support local Government to enable ratepayers to apply as soon as possible this year, once the legislation relating to material change of circumstance provisions has passed and local authorities have set up local relief schemes.
This will give local councils the certainty they have been seeking, and will ensure that support flows to businesses in need across England, rather than primarily to high- value locations and the office market.
[HCWS901]
Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Designated Area) Regulations 2021
Luke Hall Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Designated Area) Regulations 2021.
The draft regulations create a new designated area in south Tees for the purpose of the business rates retention scheme. The business rates retention scheme typically allows local authorities to keep 50% of the business rates they collect locally. In two-tier areas, that 50% is shared between billing and major precepting authorities, according to shares laid down by Government.
As part of the redistribution arrangements under the scheme, an authority might pay some of its share as a tariff or might receive additional funding in the form of top-up payments. Tariffs and top-ups were fixed at the outset of the scheme in 2013, so, as business rates grow, authorities get to keep 50% of that growth. In the last year, before the pandemic, retained growth was worth more than £1.8 billion of additional funding to local authorities, over and above what they received as settlement funding.
As part of the business rates retention scheme, the Government can also designate part of a local authority’s area. When an area is designated, it is effectively removed from the main retention scheme and authorities keep not 50% growth, as under the main scheme, but 100% of all the growth in business rates in that area.
Since 2013, we have created more than 200 designated areas, in 94 different authorities across the country. Many of those areas have been created as parts of enterprise zones. In those areas, local authorities keep all the growth in business rates for 25 years, and they and the local enterprise partnerships are using the money to regenerate their areas. Other designated areas have been set up specifically to allow councils a long-term income stream against which they have been able to borrow for specific infrastructure improvements.
Overall, the 100% of growth being retained by authorities in designated areas has meant that, since 2013, authorities have had funding worth nearly £240 million in addition to the growth under the main scheme and the funding they receive through the local government finance settlement. That money has been used to provide improved infra-structure and to support regeneration more generally.
The draft regulations create a new designated area in Teesside, and the area designated by the regulations is that of South Tees Development Corporation. The development corporation is the site of the first mayoral development corporation outside London. It was inspired by the independent report made by Lord Heseltine in June 2016. He looked at an industrial area blighted by the liquidation of the SSI steelworks and saw the development potential of a 4,000 acre site on the south bank of the River Tees, with good road and rail access, sitting alongside one of the deepest ports on the east coast of the United Kingdom. He recommended the establishment of the South Tees Development Corporation and advised the Government and local partners to put the necessary resources in place to regenerate the area.
The draft regulations designating an area covered by the South Tees Development Corporation are part of that financing plan. They sit within a wider framework that will see new investment on the site and the creation of 20,000 new, good-quality jobs on one of the largest development sites in Europe. Initial central Government and local government investment dealt with the legacy of steelmaking and kept the site safe and secure, before working with local, national and international investors on the market opportunities that are most relevant to the site.
The development corporation has secured ownership of the developable land through an agreement and a compulsory purchase order, bringing order to a piecemeal and incoherent situation and allowing developments at scale. There is a healthy pipeline of investment interest in place and the draft regulations will ensure that, as the land is developed and new industries emerge, part of the business rates income will be reinvested in the site’s development. That is a cycle where success in investment will create additional resource, which in turn will help further to accelerate the development of the site.
The regulations will come into force only after the Government are satisfied that Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Tees Valley Combined Authority have put in place arrangements that ensure that the money they keep as a result of the regulations will be used solely for the benefit of the South Tees Development Corporation. We have negotiated a memorandum of understanding with Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Tees Valley Combined Authority that will ensure that there are clear revenue sharing arrangements in place, protecting the finances of the council and enabling funding to be released for the development of the site. That will be signed as soon as Parliament agrees to the regulations and will enable the designated area to come into existence on 1 April this year.
Once the regulations are in force, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Tees Valley Combined Authority will share all the growth in business rates for the next 25 years. Growth will be measured in exactly the same way as for other designated areas. Where, in any year, the business rates income in the designated area is greater than a baseline amount set out in regulation, the council and combined authority will keep 100% of the difference.
The baseline amount—a little over £7 million—has been set by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council. That represents the annual amount of business rate that it would expect to collect in the designated area at this point in time. As the regeneration with respect to the development corporation gathers pace and as the collectible business rates grow, the council and combined authority will keep every pound above that baseline. That will be reinvested in the area, generating even more growth.
These are important regulations. They will provide additional funds over an extended period, allowing the council and the combined authority to invest in the regeneration of the south Tees area, and I commend them to the Committee.
Luke Hall
This is an important debate and an important statutory instrument. The regulations are a significant part of the wider plan for the regeneration of south Tees and I thank the shadow Minister for his support for them. He has made a number of points on which I know he feels strongly. I will address them briefly if I can.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Government support to councils during the pandemic. We have had this discussion in a number of forums. We are providing £11 billion of support to councils throughout the pandemic. That is far in excess of the self-reported figure that councils are spending in response to the pandemic, which stands at £6.9 billion to the end of the financial year. We have already provided over £8 billion in our sales, fees and charges scheme, and the fact that we have already published £1.55 billion of covid support for next year is a clear demonstration of our support. We have had long debates on that in other forums, so I will not talk through all the detail today.
The hon. Gentleman talked about raising council tax and gave his view, but he had the opportunity to vote against that in respect of the local government finance settlement and the caps on which we specifically laid a motion in Parliament, neither of which the Opposition nor anybody in the House opposed. That was the time for them to make those arguments and to have their say on that specific matter.
The hon. Gentleman talked about South Gloucestershire council. I am delighted to talk about the incredible record of my own council—although in another forum there would perhaps be more time—in delivering what has been fought for by Conservatives. It is doing an incredible job supporting people in south Gloucestershire and delivering the services that local people want. I support the council in those decisions.
The regulations that we are discussing will ensure that from 1 April any growth in business rates will be retained in its entirety by Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Tees Valley Combined Authority, instead of having to be shared with central Government. That will provide those authorities with an income stream over 25 years that will be used to invest in the South Tees Development Corporation. That investment will help to secure the creation of new industries and jobs in an area blighted by the closure of the former steelworks. The regulations also make an important contribution to the redevelopment of one of the largest development sites in Europe and underline our long-term commitment to the regeneration of south Tees. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Northamptonshire (Structural Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Amendment) Order 2021
Luke Hall Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Northamptonshire (Structural Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Amendment) Order 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Laid before the House on 25 January, the order, if approved and made, will make provision in relation to the two new unitary councils in Northamptonshire, which will be fully up and running from 1 April 2021. The order will ensure a smooth transition from the predecessor councils. It relates to two issues: the lord lieutenancy and the Northamptonshire pension fund.
The order that we are considering this morning is intended to be the last statutory instrument implementing local government reorganisation in Northamptonshire. In February 2020, following Parliament’s approval, we legislated to abolish the existing county council and the seven district councils in the area and to establish the new unitary councils of North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire.
Those local government changes were locally led, having been proposed by councils in Northamptonshire in August 2018, following an invitation from the then Secretary of State in March 2018. We were satisfied that they met our criteria for change—that the change would be likely to improve local government and service delivery in the area and have a good deal of local support, and that the new councils would have a credible geography.
I must pay tribute to all the local leaders and their officers who have worked so collaboratively and hard to implement the restructuring of local government in the area, all while establishing a new children’s trust and responding to the pandemic. Those have been significant changes, and the fact that we are now so close to a successful launch of the new councils is testament to the commitment and hard work of the local partners involved.
I also thank hon. Members for the area who have staunchly supported the drive for improved local government in Northamptonshire. Lastly, I offer my thanks to the Secretary of State’s commissioners in Northamptonshire, who have done so much to stabilise the position of the existing county council and provide a stable base for the transition to the new authorities.
The order that we are considering today makes the following changes in relation to the new councils. First, the order makes amendments to the Lieutenancies Act 1997 and the Sheriffs Act 1887 to insert, in the relevant schedules, references to the new local government areas of North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire in relation to the positions of lord lieutenant and high sheriff respectively. That will ensure the continuation of the positions of lord lieutenant and high sheriff of Northamptonshire. There is no change to the boundary of the ceremonial county of Northamptonshire or to the functions or jurisdiction of the lord lieutenant or high sheriff of Northamptonshire. The important historic and traditional roles of lord lieutenant and high sheriff must be preserved for the ceremonial county of Northamptonshire after the reorganisation. That will be achieved through this order. Such ceremonial roles are rightly important to local leaders and communities. The lord lieutenant and high sheriff are royal appointments supporting Northamptonshire, the Crown and the judiciary.
Secondly, the order makes provision to ensure that the property, rights, assets and liabilities of the Northamptonshire pension fund transfer from Northamptonshire County Council to West Northamptonshire council, which will be the new administering authority of the pension fund for both the new councils, all predecessor councils and other employers who participate in the Northamptonshire fund. That will ensure the continuation of the administration of the pension fund and avoid crystallisation of any pension liability.
The order further provides that the assets and liabilities in the pension fund relating to the pensions of employees or former employees of the councils that are to be abolished transfer to the successor councils in proportions determined by West Northamptonshire council. That will ensure that there is clarity on who is taking over the responsibility for funding existing pensions accrued, and prevent exit payments from arising under the relevant regulations; these would normally be triggered where an employer leaves the scheme. The order provides that, in coming to a fair determination on those matters, West Northamptonshire Council must take advice from an actuary and consult North Northamptonshire Council.
In addition to this order, we have previously made regulations of general application to enable the effective implementation of all unitarisations. In general terms, the regulations ensure that anything that has been done by or to a predecessor council can be continued by or to the successor council. Specifically, they provide that all functions conferred on the predecessor councils are transferred to the successor council, as well as all property rights and liabilities, staffing, specified electoral and governance matters, honorary titles, plans, schemes, statements and strategies, and responsibility for certain functions relating to town and country planning and housing.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Is the Minister’s Department involved in approving the process that Northamptonshire is going through? At what point are the public involved in approving and agreeing that it is right to have two unitary authorities rather than a single Northamptonshire authority, and what is the cost benefit of doing that?
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. When we received the locally-led proposals, there was a significant amount of local engagement and support from the councils that put them forward. We certainly deemed that to be the case in meeting the criteria for pursuing the proposals. The order that we are discussing this morning addresses two supplementary issues following the process, and the remaining incidental issues that were not addressed following the previous existing regulations of generic application. I can assure members of the Committee that we have worked closely with the existing councils and the shadow authorities for north and west Northamptonshire on this order, looking carefully at the numerous issues raised and agreeing that the order’s provisions meet local requirements.
The provisions are sensible and necessary consequential changes in the light of the establishment of the new councils, which Parliament has already approved. They ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements and continued effective local government in the areas. I commend the order to the Committee.
Luke Hall
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. I certainly join him in thanking everyone involved in the creation of the two new authorities, including the trade unions. He asked a couple of important questions: first, on the devolution White Paper.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the power and benefits, as he described them, of locally-led decision making driving forward the delivery of investment and opportunity in communities. We remain absolutely committed to devolution, which is why we have just delivered the West Yorkshire devolution deal. We look forward to the first mayoral election in May. We will have nearly 50% of the north covered with elected mayors following that election, so it is an exciting moment for us. We are absolutely excited by the opportunity that that brings to people in Yorkshire.
We are completely committed to the devolution agenda. The White Paper was one of the pieces of work that we had to postpone during the heat of the pandemic, as we asked councils and our Departments to focus their resources on dealing with the impacts of what was before us. Unfortunately, I have not a date today for when we will bring forward the White Paper, but we are completely committed to doing that this year. I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to deliver it and see it as a central and important part of our work. We are continuing the work we have already done on locally-led proposals that can be delivered with significant support across communities. The agenda remains at the forefront of so much we are trying to achieve.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our commitment to fully fund councils and the impact of the pandemic. Of course, that absolutely remains. If he looks back at what we have tried to do and the spirit in which we have tried to do it over the last year, first, the work of councils has been absolutely remarkable in responding to the pandemic—they have been front and centre of our response. That is why we have provided them with over £8 billion so far. We have a commitment to £11 billion for councils. If we look at the returns that councils have submitted to my Department, the amount that they are spending and the projected amount that they are likely to spend to the end of this financial year, that comes to a total of £6.9 billion, so we have provided them well in excess of the amount that they have spent. We also have in place the sales, fees and charges and other income loss schemes, which have already started to pay out—we have paid out £500 million already. Of course, we keep that under close review.
My last point on local government finance is that we tried as best we could in the context of a one-year spending review, which that was necessary because of the circumstances, to give councils the certainty with their finances using the tools we had to do so. Alongside the provisional settlement that we published in December, we also published three other important things. First, we published the allocations for each council for the covid support that they will receive from April to the end of June. That was a breakdown of £1.5 billion by local authority. It was a conscious policy decision to do that early on to give councils certainty in the context of the spending review.
Secondly, we published the local council tax support scheme with the details broken down by local authority, and the details of the sales, fees and charges scheme. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that commitment absolutely remains and that we want to support and empower councils and communities to deliver public services efficiently.
Matt Western
Specifically on that point, is the Minister aware of the situation in Northamptonshire given it had an issue, I recall a few years ago, with a £53 million brand-new headquarters—as it described it—for the council? Has that impacted on its ability to supply services through the pandemic or, indeed, as we were discussing pension funds, has it had any impact on the future provision of pension funds for staff?
Luke Hall
I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me: I do not want to opine on private conversations we have had with Northamptonshire. I can assure him that we are working with it very closely as it goes through a period of delivering change and responding to a pandemic. It is certainly the case, as we have seen with many councils around the country, that delivering planned efficiency changes has been much harder this year for all the obvious reasons that we all completely understand. We are trying to best understand the impact of that and its longer-term implications. Indeed, there are longer-term implications of the pandemic on local government finance. It will not be the case that we can carry on as we have done before, because there may well be longer-term scarring impacts on the local government finance system, not just in Northamptonshire, but around the country. We see that crystallising in some areas, such as social care. We keep that closely under review as we move forward.
The order completes the legislative requirements necessary to implement a locally-led proposal for unitarisation in Northamptonshire. It ensures the necessary technical arrangements around ceremonial matters and that local government pension scheme arrangements are in place so that effective local governance continues in those new areas. The new local authorities undergoing reorganisation are making excellent progress towards their go live date. I am confident that the new councils in west Northamptonshire and north Northamptonshire will be successfully launched on 1 April this year, bringing about improved local government and the service delivery that the people of Northamptonshire need and deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Hall Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
The Government have allocated more than £8 billion directly to councils since the start of the pandemic. In addition, councils will receive more than £3 billion of support in 2021-22 for both additional expenditure and loss of income. That takes the total support committed to councils in England to tackle the impacts of covid-19 to more than £11 billion.
Theresa Villiers
I sincerely thank Ministers for the substantial financial support they have given to local government at this difficult time. May I appeal to them to continue that, not least to enable local authorities to play their part in supporting people to live healthier lives with more exercise and recreation, so that we can generate the broader health recovery that this outbreak tells us we need?
Luke Hall
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right. This is why it is so vital that we have provided a 4.6% cash-terms increase to local government next year—a real-terms increase. I am delighted that in Barnet that means a 5% increase in core spending power—another £14 million next year to spend on local priorities, just as she mentions. Funding and supporting local government, which has been the backbone of our response to covid-19, remain an absolute priority for this Department.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
This month, the local government finance settlement passed through this House, delivering a 4.6% rise in core spending power to councils across the country. For England, we are committed to putting funding where there is relative need, irrespective of the location, which is why councils in the most deprived areas of the country receive 16% more in grant funding than the least deprived areas.
Dan Jarvis [V]
Here in South Yorkshire, we used European Union and local growth funds to support our economy, attract investment and create good jobs. Now that they have come to an end, can the Minister guarantee that their replacements—the shared prosperity and levelling-up funds—will give local leaders the flexibility and capacity to invest that money to rebuild our communities?
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the constructive way in which he continues to work with the Government. The levelling-up fund is worth £4 billion. It will be invested in local infrastructure that will have a real and visible impact on our communities, whether that be a new bypass, an upgraded railway station, museums, more libraries, or better high streets and town centres. The fund will be allocated competitively and we will be publishing a prospectus for it soon. We are also providing £220 million of additional UK funding next year to support communities to pilot programmes and new approaches in preparation for the UK shared prosperity fund. We will publish the prospectus for this funding soon. I assure him that this funding will be at the heart of the levelling-up agenda, benefiting communities across the country. As always, I will be happy to discuss the detail with him when those prospectuses are published.
Fay Jones [V]
Powys County Council has historically received one of the lowest local government allocations across Wales from the Welsh Government. As a consequence, the local authority is considering closing four rural schools in Brecon and Radnorshire, deepening rural inequality even further. Will the Minister confirm that the Welsh Government have the funding to prevent that and that they could even use the extra funding given to them by the UK Government as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, which they have yet to spend?
Luke Hall
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is right to say that we have given Wales £5.2 billion of guaranteed up-front funding this year, and we have now confirmed an additional £650 million for the Welsh Government to support public services affected by covid-19. Of course, local government is a devolved responsibility, and it is for the Welsh Government to decide how to use the substantial funds the UK Government are providing them with. I encourage them to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how best to protect the vital public services that she has rightly highlighted on behalf of her community.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) [V]
Few details of the shared prosperity fund have been published. Will the Minister guarantee that the fund will be used to tackle regional inequality, as intended, that no region will lose out and that the Government will not force councils to compete against one another, wasting time and resources when they could be getting on with providing services that local people depend on?
Luke Hall
I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that the UK shared prosperity fund will help level up and create opportunity right across our country in the places that need it the most, be they ex-industrial areas, deprived towns or rural communities, and for people who face labour market barriers. It is going to operate UK-wide, using the new financial assistance powers in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. We will ramp up funding so that total domestic UK-wide funding will at least match receipts, reaching about £1.5 billion a year.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
We will work both with the devolved Administrations and local communities to ensure that the UK shared prosperity fund supports citizens right across the country. We have demonstrated that commitment by confirming that the devolved Administrations will have a place within the governance structures for the fund.
Marion Fellows [V]
Mr Speaker, that was a wonderful tribute to Julia and I really appreciate your making it. I associate myself with it and pass on my deepest condolences to her family. She will be sadly missed by the Scottish National party group at Westminster.
Will the Minister please explain when exactly we will learn what the mechanism will be for involving the Scottish Government in decisions about which people, communities and local businesses will receive the funding necessary to enable them to level up? Who will be the final arbiter? How much money will be available? When will the process begin?
Luke Hall
The money is well known about, and we published the heads of terms document last year. Investment to replace EU structural funds will increase in each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland next year, compared with this financial year, thanks to the funds that the Chancellor is putting in. We will ramp up total domestic UK-wide funding so that it will at least match EU receipts, reaching around £1.5 billion a year. Further details of the operation of the additional funding will be published soon, but in the meantime we will continue to engage with the devolved Administrations on the important additional funds.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]
I am pleased to hear that the Minister apparently just confirmed that Scotland will not receive a single penny less under the UK shared prosperity funding scheme. I am sure that that news will be welcomed in Scotland. Will he confirm that the priorities for Scotland will continue to be set in Scotland, by the people of Scotland and the democratically elected Government of Scotland?
Luke Hall
Of course, the first part of the hon. Lady’s question was confirmed in a manifesto commitment from this Government. I assure her that we have been having engagement events right across the United Kingdom, with 16 such events in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We have confirmed that the devolved Administrations will have a place in the oversight of the fund; we have been working closely with them, and I will reach out to them soon to organise discussions about the delivery of the fund directly into Scotland.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
We regularly engage with the Department for Education on matters relating to local authorities’ finances. We have provided £4.6 billion of un-ringfenced funds to councils to manage a range of covid-19-related pressures. The DFE has already distributed £102 million for exceptional covid-related costs incurred by schools and will shortly process claims made in December.
Munira Wilson [V]
Many primary schools in Twickenham are struggling with the double whammy of the costs of making their sites covid secure and the lost income from lettings and fundraising, and the Department for Education has not reimbursed a lot of those costs. The Minister for School Standards has repeatedly told me that schools that have low reserves and face severe financial difficulties should seek support from their local authority, so will the Minister be making funds available to local authorities specifically to support schools in need? If not, will he issue guidance on the use of existing covid funding to local authorities, which is already insufficient to meet their covid costs?
Luke Hall
I completely reject the last part of the hon. Lady’s question, in which she said that funding is insufficient. Local authorities are projected to spend £6.9 billion on covid-related pressures this year. We have already provided them with £8 billion of support and we have confirmed a total of £11 billion of support. We have allocated directly to councils £4.6 billion of un-ringfenced funds, of which Richmond has received £12.5 million. That means that Richmond can allocate funding according to local priorities—it is for the council to make decisions on how the funds are best used, including in schools. We recognise that councils are best placed to understand the needs of their populations. I know how important this issue is to the hon. Lady so am always happy to meet her to discuss it in greater depth.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
Core spending power in England will rise from £49 billion in this financial year to £51.3 billion in 2021-22, which is a 4.6% cash-terms increase—a real-terms rise. Councils in Cumbria will see their core spending power rise to more than £483 million—a 4.5% increase in cash terms—and they will also receive more than £30 million in un-ringfenced covid support to help them to build back better in the next financial year.
Dr Hudson [V]
Rural bus services are a lifeline for people in Penrith and The Border. In 2014, Cumbria County Council decided to stop using central Government funds to subsidise commercial bus services, which has had a negative impact on provision, meaning that some communities in Cumbria are no longer served by regular bus routes. Does my hon. Friend agree that the council should change its position and use the available funds to support rural bus routes to allow people to go about their lives, reconnect and help to address the issue of rural isolation?
Luke Hall
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is a champion for the community that he represents. He is certainly right that Cumbria County Council has the flexibility to invest in these bus services, perhaps even using some of the £20 million increase that it will receive through the local government finance settlement. Through the Department for Transport, we are also providing an additional £20 million rural mobility fund to support services in rural and suburban areas, and Cumbria has been successful at phase 1 and has recently submitted a business case for review at phase 2, but he is absolutely right to raise this matter. The council does have the flexibility to make these decisions, which I know is of huge importance to him and to his constituents.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
We have a clear commitment to give more power to local communities, providing opportunity across the country. We want to build on the more than 50% of the north now covered by our devolution deals, with a new deal in West Yorkshire signed in Parliament just last month. We welcomed the devolution proposal from Hull and East Yorkshire, and my Department will respond shortly, with a view to further formal engagement with councils following the local government elections. I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about this in greater depth.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Last week, The Sunday Times revealed that property developers who have built flats covered in dangerous cladding have donated £2.5 million to the Conservative party since 2017. This comes after the 10 biggest house builders have made £15 billion in profit since the Grenfell Tower disaster, and of course, they have made a tidy sum during the covid-19 pandemic from a market boom fuelled by the stamp duty holiday. The Housing Secretary said he believes in the polluter pays principle. Why, then, are leaseholders still footing the bill for the building safety crisis?
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) [V]
Luke Hall
Of course, we are working closely with the Cabinet Office on the delivery of the elections and the census. We have provided extra funds to make sure they can be delivered safely, and we have published guidance alongside that as well. We have also committed, for the coming year, £11 billion directly to councils since the start of the pandemic, of which Cambridge City Council has so far received more than £5.4 million. On top of that, it will have the additional funding to help it deliver elections, and its share of the £1.55 billion that we have announced to help with covid-related pressures next year, including election pressures.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
Luke Hall
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We are hugely grateful to parish and town councils, which have been on the frontline in responding to this pandemic. That is why the Secretary of State wrote to them earlier this year to encourage principal councils to work with them to discuss funding. Councils in Devon will receive a further £31 million in un-ringfenced covid funding next year, which will help to ensure that their facilities are maintained and ready for the summer. Finally, I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituency has received an offer of £6.5 million from our future high streets fund, which I understand will go towards refurbishment of the historic market quarter.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Luke Hall
Those individual decisions are decisions for local authorities. I can certainly inform the hon. Gentleman that Warwick has received over £3.7 million this year in covid funding, and is receiving a 4.8% real-terms rise in core spending power this current financial year, but the individual decision to which he has referred is for the council to make.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) [V]
Local Government Finance (England)
Luke Hall Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
May I begin, like so many Members, by expressing my huge appreciation for the incredible work that councils across the country have been doing to lead the response to the pandemic? Social workers, refuse collectors, carers, teachers, council officers and so many more have been on the frontline of our response to covid-19, and they have been unwavering in their determination to deliver the essential services we all rely on every day. That is why this Government have backed councils with the funding and resources they need to support our communities, businesses and local economies in this local government finance settlement.
This settlement delivers a 4.6% cash-terms increase in core spending power next year, an increase in real terms, guaranteeing that no council in England will have less funding available than last year. That comes on top of the settlement for this current financial year, which was a 4.5% rise in core spending power. That in itself was the best settlement for a decade and it was supported by every Member of this House. Alongside this settlement, in recognition of the fact that the pandemic is not yet over, we are providing a further at least £3 billion in covid-19 funding next year to support councils’ income and expenditure. That takes the total support already committed to covid-19 income and expenditure pressures to more than £11 billion.
May I thank a number of my hon. Friends for their contributions today? My hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) both highlighted the increase in resource going to Cornwall Council, with that 4.7% rise in core spending power in cash terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) welcomed the rise in core spending power. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) questioned how much was going to Burnley; I can tell him that it is a 2.6% rise, alongside the 5.3% rise going to Lancashire County Council. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) welcomed the extra support and swift provision of funds for Darlington Borough Council, with a 4.8% rise in core spending allowing, as he described, the council to deliver for local residents. May I put on record my thanks to Darlington Borough Council for the excellent work it is doing to restore the council to its rightful place?
I was slightly confused by the contribution from the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) when she said that there was no commitment in this settlement to increase funding in Salford. The opposite is true; in the current financial year there has been a 7.8% increase in core spending power; and the settlement we have published and are debating today sees an increase of 4.7% in core spending power for her council. I am afraid that she is incorrect in her statements.
A number of Members today raised covid support for their councils and talked about what they saw as the gap in funding between what councils spend and what we are providing them with. Councils’ self-reported figures project that covid cost pressures this year will be £6.9 billion. We have already allocated £8 billion to councils, which is over £1 billion more than they are spending in responding to the pandemic. On top of that, we have provided a business rates holiday worth around £10 billion to local retail, hospitality and leisure industries. We have given councils over £17 billion to provide grants to thousands of businesses up and down our country, and they have done an incredible job in distributing those efficiently and speedily to ensure that businesses are getting the support they need. We have also introduced a sales, fees and charges scheme to help councils manage losses in income. We are backing local government all the way with the necessary funding, both now and into the future.
One of the recurring themes of the debate was the issue of social care, which was raised by the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), by the Chairman of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt). This settlement helps to support the most vulnerable people in our society, especially in social care. We are providing access to an additional £1 billion in funding for adult social care in the coming financial year, which includes £300 million in grant funding for both adult and children’s social care. We are also providing an additional adult social care tax flexibility of 3% to give councils the tools to make the best decisions for their residents, giving councils access to an extra £790 million. That is all on top of the £1 billion social care grant announced last year, which is being maintained in line with our manifesto commitment. We have responded to the pressures facing councils to ensure that they have the resources they need to provide the best quality care for residents across the country.
A number of Members raised the point about the varying ability to raise resources to pay for the increasing costs of social care, and it is a very valid point. It is indisputable. It is a fact that some local authorities can raise more than others, but I am afraid that those Members have completely missed a key component of this settlement, which is that we have chosen to help councils to bridge that gap through equalisation. We are taking specific action to level the playing field between different councils in different circumstances. Through this settlement, we will redistribute £390 million of social care grant, recognising this exact point that some councils can raise more than others through locally raised tax.
We make this commitment of £240 million this year, on top of the £150 million that is continuing from last year, so that funding is distributed fairly to those who need it most. Liverpool is receiving an extra £10.4 million, Manchester £9.2 million and Sheffield £6.9 million. We are determined to level up every part of the country using all the tools we have, and this is a clear, concrete example of us doing just that. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) made this very point—she talked about the fact that it is more difficult to raise funds in Hull, but if she looks at the detail of the settlement, she will see that Hull is receiving £5.2 million through this equalisation mechanism to support its delivery of services and to ensure that people in her constituency receive access to first-class care.
A number of Members also raised points about council tax. Of course it is right that individual local authorities should make decisions on council tax levels themselves.
Adam Afriyie
Could I just ask the Minister to keep an open mind towards the idea of some local authorities being able to have another, higher council tax band—band I? This would be raised locally, which I hope local people would be comfortable with, rather than being reliant on central Government.
Luke Hall
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I will come on to talk about funding reform in a minute and perhaps try to address that point.
Importantly, we are giving councils the flexibility to defer rises using the adult social care precept to next year if they think that local circumstances dictate that that should be the case. That is of course a decision for them. Vitally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) pointed out, we are providing councils with up to £670 million of new funding to help them to reduce council tax bills for those who are least able to pay.
The referendum threshold that we have set strikes the right balance between allowing councils to raise income to deliver the services they need and making sure that residents have the final say over any excessive council tax rises. We trust councils to make the right decisions on council tax. I am afraid the Labour party cannot even persuade its own councils of that—they are constantly writing to the Secretary of State and me to ask for the caps to be removed completely. The long-standing policy of the Labour group on the LGA is to see the caps scrapped altogether.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) made the fair point, raised by councils with particularly seasonal economies during the consultation on the settlement, that they could have lost out because of the proposed structure of the sales, fees and charges scheme for the first quarter of next year, as it might not best account for the impacts of the pandemic on their income from April through to the end of June because usually they receive a large proportion of their annual income in that period, perhaps because of car parking and their having seasonal or coastal economies. We have listened to that point, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it and the many councils that raised it during the consultation. We will allow them to use their seasonal profile so that they are able to claim a larger proportion of their losses in the April to June quarter of this coming financial year and are therefore better protected from the income losses because of covid-19. That is one of the many ways in which we are trying to support councils as we ensure that they have the resources they need to deliver first-class funding services.
A number of Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North, for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), for Waveney and for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), raised the possibility of future funding reform. I can confirm to them that we on the Government Benches still believe that we need an updated and fairer method of distributing funds among local government. This year, of course, we have had to concentrate on supporting councils through the pandemic—we did not think it was right to use this time to engage in detailed conversation about local government finance reform—but I absolutely reassure them that we are committed to the principles of reform and to making sure that we put money where it is needed most. Once we get through this pandemic, we will return to the priorities for financial reform. I am happy to have conversations with councils such as Windsor and others and to listen to their concerns if they have tried, historically, to do the right thing by keeping taxes low and want to understand their options for the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield talked about the fact that he wants to make sure that in any funding reform, rural funding is received in areas that have a large urban population centre but rural fringes. He is right to raise that issue and I am happy to discuss it with him.
Several colleagues raised rural services, and they are right that we have increased the rural services delivery grant this year from £81 million to £85 million, which its highest ever level. We absolutely recognise that there are cost pressures—whether that is the need to drive long distances for refuse collection or to service more hubs across a larger geographic area—on the delivery of services in rural communities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) raised the individual circumstances that his constituents face. I am delighted that we are finding a way forward to work with his local authority to ensure that it can help to build the evidence case on the relative challenges facing the Island because of its separation from the mainland, with a particular focus on the impact of the local government finance system.
We are backing local government all the way with the necessary funding, both now and into the future, with a 4.6% rise in core spending power, £3 billion to help councils fight and recover from covid-19 and flexibility for councils to raise revenue, while also giving people the final say on excessive council tax increases. From our future high streets fund to our towns fund, the troubled families programme and increased funding to tackle domestic abuse and support rough sleepers and get them off the streets, we are backing councils, which are at the forefront of our shared recovery. I hope Members from all parties recognise the critical importance of passing the settlement and giving local government the support and confidence they need to plan for the brighter days ahead. I commend the settlement to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2021-22 (HC 1200), which was laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Referendums relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) Report 2021-22 (HC 1201), which was laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Resolved,
That the Referendums relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2021-22 (HC 1202), which was laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Eden Project North
Luke Hall Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) on securing a debate on this important issue. He has been absolutely tireless in championing Eden Project North and in his dedication and commitment to the ambition and scale of the proposals and the real benefit they can bring to local communities. As he said, this is the third debate he has held on this subject, so I truly thank him for making sure that Ministers are fully aware of the benefits this project could bring.
My hon. Friend mentions the positive health impacts that Eden Project North can bring. I know that the Morecambe motto of “Beauty surrounds, health abounds” is what Eden Project North is all about. Situated on Morecambe bay, Eden and its partners have already been undertaking work with educational establishments to encourage young people to become engaged in driving the net zero agenda, which is crucial, and improving the health and wellbeing of the community in Morecambe.
We are determined to see all parts of the country, including the north, prosper. Since the Eden Project opened in Cornwall in 2001, it has established itself as a major UK visitor attraction, with an estimated 1 million visitors every year. When Eden began to look for a second site for a potential development, my hon. Friend was quick to work with local partners to present Morecambe as a potential site for the development. I received letters of support from local educational establishments, the Lancashire enterprise partnership and local government partners, all of which reflect the passion they feel about this project’s economic and social benefits. The strong local partnership, including Lancashire enterprise partnership, Lancashire County Council, Lancaster University and Lancaster City Council, has now brought these plans to fruition. I know that my hon. Friend has been actively speaking to the Chancellor to highlight the aims of the project. That is in addition to the representations made by him, Lancaster University and Eden Project International to my Department and the Treasury for consideration at the spending review and next month’s Budget.
I encourage my hon. Friend and other partners at Eden Project North to continue their engagement with the wide range of Departments that have a clear interest in the wider economic, social and environmental benefits the project could bring—benefits that have been made clear following the business case development that he supported so strongly. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will be interested by the tourism potential and how we can get visitors back into venues like this after the pandemic. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is seeking ways to engage the public in sustainable technologies. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be interested in the coastal impacts, as well as the links to sustainable food production and, of course, officials in my Department will be making those links across Government.
I hope my hon. Friend will understand that I am unable to pre-empt the forthcoming Budget, but I pay tribute to him for the creative and dynamic leadership that he has shown in driving this proposal forward, making sure that it is at the forefront of Ministers’ minds. I know that he has been working across government, and I commend him along with the Eden Project partners for their dedication and hard work. I know that he will continue to convene the various Departments to support plans for future investment.
May I also take this opportunity to thank Professor Dame Sue Black, the pro-vice-chancellor for engagement at Lancaster University, who I know has had a pivotal role? The commitment of Sue Black and the university at large has been very strong right from the inception of this project back in 2015, when they helped to get it off the ground, providing support for all of the early concept work. The wider effort to promote the opportunities that this project would have for communities and businesses across the whole of Lancashire and the northern powerhouse has been truly remarkable. We have seen a strong and unified voice from the local community to make this project a reality, to boost visitors, to create jobs, and to preserve the best that the local area has to offer, and that was largely down to my hon. Friend and his efforts. The fact that the Eden Project has now identified Morecambe as a preferred potential site for the development of an Eden Project North has shown that those efforts are bearing fruit.
As my hon. Friend has outlined, the plan submitted to the Government as an outline business case last September show how Eden Project North would draw on the natural beauty of the area and the unique physical and environmental features of Morecambe Bay. It reimagines Morecambe as a seaside resort for the 21st century, building on the Government-supported £140 million Bay Gateway, with improved connectivity to the region. The Eden Project and the local educational establishments, including Lancaster University, Lancaster and Morecambe College and local schools, have been working together to develop a place-based curriculum and, as my hon. Friend has said, this project has the potential to give a real boost to the world-class tourist industry across the lakes and the dales, thanks to its infrastructure and location. This in turn has the potential to give a real boost to local colonies across Lancashire, Cumbria and Yorkshire.
In total, the proposals outlined projections of more than 950,000 visitors every year and more than 450 full- time jobs, with 1,000 more full-time jobs in the supply chain. They outlined the benefits of working with partners in the north, such as the N8 research partnership and Net Zero North, promoting clean and sustainable growth, and they outlined plans for the site to be an exemplar for the net zero green economy, food production and associated technologies.
My hon. Friend also raised the importance of ensuring that this Government deliver on investment in the north-west, but not just in large cities. He was right to point that out and I completely agree with him. It is vital that all parts of our country feel that they have a part in our shared recovery. He also asked for reassurance for the people of the north-west, particularly for those in Morecambe and Lancaster, that they will not be forgotten. Again, I can give him that commitment. Already we have been pleased to invest in Morecambe through the coastal communities fund, which has, since 2012, invested more than £228 million in 359 projects across the United Kingdom. We have provided funding to help establish 146 coastal community teams around the English coast, including the Morecambe Bay coastal community team, and financial support for the Winter Gardens at Morecambe. Through the £45 million Discover England fund, this Government have supported Lancashire and the north-west through the development of international marketing. That includes marketing Lancashire’s campaign to encourage visitors from the Nordic countries and investment in VisitBritain, Britain’s gateway partnership with Manchester Airport, to promote tourist destinations in the north-west, including on the Lancashire coast.
In order to achieve the aims of Eden Project North, my hon. Friend has highlighted the additional investment that is required. This amounts to £125 million, with a request of £70 million from the Government and £55 million contributions from the private sector. We will now consider those proposals carefully.
As my hon. Friend has highlighted, this Government place a priority on levelling up, building back better and, importantly, ensuring that those priorities are translated into real action for the north. I certainly agree that that is absolutely central to this Government’s mission. The pandemic has, undoubtedly, hit some places harder than others, and it is important that people across all parts of the country see, feel and experience the benefits as we look towards our shared recovery.
Now that we are outside the European Union, we have a new opportunity to broaden our horizons and better meet local needs through our new UK shared prosperity fund, which, of course, my hon. Friend highlighted. Freed from the constraints of the poorly targeted and inflexible EU structural funds, the shared prosperity fund will ramp up nationwide investment so that it matches if not exceeds EU receipts, tightly focused on our domestic priorities, developing local economies and breathing new life into our communities.
The Prime Minister has set out his blueprint for a green industrial revolution, through a 10-point plan to support green jobs and accelerate our plan for net zero, as part of this Government’s ambition to level up every region of the country. Delivering the spending review last November, the Chancellor set out how we will deliver stronger public services, honouring the promises that we made to the British people to provide for new hospitals, better schools and safer streets. He also announced that there would be investment in infrastructure and a £4 billion levelling-up fund to deliver the next generation of roads, bridges, railway stations and digital technology, as well as town centre regeneration and cultural amenities that could boost communities right across the country, including coastal communities such as Morecambe. This will play a significant role in our mission to level up and unite the country.
My hon. Friend asked for confirmation that Eden Project North is exactly the kind of project that this Government wish to support. Although I hope he will understand that I cannot make a decision today, I can give him that assurance. Proposals like Eden Project North are part and parcel of our core agenda to secure a vibrant and prosperous north and level up every part of our country. As my hon. Friend has said, this project has the potential to make an economic impact reaching far beyond the town itself, across the whole of Lancashire and, indeed, the northern powerhouse. It has the potential to create high-quality, new, green economy jobs, which are needed in the north.
The north has many areas of outstanding natural beauty, and this project could be an important part of the wider tourism offer, reimagining coastal communities for the 21st century, not just as an international visitor destination, but as a real asset in the region’s post-covid economic recovery. As my hon. Friend said, the fact that it is shovel-ready means that it has real potential to drive local recovery and advance the post-covid economic growth in the north. I look forward to continued conversations with my hon. Friend on this important proposal, and I thank him again for being such a champion of this proposal and his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Towns Fund
Luke Hall Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing what has been an important and passionate debate. We have heard colleagues on both sides of the House speak with passion and enthusiasm about the communities they represent. I am hugely grateful to colleagues on both sides of the House for their contributions, and I will try to address as many of the points raised as possible.
This debate has given us a chance to celebrate the towns fund, which is a cornerstone of our levelling-up agenda. It is helping to reshape towns and cities into places where businesses and communities can thrive. In 2019, we announced that 101 places had been invited to develop proposals for a town deal. The objective of these deals is to drive the regeneration of towns to deliver long-term economic and productivity growth. It has been genuinely inspiring to see town deal boards, communities and representatives of individual places work with local government to do just that.
These towns are spread right across the country. Many are birthplaces of industry that have been centres of commerce for centuries. Others are bastions of the maritime economy across the coastline. They are all different, but the thing they have in common is that they have been left behind as investment has focused on big cities for too long. Town deals are reversing that trend. They are about providing investment and confidence at a crucial time for these communities. We are investing in new uses for often derelict and unloved spaces. We are creating new cultural and economic assets that will benefit communities for years to come, and we are connecting people through better infrastructure, both digital and physical, such as the new walking and cycling routes planned at Torquay and the creation of a new digi-tech factory in Norwich.
It is unsurprising and disappointing to see the Labour party today trot out the same tired old lines attacking this fund, which is investing so much in towns that were neglected for years under the last Labour Government. We heard Labour Members say again today that this fund has been targeted at Conservative-held areas. They are wrong. The majority of towns selected are in either Labour or Opposition-held local authority areas. Those councils have worked with us co-operatively, passionately trying to put together their bids, to deliver investment in their communities, but the Labour party in Westminster is determined to reject the support for those communities and attack these local regeneration projects in towns and cities that they neglected for years and years.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I am afraid he is completely wrong. Sixty out of 61 towns selected by Ministers were in Conservative-held or Conservative target seats. Barnsley, which I represent, has had the biggest cuts in the country. How could we possibly not have been considered for the fund?
Luke Hall
I ask the hon. Lady to check the facts. The majority of these town deals are in Opposition-held council areas.
I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) open her speech by saying that no Labour MP will oppose more funding for local government, because she will have the opportunity shortly to vote for a local government finance settlement that will increase councils’ core spending power by 4.5%—a real-terms increase.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about funding for Northern Ireland and how the Department for International Trade’s high potential opportunities programme is supporting investment across the UK. I can confirm that DIT announced in October the second round of successful bids, with 19 new projects selected, and it is currently working with Invest Northern Ireland to explore even more investment opportunities. I am sure that colleagues in the Department for International Trade will be happy to pick that up with him.
In the face of this relentless negativity from the Labour party, in October last year we announced the first seven towns to have gone through the assessment process and have their plans approved. Among them was Peterborough. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough worked closely with the town deal board and helped to develop the ambitious investment plan. I am delighted that it was offered £22.9 million in October. That funding will help to deliver a new enterprise hub to support entrepreneurs and inward investment. It will support healthy lifestyles by making it easier to walk and cycle, and it will further Peterborough’s ambitions for low-carbon living. I thank my hon. Friend and his town board for all their support and help in making this happen.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) for his remarks this afternoon. It is in large part down to his hard work, alongside that of the town deal board, that Blackpool will receive £39.5 million. This substantial investment reflects the exceptional nature of Blackpool’s proposals and the national significance of what they are planning. We think investing in this iconic British seaside resort has benefits that will reach way beyond the boundaries of the town. The plans include making Blackpool’s famous illuminations even more impressive so that they can attract visitors right around the year and have a huge impact on tourism in the town.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) raised his ambitions for the Goole to Leeds rail link and asked whether we could retain some flexibility in delivering the fund to support places requesting revenue funding as part of the deal. I would say to him that the towns fund criteria are broadly drawn, and intentionally so, to ensure that we give towns as much flexibility as possible to determine their own priorities. It is right that the towns fund is principally about capital investments, but we recognise that in some towns there might be a particular need for an amount of revenue funding, perhaps to support the implementation of a capital project, so we absolutely agree with that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) talked passionately about his town investment plan, which we received in late October last year. I can assure him that the assessment process is under way and my officials are looking at the details of the plan. I agree with him that it provides the opportunity for Harlow to determine its own future, and I will certainly join him in thanking the Harlow growth board, the chief executive of the council and all the officers who have worked on the bid.
Alongside town deals, we are also investing directly in the high streets that are at the heart of so many of our communities. Too many high streets have seen considerable decline in the past decades, and those challenges have been exacerbated over the last year by covid-19. That is why, on Boxing day, we announced the winners of our future high streets competition, committing up to £830 million to 72 places in England and giving a major boost to local high streets and the many jobs and livelihoods that depend on them.
That investment includes over £11 million for Blyth, which was raised in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy). This will deliver important new cultural and educational facilities and bring vibrancy to the town centre. The investment also includes nearly £18 million for Worcester city centre, which will benefit from the renovation of the popular theatre and the Corn Exchange, and £25 million for Swindon to modernise its town centre. Some £107 million from the future high streets fund has also been allocated to support the regeneration of heritage high streets, and we are doing everything possible to help high streets to survive, adapt and thrive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough also talked about the need to do more and go further, and he was right to do so, because there is of course more investment to come. At the spending review, we announced the levelling up fund, worth £4 billion, and that will bring infrastructure investment—
Antony Higginbotham
Burnley is looking forward not only to the levelling up fund but to the competitive round of the towns fund. May I ask my hon. Friend to look sympathetically at Burnley’s bid when that scheme opens, because we have such ambitious plans not only for Burnley town centre but for Padiham, too?
Luke Hall
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his constituency and I know he will champion any bids that come in, as he is absolutely right to do. I am of course always happy to speak to him about his representations.
The levelling-up fund will be open to all local areas and allocated competitively. We will prioritise bids that drive growth and regeneration in the places that need it most—those places that face particular local challenges in upgrading their infrastructure and those that have received less Government investment in recent years. We are also developing the UK shared prosperity fund, which will succeed EU structural funds and provide vital investment in local economies, free of the bureaucracy that thwarted European funding. The new fund will allow us to target funding better and support those who are most in need. The towns fund, the levelling-up fund and the UKSPF will be vital tools for levelling up in our country.
I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. The Government are levelling up: we want everybody, wherever they live, to benefit from increased growth and prosperity, and the towns fund is helping us to achieve that. We are investing in the places that need it most and putting local communities in charge of the decisions that affect them. The towns fund marks just the start of that. There is, of course, much more investment to come and much more to do through the levelling-up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund. We want to see more towns such as Barrow, Torquay, Blackpool and Mansfield benefit so that everybody, wherever they live in our great country, can be part of a brighter and more prosperous future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Towns Fund.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As the Adjournment debate is entirely physical, I thank the technicians and broadcasting unit for all their help in facilitating the work of Parliament this week. In order for Members to leave safely and to allow the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes, we will suspend for a brief moment before the Adjournment debate.