Welfare

Michael Payne Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, not least because it gives this House an opportunity to remind the Conservative party of a rather inconvenient truth. The welfare crisis facing our country did not begin on 4 July 2024; it was inherited on that day from a Conservative party that had 14 years to fix our welfare system, tackle economic inactivity, improve employment opportunities for disabled people and build a health service capable of getting people back into work. What did the Conservatives leave behind? They left millions of people economically inactive because of long-term sickness; a welfare system that too often wrote people off, rather than helping them back into employment; NHS waiting lists at record levels; and a generation of young people facing barriers to opportunity.

The welfare bill rose by £33 billion in the final year in which the Leader of the Opposition was in the Cabinet, and there was an increase of a quarter of a million young people not in education, employment or training in the final three years of the Conservative Government. That is not a record to boast about, but a record to apologise for, yet here we are, listening to Conservative Members—the very few who are present for this Opposition day debate—lecturing this Labour Government about the very problems that they created. They have apparently now discovered the answer to those problems: £36 billion of welfare cuts, and all during a cost of living crisis.

The ink is barely dry on the Conservatives’ proposals, and already the highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies has raised serious questions about the credibility of their numbers—serious questions, by the way, that the shadow Secretary of State did nothing to address in her opening remarks. The Conservatives claim that they can save £14 billion by restricting health-related benefits for people with certain mental health conditions and with back and joint problems, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies points out that disability benefits are assessed according to the impact of a person’s condition, not simply the name of their diagnosis. The IFS also highlights that two thirds of personal independence payment recipients with a mental health diagnosis also have a physical health diagnosis.

I ask Conservative Members a very simple question: how exactly will they distinguish between somebody who is genuinely unable to work and somebody whose illness they have decided is not serious enough? Will it be a Conservative politician making that judgment, a Treasury spreadsheet, perhaps, or an arbitrary list of conditions drawn up to make their sums add up? Illness does not become less debilitating simply because a politician decides it is too expensive, nor does disability disappear because the Treasury wants to save money.

Then there is the Conservatives’ proposal to save £9.5 billion by restricting benefits for foreign nationals. Again, the IFS questions the certainty of these savings, pointing to the possibility that eligible individuals will seek to obtain British citizenship. There is a further problem with their figures, because the Department does not routinely publish a breakdown of benefit expenditure by nationality.

The Opposition need to explain precisely how they have calculated that £9.5 billion figure, what assumptions they have made about eligibility and future behaviour, and how much of that money they genuinely expect to save. Identifying a group of people and attaching a multibillion-pound saving to them is not the same as demonstrating that the saving can actually be delivered. A credible fiscal proposal needs to account for the people who acquire citizenship, those whose immigration status changes, and those who would remain eligible for support under existing rules. The IFS has already raised questions about the assumptions underpinning the Conservatives’ figures, so before Conservative Members start banking £9.5 billion in savings, perhaps they could explain how they intend to achieve them. A headline figure is not a costed policy, and a projected saving is not a saving until they can demonstrate where it will actually come from.

Perhaps the most extraordinary criticism of this approach comes from within the Conservative party. We have been here before: in 2016, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—I notified him that I would mention him in this debate—resigned from David Cameron’s Cabinet over its approach to welfare cuts. He warned that the reductions in welfare for working people had “gone too far”, and criticised an approach to balancing the books that placed an unfair burden on the poor and vulnerable. These are the words not of a Labour politician, but of the man who designed the Conservative welfare programme and championed universal credit. I seriously think that Conservative Members should reflect on that. If even the architect of their own welfare reforms when they were last in government recognised that there was a point at which welfare cuts went too far, what exactly makes them think that another £36 billion of ill-thought-through cuts is the answer now?

I have to say that the use of the phrase “foreign nationals” intrigues me. Let me be clear: foreign nationals, in the main, are not entitled to benefits. They have no recourse to public funds. A look under the bonnet exposes the groups of people the Conservatives propose taking support from: 50,000 people who came here on humanitarian visas—half of whom, by the way, are in work. And who is entitled to a humanitarian visa? Ukrainian refugees, people who came here because they worked alongside our troops in Afghanistan, and British national overseas visa holders, particularly those from Hong Kong who are living in our constituencies.

There used to be consensus in this place that supporting the people I have just listed was virtuous, and that our commitment to our allies was unshakeable. Do the Opposition really think that the British public support cutting support for Ukrainian refugees, former soldiers and translators who worked with us in Afghanistan, and those fleeing oppression in Hong Kong? That is why they rely on such broad and politically convenient labels as “foreign nationals.” Examine the actual groups of people who would be affected, and the Conservatives’ proposals become much harder for them to defend. That is precisely why we should look beyond the headline figures and examine who would pay the price of these cuts. The next category the Conservatives talk about is refugees—people who came to this country fleeing war, persecution and famine; people who were vetted extensively and awarded refugee status by our country. The Opposition propose cutting off their access to benefits entirely. That is who they are referring to.

[Helen Whately]

What the hon. Member is saying about our policies is not correct.

[Michael Payne]

It would be really interesting to hear why it is not correct, because I have read the proposals referred to in the speech in detail. It is absolutely clear that that is who the Opposition are referring to when they use the phrase “foreign nationals”. If they want to bank made-up savings on the backs of refugees, they should come out and say so.

The next category is people with indefinite or limited leave to remain; the shadow Secretary of State mentioned them in her speech. As mentioned earlier, many of these people will simply seek British citizenship, meaning the Opposition’s claimed savings are illusory at best. It is also worth pointing out that 110,000 of these people are in work, so their benefits will likely be lower than the Opposition’s figures imply. That fact also completely blows a hole in their argument that contribution should be the basis of our welfare system. Those people contribute. They are our care workers, our nurses, and our NHS staff.

This is where the Conservatives’ argument becomes particularly difficult to understand. They tell us that welfare should reward contribution, and that people who work hard, pay taxes and contribute to our country should be recognised, yet they propose restrictions that could penalise people who are already doing precisely that. They cannot stand at the Dispatch Box championing contribution on Monday, and then propose taking away support from the people who contribute on Tuesday. Surely the test of a welfare system is not simply where somebody was born, but whether the rules are fair, whether a person is contributing where they can, and whether they receive the support to which they are entitled.

Finally, the remaining categories are “other” and “no immigration status recorded”. According to the Department’s spreadsheets, to which the Opposition have linked in their report, the “other” category includes “individuals no longer receiving UC payments”, so any savings attributed to that category are highly questionable. As for the “no immigration status recorded” category, there is as much chance that these are British nationals as not.

So what does that all mean for the £9.5 billion identified in savings? After accounting for the fact that the figure is likely to be inaccurate, accounting for those who seek British citizenship and accounting for the fact that the final two categories either contain no one claiming benefits or may not even contain foreign nationals, any remaining savings come from cuts to support for refugees, Ukrainians we have found homes for, Afghan interpreters we have an obligation to, and care workers, nurses and NHS staff we rely on.

Let us be clear about what we have established: the Conservatives have announced £9.5 billion in savings, but their own assumptions need rigorous scrutiny. Some of the people affected are refugees, some have supported our armed forces, and some are already working in our public services. Some may not even fall within the category that the Conservatives claim to be targeting. This is a very long way from the Conservative party of old, which used to be credible when delivering savings.

Let me turn to their proposal to move disabled people from the personal independence payment on to attendance allowance when they hit pension age. My word—a disabled person who worked their entire life, having assiduously saved, will finally reach the age at which they can retire, only to find that the Conservative party has ripped their personal independence payment away. I wonder how many Conservative Members have explained that proposal to the older disabled people in their constituencies. This is the problem with the Conservative welfare policy. The savings are announced in billions, but, as the Minister said earlier, the consequences are felt in individuals and families. The nasty party is truly back.

Let me be clear and unequivocal. I believe in welfare reform. I believe that those who can work should be supported and expected to work. I believe that taxpayers deserve a system that is fair, sustainable and protects public money, and I believe that fraud and abuse should be tackled robustly. Ministers should be commended for the work that they are already doing in that regard.

I also believe something equally important—that people who are genuinely sick, disabled or unable to work deserve dignity, security and compassion. Those principles are not contradictory; they are the foundations of a decent welfare state built by William Beveridge and people whose shoulders we in this House sit on. They are precisely why I support the approach of this Labour Government under the leadership of this Prime Minister. Rather than simply announcing make-believe cuts and hoping for the best, this Government are reforming the incentives within universal credit and investing £3.5 billion in employment support by the end of the decade.

We are providing personalised help to people who have too often been abandoned by the system. We are increasing the standard universal credit allowance above inflation while protecting existing recipients of the health element and those with the most severe lifelong conditions. We are supporting people into employment, not simply pushing them into poverty, and we are recognising that welfare reform cannot be separated from fixing the NHS, improving mental health services, investing in skills and creating decent jobs.

In Gedling, I meet constituents who want nothing more than the opportunity to work, contribute and build better lives for themselves and their families. They include people living with disabilities who face enormous barriers to employment, people with long-term health conditions who desperately want treatment so that they can return to the jobs that they love, and parents who work hard, pay their taxes and still struggle to make ends meet. They do not need another round of political finger-pointing or simplistic slogans like those we heard today from the shadow Secretary of State. They need a Government prepared to do the difficult work of reform. That is what this Labour Government are doing.

The Conservatives had 14 years to build a welfare system that works. Instead, they left behind a system that too often trapped people in inactivity, failed to provide the support that they needed and left taxpayers facing an increasingly unsustainable bill, as the Minister set out earlier. Now, from the comfort of opposition, out of office, they have produced a plan built around £36 billion of cuts, with serious unanswered questions about whether their figures add up.

Perhaps the most revealing part is that even their own former Work and Pensions Secretary warned nearly a decade ago that welfare cuts had gone too far. The lesson seems to be one that the Conservatives have chosen to forget. Welfare reform is not simply about how much money can be taken out of the system or somebody else’s pockets. It is about whether we can help people into work, protect those who cannot work and build a system that is sustainable for the long term.

They failed to fix the system when they had the power to do so. Now they want the country to believe that they have all the answers. Well, the British public have seen the Conservatives’ record, and this Labour Government will take absolutely no lectures from the architects of the very crisis that Ministers are now clearing up.

We will vote for welfare reform. We will protect those who need protecting. We will support those who can work into good, secure employment, and we will build a welfare state that is fair to taxpayers, compassionate to those in need and worthy of the country that we all aspire to be. That is the Labour difference, and it is one I am proud to defend.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Local Government Reorganisation

Michael Payne Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

If we get this right, it can unlock benefits through local government reform, and whether in education, transport, local services, or social care, I absolutely believe it can unlock such reform. I am a big champion of local government. I am a creature of it; I spent a long time there, and represented members who work in local authorities, so I want to get this right. The hon. Member is correct to pull me up on this and say that people are frustrated. I understand that, but I want to ensure, in good conscience, that I have all the information available on working with local areas to get this right.

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

Back in July I called in this place for a review of the decision about Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, so I hugely welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of the pause and review. The Secretary of State is a long-standing friend of mine, and whatever noise she receives today, she should know that listening and pausing is a sign of strength, not of weakness. Will she assure me that during the review, the views of local residents in Gedling and of local councillors, and indeed my views as the Member of Parliament, will be properly heard, taken seriously, and genuinely reflected on, whatever decision is ultimately made?

[Angela Rayner]

Absolutely, and I commend my hon. Friend for his years of service to local government. I had the privilege and honour to be reappointed as Secretary of State, and my No. 1 priority is to get it right for hon. Members, including those from different political parties who have invested so much into local government because they believe that it will unlock potential and support for their constituents. I want to ensure that I have taken the time to get this right, and that is why I have made the decision.

Local Government Reorganisation

Michael Payne Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I come to Back Benchers, let me say that, as Members will be aware, a lot of you wish to get in. It would be very helpful if questions were succinct.

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State and I have known each other a long time—we served in local government together—and he knows that I am as passionate as he is about bringing power back closer to people, but I have to say to him, in all honesty, that the decision to split my home community of Gedling borough in half and force communities in Gedling into an expanded new Nottingham city council area against their will is bad for my constituents and bad policymaking. I have to tell the Secretary of State that this is a decision that I cannot and will not support.

Will the Secretary of State tell me what on earth makes sense about creating two councils for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, when official figures show that from day one, one of them will be £147 million better off than the other? Will he explain to my constituents why the Government have backed the option that did not adhere to the strict criteria set out by the Government at the start of this process? Finally—thank you for your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker—given his announcement that he will hold off on making a decision on Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, will he re-think on Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, and hold off on making a decision until an agreement can be made in my part of the world?

[Steve Reed]

First of all, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way he always champions and represents the views and interests of his constituents. We have indeed known each other for a very long time, and I always appreciate his views, even when we disagree. I will, of course, be happy to ensure that he has a meeting with me or a relevant Minister to discuss his concerns, but the decision we have taken on Nottingham and Nottinghamshire was made because it offers the strongest economic geography, and allows economic growth to happen at pace. That will benefit everyone living in Nottinghamshire. We really must take decisions that will tackle the wide economic divides that are pulling this country apart. Everyone everywhere in this country deserves the chance to get on, and that means bringing investment and good jobs to every single part of this country. This is what this proposal is intended to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but he has put his point on the record. I am sure the Secretary of State will have heard his comments, and if a correction is needed, he will make it.

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Oliver Ryan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Payne]

—Michael Payne.

I simply seek to correct the record. I should have, when I made a contribution in the statement, drawn attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Gedling borough councillor. I seek through this point of order to correct the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Perhaps I also need to correct the record—it has been a long summer already.

I thank the hon. Member for correcting the record in that way as it did pertain to this particular statement.

Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands

Michael Payne Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Naish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have already mentioned the need for greater devolution. Of course, in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire we are seeing the dividends of that under Claire Ward, but I appreciate that Leicestershire still has some way to go to get the equivalent devolution. I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s call.

Before I share the recommendations of the APPG inquiry, I should say that I hope the Minister recognises that the inquiry’s very existence shows that we are serious about growth as a region. What is more, over the past 25 years we have delivered 35,000 more homes than our counterparts in the west midlands, even though the west midlands has a population that is about 20% larger. We are clearly taking our growth responsibilities seriously locally, yet despite that housing growth, transport spend per head in the region has fallen to just 54% of the UK average. That is not just slightly below, but 54% of the average—the lowest level of any UK region or nation. Rail funding per head is just over 40% of the UK average, and only around a third of the level seen in the west midlands.

The gaps have not emerged overnight: they are the product of choices over many years, under Governments of different colours, and they have had real consequences, shaping whether businesses grow, whether local labour markets function properly and whether people—my constituents—can access high-quality job opportunities. In short, inadequate investment has suppressed our region’s true potential. That is why the APPG inquiry was conducted. I place on the record my thanks to everyone who contributed to it. I believe its conclusions were fair and grounded, and we will make sure that the Minister receives a copy of the report.

The inquiry came to five primary conclusions. First, unsurprisingly, it suggested that the Government need actively to rebalance public investment, especially in transport, so that it better reflects housing and employment growth potential and delivery. I wholeheartedly welcome the Treasury’s Green Book being updated, but that in itself will not correct historical imbalances that must be addressed if we want places like the east midlands to maximise their potential. There is a genuine need for overcorrection.

Secondly, the APPG inquiry recommended that we pilot enhanced local employment hubs across the east midlands, devolving skills, careers and business support in a way that genuinely reflects local labour markets. One of the strongest themes in the evidence received by the inquiry was frustration with the fragmentation of the skills system. There are too many pots of money, too many separate agencies, too much inconsistency and too little flexibility, all of which hamper growth and productivity.

Thirdly, the inquiry recommended that we should expand women’s health hubs across the region, given the relatively poor life expectancy of women in too many parts of the east midlands. All genders and all age groups must contribute to closing the east midlands growth and productivity gaps, and targeted interventions will be required to realise that.

Fourthly, the inquiry recommended that the east midlands should play a central role in the country’s net zero transition, given its historical role powering millions of homes and businesses across the UK. Linked to that was the call made by more than 30 MPs to finally electrify the midland main line to Sheffield, which has sadly become a byword in our region for slow, uneven and stop-start infrastructure investment into a really important part of the country.

Fifthly, the inquiry suggested that the Government should reform how flood resilience funding is targeted so that it reflects social need and repeated risk, rather than underlying land values. Flooding can sometimes seem like a subject separate from growth and productivity, but in the east midlands, which has the greatest share of properties at risk of flooding from rivers or the sea of any English region, it is very much part of the same conversation. If we want growth, if we want to boost investor confidence, and if we want housing delivery and economic resilience, flood adaptation and mitigation are not optional extras. They must be seen as enablers for economic growth as well as for protecting food and energy security, which our region provides in abundance, especially in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire.

Together, the recommendations show that the east midlands is not looking for a silver bullet. Indeed, there is not one—although I will briefly put on the record the need for junction 24 of the M1 to be upgraded as a strategic priority for our road network.

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Does he agree that one way to redress the historical imbalance in transport spending is for a green light to be given to the fourth Trent crossing, which would link my constituency to his beautiful constituency of Rushcliffe? It would unlock economic growth and bring forward new jobs, crucially it would help with emergency planning in one of the biggest cities in the country, and it would be great for our region.

[James Naish]

On Friday, I was part of a conversation about the potential impact of the Trent sports quarter on Rushcliffe, and Nottingham Forest’s expanded City Ground proposal. The fact that we have only three crossings across the Trent came up several times, so I absolutely support my hon. Friend in that call for a fourth crossing.

Rather than a silver bullet, the east midlands needs a serious, joined-up approach to growth because infrastructure, skills, health, clean energy and climate resilience—the five points that I just raised—are not separate conversations. They all need serious consideration to determine whether our region can fulfil its potential in powering the national economy.

Let me be clear: the east midlands does not lack growth prospects. On the contrary, it is full of them—I know colleagues will make the case for their local areas. The question is whether our regional and national policy frameworks are agile enough and, more pertinently, fair enough to support those growth prospects. I do not believe they are. That is why we are here on our region’s behalf once again to call for a fairer settlement and a serious attempt to remove the structural blockers that are holding us back. We need the Government, who were overwhelmingly backed by voters across the region, to look at how poorly the east midlands is currently treated and to finally act to address that.

I hope the Minister will address a few points directly. First, does she accept that the east midlands has for too long received a persistently unfair share of transport and infrastructure investment? Secondly, does she accept that that acts as a material drag on our local economy? Thirdly, will she confirm what steps the Government are taking to ensure that investment decisions are better aligned with the scale of housing and employment growth that is already being delivered in our region? Fourthly, is she willing to take seriously, along with other Departments, the APPG’s recommendations on the need for tailored local employment hubs and women’s health hubs?

Finally, will the Minister give the House some reassurances that the east midlands will not be told once again that its time will come? Too many people in my constituency of Rushcliffe, and across our region, have heard that before, and have sadly formed the view that the east midlands is important, but not important enough—that it is valued in theory, but not in practice. I refuse to accept that, and I am sure that many colleagues present refuse to accept it as well.

The east midlands is a region of makers, exporters, innovators and workers. We are home to strategic industries, nationally significant infrastructure and major universities. We have delivered homes, created jobs, powered the country for generations and shown ambition. What we need now is for the Government to match our potential and ambition with commitment and action.

I will repeat the four things I mentioned earlier. The Government must commit, first, to back our region across all Whitehall Departments, working together; secondly, to sustained levels of public investment to address the historical inadequacies I have talked about; thirdly, to further devolving and empowering local communities across our region, giving them more powers; and fourthly, to creating a coherent set of tailored policy interventions, which will turn the page on 40 years of perceived managed decline. These four things cannot come a day too soon for the east midlands. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions, followed by the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing the debate, and welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition about what is not only an important region but a great one, as he put it.

As we have heard, the east midlands is home to world-leading manufacturers, a thriving logistics sector, pioneering aerospace firms and hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses. There is huge potential, as every Member who has spoken has attested to. These businesses, workers and entrepreneurs deserve a Government who are pursuing policies to help them to realise that potential and drive growth in the area. Concerningly, however, growth has been consistently downgraded; we need only look at the spring forecasts a couple of weeks ago to see that growth has been once again downgraded for the coming year, and that is before any impact is felt from the operations happening in the middle east.

Today we have heard lots of ideas from Members across the parties on how to realise growth in the east midlands. That can be achieved, but will require the Government to change course. The region has many internationally renowned businesses. Members have rightly spoken proudly about Rolls-Royce, Toyota, Alstom and other businesses. The East Midlands Hydrogen zone is positioning the region at the forefront of clean energy transitions, and of course there is a strong university sector. It is a region with key strengths, and the last Government recognised that. Several Members referred to the East Midlands freeport, which was given the green light in 2023. The only inland freeport in England was backed by Government seed funding at the time and underpinned a projected 28,000 jobs coming to the area.

If we look at the wider picture, the current Government have talked a lot about economic growth, but sadly growth has underperformed. As the Liberal Democrat spokesman—the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling)—said, we cannot ignore the impact of the higher national insurance charges. We cannot ignore the higher business rates that many companies are about to be hit with, as well as higher wage and other costs. The Bank of England has pointed out the impact that these have had.

[Michael Payne]

Does the shadow Minister also regret the fact that between 2010-11 and 2019-20 local authority spending in the east midlands dropped by 22.6%, on the previous Government’s watch?

Local Government Reorganisation

Michael Payne Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The fair funding review that we have announced is intended to ensure that, unlike under the previous Government, funding follows need. We took on board the new indicators on deprivation, and funding is now much more closely aligned with them. That is as it should be, because those are the areas that need extra funding. The hon. Lady will find that rurality is still taken into account in funding for social care, and given the distance that people may need to travel, it is important that such services remain available to them.

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s Department issued very clear guidance on 6 February last year, which said that

“we expect local leaders to engage their Members of Parliament, and to ensure there is wide engagement with local partners and stakeholders, residents, workforce and their representatives, and businesses on a proposal.”

My constituents are concerned that the proposal by Nottingham city council for reorganisation in Nottinghamshire fails to meet that test. Can the Secretary of State give me and my constituents in Gedling an assurance that his Department will firmly apply the guidance that he set on 6 February 2025?

[Steve Reed]

Yes, we will apply that guidance. Of course, we will listen to all representations about proposals for reorganisation, including my hon. Friend’s proposals for Nottinghamshire.

East Midlands: Local Authorities and Economic Growth

Michael Payne Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this evening’s debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being here to respond to the debate. As my constituency neighbour, I know he is as passionate about Nottingham, Nottinghamshire and the east midlands as I am. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding my unpaid membership of two local authorities.

Ahead of important local elections across the east midlands, I am grateful to have this opportunity to lay out the importance of councils to our economy. Growth is this Government’s No. 1 priority. It will pay for our local services, our social security, from state pensions to universal credit, and our national defence. The Government are right to focus on growth. Under the last Government, we suffered a lost decade. Growth, income and opportunity were flat, and the east midlands suffered as a result. The gap between where we should have been on growth and where we are represents billions of pounds that could have been spent on essential public services.

The east midlands has been at the forefront of that decline, as a result of Conservative mismanagement. Our economy in the east midlands used to be strong, but deindustrialisation, a lack of investment and regional disparities in public spending have left us lagging behind other parts of the United Kingdom. The midlands was the industrial heartland of this nation. We have so much potential. We are the region that is most connected to the entire UK, with a distinctive mix of engineering, manufacturing, construction and sciences, but we now struggle to find the jobs, transport and opportunity that we had before. A lot of that comes from lack of investment, including a lack of investment in our local councils.

The east midlands receives the lowest level of spending per person across the United Kingdom. We receive the lowest level of capital spending and total spending. The facts speak for themselves: over the past 14 years, the east midlands was levelled down by the Conservative party. That inequity leaves our local government, our public services and our infrastructure investment billions of pounds short.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate and he is right to highlight the issues, but the growth commission set up by the mayor is key to investment and the east midlands must make the most of the freeport it enjoys, which the Chancellor announced just a few weeks ago. That gives hope and vision for the future, and it is important to underline those possibilities. With great respect to the Conservatives, they promised us a freeport in Northern Ireland but they failed to deliver it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be great if the current Government would designate a freeport for Northern Ireland? That is essential. As is shown in the east midlands, Government support is an essential component for economic growth that sows into the wealth of the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Payne]

The hon. Gentleman is right to pay testament to the Chancellor and the Labour Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, for unlocking nearly £1 billion in growth and investment from the freeport at East Midlands airport. He knows Northern Ireland politics far better than I do, but I think my hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench will have been listening closely to his powerful argument on behalf of his constituents. I wish him well with his campaign.

Under the previous Conservative Government, we heard a lot of talk about levelling up, but certain local areas were favoured over others, while the rest of us wondered when it would be our turn at the table. I welcome this Labour Government’s change to that approach: less selective, no longer pitting area against area, and with a genuine desire to grow every part of the United Kingdom. Our Labour mayor, Claire Ward, has started working with the Government to find areas to grow the local economy. In the past year, she secured £200 million of transport investment that will grow our economy by allowing people to get about our region more easily; she secured £160 million for the east midlands investment zone, to attract new investment and create jobs; and she secured the brownfield housing fund, which will build 1,400 new homes. However, she is held back by the previous Government’s piecemeal approach to devolution.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I was recently in discussion with the managing director of a local small and medium-sized enterprise based on Merlin Way in Ilkeston in my constituency. He expressed great frustration at the barriers to growth that his firm experiences with planning, high building costs and uncertainty. Does my hon. Friend agree that devolution via empowered regional mayors represents the solution to those problems and a route to prosperity through growth?

[Michael Payne]

My hon. Friend is a good friend and a powerful advocate for his constituents. He is right that devolution in the east midlands needs to go further and faster, because areas such as Greater Manchester and the west midlands are much further ahead on their journey. Giving the East Midlands mayoral authority trailblazer status would see a turbocharged approach to skills, investment and growth in our area. Giving Mayor Claire Ward an integrated funding settlement across local growth, place, transport, skills, housing and more to work with local authorities such as mine in Gedling would really get our economy moving. That approach has been proven elsewhere.

We should not need to wait any longer in the east midlands for power over our own future, but mayors and combined authorities are only one part of local government across the east midlands. Borough, county and unitary councils often do the overlooked, often-ignored hard yards that provide growth in our communities. The Government recognise that to grow the economy, they must work hand in hand with business, but they also have to work hand in hand with local government. Public services are essential for social and economic security. Vital services such as education, housing, healthcare and transport contribute to the economic productivity of the region, and local authorities provide the best investment in local areas.

The Local Government Association found that councils in the east midlands contribute directly to 20% of local GDP through projects that promote business growth, job creation and regional investment. Local authorities are key enablers for the Government’s promises around transport, housing, skills and growth. The Government are rightly reforming the planning system to allow council planners to do their job, but every single one of the 1.5 million houses built under this Government will have been approved by a council planner. Local authority workers will be instrumental in the roll-out of free breakfast clubs across schools. We have seen the impact on growth and economic confidence if simple things such as our bin collections go wrong.

Our local government workers keep our communities and this country ticking. They are all heroes. My plea to the Government is simple: do not ignore local government, local government finances or local government staff, and continue to invest in those areas.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Member for what he is saying. The east midlands are a vital region of our country, but I caution him slightly about wanting a regional mayor to take power upwards. In Greater London, our experience is that power in local authorities is actually better. We want local money spent on local people’s priorities. With a regional mayor, the hon. Gentleman may find that the money is not spent on the priorities he hopes for, but that it goes up to one bureaucracy and the priorities of local people are often ignored. That is our experience in the London borough of Havering.

[Michael Payne]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing his view with me, but I must say that it is not a view we share in the east midlands. We have a partnership approach with our Labour Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, working with brilliant local Labour councils. I would have a slight degree of sympathy for him if he had not been coming here for the last 14 years and voting for cuts to local councils in the east midlands, taking 60p out of every £1 of their budgets.

Ultimately, where we have good, soundly managed local authorities, with boundaries that local people understand and prefer, such as in my borough of Gedling, do we really want local authority staff to be focused on a multi-year reorganisation process, or do we want them to be getting on with the job and growing their local economies? The Government have rightly pointed out that certainty is essential to economic growth, so may I be so bold as to suggest that certainty in local government—whether it is a planner knowing that they have a job in the future or a local authority knowing that it will exist in two years’ time—is also essential? My constituents have told me loud and clear that they do not want to see a change to their local council. It is important to me that my constituents’ voices are heard and listened to in this Chamber, including in this debate. I share their pride in having a well-run local council in Gedling borough council, with low council tax, low levels of debt and decent, delivered public services, and I will argue for that to the hilt.

It would be remiss of me to speak in this debate without highlighting some local examples of how things can go terribly wrong, and how they affect my constituents. Conservative-controlled Nottinghamshire county council might be the worst council in the country for road repairs. Over 25% of Nottinghamshire’s minor roads required repairs last year, yet Nottinghamshire county council only got around to repairing 2.3% of them. Out of every 10 potholes, Conservatives in Nottinghamshire managed to fix less than one. If we need drivers for any future moon landing, the residents of Nottinghamshire may well volunteer to be first; with the number of craters that we have to dodge on our local roads just to get about our daily lives, everyone in Nottinghamshire is an expert in dodging potholes. Navigating the pothole-ridden roads of Nottinghamshire has gone beyond a joke. It is a daily misery for the people of Gedling, who I serve, but it also impacts our economy.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on his powerful comments about the potholes in Nottinghamshire, but according to the RAC, the worst area for potholes is Conservative-run Derbyshire. Does he agree that it is about time that we got councils that will work with the Government to ensure we have the roads that people need—roads that are not full of potholes?

[Michael Payne]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful argument on behalf of her Derby North constituents. Having a Conservative-run county council is something we have in common, and in less than a month’s time, the residents of our respective constituencies will have a chance to turn the page on that failure and elect Labour councils that will turn a corner.

Potholes on roads impact our economy, because if a trader’s vehicle hits a pothole and needs to be in the repair shop for a week, that is a week in which that trader is not doing business. Their business suffers, their family suffer, and our national economy suffers too. One of my constituents, a new mother, was crossing the road with her newborn daughter in a pram when that pram snagged on a pothole, causing the mother to trip over, and her newborn baby almost ended up in the middle of a busy road. She wrote to me that people slammed on their brakes and jumped out of their cars to check whether her baby had been badly hurt. The mother and the baby had to spend the afternoon at the hospital that day, when they should have been shopping and meeting friends on the local high street. Even without the use of a car, potholes are hurting growth and, at times, physically hurting our constituents. If a parent hits a pothole in their own vehicle and suffers hundreds of pounds of damage, that is money that is not being spent in our local shops or on our local high streets.

Despite record investment by this Labour Government in fixing potholes—£1.6 billion—the Conservatives on Nottinghamshire county council cannot get a grip, and not just on potholes. The county council is also failing to issue education, health and care plans on time, with nearly 1,000 requests for an EHC plan issued late between January and October. Compared with the previous year, 6% fewer annual reviews of EHC plans were conducted. The impact of Conservative-led Nottinghamshire county council failing to deliver on special educational needs and disabilities services, and in many ways going backwards, is that some children are not getting the education they need. That is forcing some parents in my constituency and across the east midlands to stay at home to school their children, rather than going to work. That hurts their livelihoods, it hurts their opportunity to contribute to the economy, and as a result it hurts growth, too.

In contrast, Labour-run Gedling borough council is investing in our high streets by maintaining its popular two hours’ free parking policy across all high street car parks. Labour-run Gedling created the beautiful 365-acre Gedling country park, a boost to the local economy. Gedling Labour saved and refurbished the cherished Bonington theatre, and is investing in CCTV across communities to keep people safe.

The Arnold market place is an example of how to do regeneration well, led by Gedling Labour. I was proud to be part of it on Gedling borough council, and it is things like that that will boost our economy. Beyond the high street, Gedling borough council has shown that investing in our parks and green spaces, our theatres and our leisure centres and keeping our cultural centres open invites local people into the area, which supports local businesses and growth. That is why I am so proud of the hard work being done by our Labour candidates in Gedling: Sarah O’Connor and Henry Wheeler in Arnold North, John Clarke and Liz Clunie in Arnold South, Jim Creamer and Errol Henry in Carlton West, Cate Carmichael in Carlton East and Dean Wilson in Calverton.

The contrast could not be clearer. Under the Nottinghamshire Conservatives, we can have yet more failure and poorly managed services, strangling our local economy and failing to fix our broken roads. Under Gedling Labour, we can have pride restored to our communities by hard-working councillors, growing the economy, bringing back community policing, supporting our high streets and fixing the potholes. That is the choice on offer next month at the local elections, and that is the choice that residents in Gedling can make.