Draft Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 General Committees

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is an honour, once again, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Minister for providing the detail of the draft regulations to make smoke and carbon monoxide alarms mandatory in social housing from 1 October this year. As the Minister said, they come just as we commemorate the fifth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, in which 72 people lost their lives. We have seen where a race to the bottom can lead, and how a culture of deregulation—the bonfire of red tape—has total disregard for human life, with tragic consequences.

I have a couple of points on which I will press the Minister. First, accidental carbon monoxide poisoning kills an average of 20 people each year in England and Wales, as he said. Although I understand that gas cookers cause fewer cases of poisoning than gas boilers, surely we want to reduce harm as much as possible for everyone, regardless of the status of the appliance. It does not seem like the greatest leap or a real burden to ask landlords to do both. Do the Minister and the Department hold any information about the potential addition to the reduction in poisonings and deaths that could come from including cookers in future regulations? I do not require an immediate answer. I am sure that the Minister and the Department can write to me and the Opposition about that.

Secondly, on the topic of the types of alarms used, too often—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central pointed out—batteries are used, which need to be changed every six months in some cases. In lots of cases, they might be removed from the ceiling and put in a drawer by the tenants. That seems to be an omission, and something that needs to be strengthened in the not-too-distant future. Has the Minister made any assessment of the potential impact of requiring interlinked concealed battery alarms, which last up to 10 years? I believe that that is the requirement in Scotland, along with a linked heat alarm in the kitchen. Has the Minister looked at whether bringing the regulations into line with their Scottish counterparts would further prevent deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning and, indeed, fire?

Finally, the penalty for non-compliance stands at £5,000, which brings it in line with those set as part of the private rented sector regulations passed in 2015. However, given that we know just how dangerous it can be not to have working fire alarms or smoke alarms, and how many lives could be saved, does the Minister think there is an argument for increasing the penalty, especially when other civil penalties for landlords, under the 2004 Act, go up to £30,000 for offences related to failures to comply with improvement notices for the licensing of houses in multiple occupation?

As I have said, I want to give my full support and that of Her Majesty’s Opposition to the introduction of these regulations. However, we would certainly like to see them go further, for the sake of public safety, in order to prevent tragic deaths in the future.

Solar Farms and Battery Storage

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Paisley. Naturally, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) on securing this important debate and acknowledge his track record on environmentalism, which was stated clearly at the beginning of the debate and throughout.

Many Members have today taken the opportunity to talk about developments in their constituency, with a common focus on what is termed brown-belt and former industrial sites first, such as the roofs of car parks, warehouses, schools and housing developments—I think even trains were suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda). That was acknowledged and concurred with by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and others. A significant number of interventions were made by Members who are no longer present.

I have a sizable farming community in my Weaver Vale constituency. At a recent meeting of the National Farmers Union at Warburtons Farms in Frodsham, the consensus was that fertile agricultural land should not be used at scale for solar farms, a point that has been eloquently made in today’s debate. Unfortunately, too many farmers feel that they have little choice but to sell land for development, whether that is housing development or solar farms. In part, that is driven by the insecure nature of the financial support in the new subsidy arrangements that farmers now face. They were promised not a penny less, but the reality is somewhat different.

The justified concerns about the local impact of solar farms must be weighed against our inescapable need to build renewable energy, and lots of it, over the coming years in order to meet our net zero target by 2050. Renewable energy, including solar energy, must be built, and it must be built somewhere. It is always easy for someone to say that they are in favour of renewable energy in principle; it is much harder to say that they are in favour of renewable energy in a specific location. Members from across the Chamber have made very considered speeches about the circumstances in which we should build solar farms, and I agree that we need to be clear about the need for a strategic approach, so that we can understand exactly what we need and where it needs to go. However, it certainly needs to go somewhere, and that should be our starting point.

With the costs of fossil fuels soaring, wind and solar power are the keys to bringing down costs for customers, ensuring energy security in the face of the Ukrainian war and fighting climate change, yet the Government are intentionally limiting access to the cheapest, quickest and cleanest forms of new power by stopping the production of enough onshore wind and solar energy to power 3 million homes. Members have today made some great suggestions regarding where that energy capacity should be built. Instead, we have a Chancellor who has just handed a £1.9 billion tax break to producers of oil and gas that could pump nearly 900 million tonnes of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. Our climate and our constituents will pay the price for the Government doing the unthinkable and backing the fossil fuel industry, despite claiming to have the admirable target of reaching net zero by 2050. What assurances can the Minister give that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s apparent green light for the fossil fuel industry will be revisited with a sense of urgency and with funding redirected to renewables, developed in the right places? Why not incentivise, as people have said? We simply cannot reach the kinds of targets that we need to be reaching by limiting ourselves to small-scale urban solar farms. That will involve larger-scale projects over the 50 MW rate that at the moment qualifies a proposal as a nationally significant infrastructure project.

Where we have common ground in today’s debate is in our desire on location. The negative impacts should be minimised using sensitive planning that focuses on previously developed and non-agricultural land that is not of high environmental value. Indeed, that is stated in the national planning policy framework. Surely a locally led planning system should shape developments and they should not be dictated—that could be done by the current Secretary of State or, certainly, future ones.

Unfortunately, the centralisation and power grab by the current Secretary of State is given rocket fuel by proposed new subsection (5C) of section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, in clause 83 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is having its Second Reading today. That subsection states that any conflict between the development plan and a national development management policy

“must be resolved in favour of the national development management policy.”

I look forward to seeing the amendments, which will inevitably be laid, and attempts to remove that provision in favour of locally led planning systems and arrangements.

Testing has been carried out on the benefits of solar energy, and the overwhelming evidence is that, despite small impacts, the benefits of solar outweigh the costs as long as appropriate land is used. The public support a move to renewables, but they know that we need to build in the right place, using the appropriate land. I ask the Minister—I think the need for this has been reaffirmed today—to look again at some of the clauses in the current Bill that centralise the planning process and override local concerns, but also, very importantly, to incentivise renewables.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

The mover of today’s motion is a polar explorer, a writer of books, and a provider of written interventions for colleagues. Minister Hughes, you have a lot to live up to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Ministers cannot escape the fact that according to the National Audit Office, 50% of central Government grant funding has been cut from the budgets of local authorities up and down the land since 2010. Ministers are living in a parallel universe where less is more. Millions have been taken out of the shared prosperity fund. The consequences are all too plain. We even have Sir Rod Stewart doing DIY, filling in potholes in Essex—a county with which the Minister will be familiar—and a third of libraries are closing. Those are real consequences.

At what stage will the Minister grasp the bull by the horns and provide fair funding for local authorities, based on genuine need? This should not be about competition or jumping through unnecessary hoops; we should be providing first-class public services for all.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the reason we have had such difficulties in local government spending is the terrible state of public finances that this Government found when they came into power 10 years ago. It is only because of the hard work that we have done over the last decade to repair the public finances that we have been able to provide additional funding for local government.

Homes for Ukraine Scheme

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if he will make a statement on the Homes for Ukraine scheme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)]

President Putin’s bloody invasion is a barbaric and unprovoked attack on the people of Ukraine, who are fighting a daily battle for freedom. The UK has stood shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine at every stage of the conflict, including sending extensive military supplies months before the Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine. We are steeled to stand with Ukraine for the long haul.

In this country there has been an outpouring of public support for the Ukrainian people, and we have matched the generosity of the British public with an ambitious humanitarian offer to Ukrainians who wish to come to the UK to escape the conflict. As hon. Members will know, since the Home Office opened and expanded the Ukrainian family scheme and my Department launched the Homes for Ukraine scheme with our Home Office colleagues, both schemes have received thousands upon thousands of applications from people willing to open their heart and their home to a new guest.

We have balanced the need to move rapidly with the equal need to get the Homes for Ukraine scheme right. The visa application process opened on Friday 18 March, since when we have seen the first arrivals come to the UK. Members on both sides of the House are as invested as we are in making the scheme as efficient and effective as possible. We are minimising bureaucratic foot-dragging and cutting unnecessary red tape, while making sure people are set up in the best possible situation to start a life in the UK and to access the right local services and support.

The scheme will be a success only if local and national Government work as one, so we are providing councils with £10,500 per guest to help with all the support they will need. We have been working with the Local Government Association and individual councils across the country to fine-tune the scheme’s practicalities and logistics. As the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said, we will keep things under review to ensure that local government has and gets what it needs. We are also working closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we have a consistent offer across the country. Some 4 million Ukrainians have been displaced by this bloody and unjust war so far. The UK will continue to respond to the gravity of the conflict and we will continue to work with Members of the House to open up our communities to Ukrainians in the weeks and months ahead.

[Mike Amesbury]

Nearly 150,000 people have signed up to sponsor Ukrainian refugees in a testament to the generous spirit of our nation and regions, yet that generosity risks being wasted because the figures released confirm that just 2,700 visas have been granted by the Government under the scheme so far. Of course, visas being granted are not the same as refugees arriving here after fleeing for their lives from the bullets, missiles and bombs. Can the Minister tell the House how many refugees have arrived in the UK through the scheme and what has gone wrong so far in getting them here?

After the issue with visas, things are even less clear. There remain real concerns among councils that have not been addressed. How will they know when refugees have arrived in their authority and require services? Proactive data sharing is simply not good enough and safeguarding is falling down. Do the checks on sponsor families need to have been fully completed before a family can begin travelling to the UK? Does the £10,500 for councils, which the Minister mentioned, cover refugees only in this scheme or in the family visa scheme too?

There are real fears of a homelessness crisis if sponsorships break down. As reported yesterday by the Local Government Association, nearly 150 Ukrainians have already presented themselves to councils as homeless having fled the conflict to stay with family members in the UK who have no room. Can the Minister tell me and the House what urgent guidance and support his Department is giving to councils on those cases?

The Government must now take an active role in matching sponsors to refugees, otherwise the generosity of people who want to help will be wasted. The British people have stepped up in Ukraine’s hour of need; it is clear that the Government urgently need to do the same.

[Eddie Hughes]

I think that the Government are acting urgently. It is testament to the efforts of people in an incredible civil service who are prepared to work very long hours, seven days a week and to pivot from their previous day jobs to move in an agile fashion to deal with the trauma that that country is facing and ensure that the maximum number of people have visas granted and can have a secure and safe home in this country. It is disappointing, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect tremendously, thinks that the Government and the civil service are not responding urgently.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of 150,000; I believe that the number of people who have expressed an interest and are prepared to open up their homes is closer to 200,000. [Interruption.] It is slightly frustrating to answer one question and have Opposition Members race ahead to the three or four others that have been asked. Patience would be a virtue for everybody involved in this process—at least for the sake of this urgent question. Mr Speaker, do you not think it would be nice for them to wait for the answer before they get too carried away?

How will councils know? We have a matching process and once the sponsor has been matched with the guest online with the form, councils will be alerted so that they know that a match has been made for a sponsor in their area. They can then begin the process of preparation immediately.

Will checks need to be completed fully before people travel? Inasmuch as once the visa is granted, checks will already have started, we will already have started to investigate whether there has been criminality on the part of either party. We need to make absolutely sure that we are reassured of the safety on both sides of the equation—of the person travelling here and of the people opening up their homes. Those checks will be carried out initially and then further checks will be carried out by the receiving authority once it has been notified of the match.

Once the authority has been notified, it will be expected to go out and inspect the property to make sure it is appropriate for such people’s needs, and begin the process of further checks, as required. For example, if there are children or vulnerable adults in the households that are coming, a further enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check will be required.

With regards to the money, the £10,500 is for the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Obviously, for the rest of the elements of this scheme, we are making a very generous offer in that people who arrive in the UK will be allowed to work and claim benefits immediately, so that they can begin to integrate fully here.

Finally, on the 150 homeless people the hon. Gentleman mentioned, he will know that I, as the Minister for homelessness, have a very keen interest in this. We will be investigating to ensure that we completely understand what has led to such a situation. As a Government, with the charities and all involved—and MPs have a role in this—we need to make sure people understand that the most appropriate, safe and reliable route is that prescribed by the Government.

Draft Combined Authorities (Borrowing) Regulations 2022

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 General Committees

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

I thank the Minister for his thorough and detailed explanation of this draft statutory instrument. I am sure that hon. Members in Committee will be pleased to know that we will not oppose it. It is something that each combined authority has been calling for; I spoke with Mayor Tracy Brabin, for example, and her office has been calling for it for some considerable time. As the Minister outlined correctly, the commitment was made some time ago by a former Chancellor. The flexibility to regenerate and invest in a broader range of opportunities—whether housing, transport or other infrastructure that we would all like to see developed in our communities—is most welcome.

I spoke briefly to the Minister earlier, before the Committee sat, and told him that I would ask a couple of questions. I do not expect an immediate answer; a reply in writing would be satisfactory and helpful. Clearly, some local authorities have made investments that they thought were sound, but turned out to be risky. Surrey County Council, for example, made a number of investments in shopping centres right across the country, but they resulted in a £50 million bill, or deficit, for its locality. It is not the only local authority to have done that, up and down the country.

How will the Department, working with combined authorities, ensure that the check and balance is there as devolution expands rapidly—I hope—right across England? Is there the scrutiny to ensure that the taxpayer gets maximum bang for their buck, so to speak, and the assurance that strong checks and balances are in place and investments are sound? As I say, I do not expect an immediate answer, but I would like some correspondence from the Minister and his Department.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Mike Amesbury.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Members on both sides of the Chamber have said that any levelling up will ultimately be delivered by local authorities improving lives in their communities, but councils have faced and continue to face, despite the spin, serious shortfalls thanks to draconian Government cuts, including a 2% real-terms cut this year. Can the Minister explain how taking away £88 million from Burnley Borough Council in Lancashire over the last 10 years, even after taking into account the levelling-up funding, is fair? How is that levelling up? How will a £102 million shortfall over the next three years for Essex County Council—the Minister’s own county council—level up adult social care? Is it not time for Ministers to cut the spin, cut the claptrap and provide some substance and genuine levelling up for our hard-pressed councils?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I completely reject the hon. Gentleman’s numbers. As I said, we have given a 4.5% increase in the local government finance settlement. We are here to provide support to all local authorities. We are not going to engage in agreeing with the false numbers provided by the Opposition.

Shared Prosperity Fund: Devolved Administrations

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to contribute to the debate. My sincere thanks go to the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) for securing today’s very important debate.

We have heard some excellent contributions from hon. Members of different parties who represent communities across our devolved nations. The hon. Member for Belfast South spoke about local charities needing security and sustainability in order to continue with their excellent work in her community in Northern Ireland. She referred to the programme as “learn and earn”, and I certainly wish such programmes well in the future.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a very powerful contribution and spoke eloquently about the need to have not a penny less, in order to shape a bright future for all the communities in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) referred to the Westminster-centric approach of levelling up and the shared prosperity fund, and to the need to work in partnership with the Government in Wales and with local government so they can shape their own destiny. The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) correctly derided the notion of taking control. If we look at levelling up and the shared prosperity fund, the reality on the ground is anything but that of taking control.

Even though the Government have touted the shared prosperity fund as a central pillar of their levelling-up agenda, serious questions remain. The Minister will no doubt ask us to wait until the formal launch, when all questions will be answered. However, important questions need to be answered now, as eloquently argued by the hon. Member for Belfast South. Fundamentally, we cannot escape the fact that this funding is worth only 60% of the EU funds it is replacing. How do the Government reconcile cutting 40%, which is a considerable share of the fund, and claiming to level up at the same time?

The Government are trying to hide behind rhetoric that tells the public that they are investing in them and in communities that the Government have left behind for close to 12 years, when they are doing the exact opposite, on top of a clear breaking of important manifesto pledges, as stated across the Chamber today. The Government said they would match funding to devolved nations, but clearly that is not the case. The evidence is there to see. Concerns have also been raised that the chosen delivery geographies—essentially, lower tier and unitary authorities—will result in inefficient procurement and fragmented and duplicated services. Indeed, some Members have argued powerfully that, in some cases, devolved Governments have been ignored completely.

We have heard concerns from Members representing all the devolved nations here today. As the Institute of Government has stated, the shared prosperity fund

“risks damaging trust between the UK and devolved administrations and undermining the UK government’s key objective of binding the four nations of the UK closer together.”

As we have heard today, the “Westminster knows best” diktat is an affront to the very principle of devolution, while giving the Chancellor the reins to oversee funding cuts.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) eloquently and powerfully argued, this overly centralised scheme, devised by Ministers in Westminster, has not seen proper engagement with devolved nations and other stakeholders during the development of the plans for the UK shared prosperity fund. I am sure the Minister will, again, ask us all to wait for the full prospectus to be published. Given the scant involvement of the devolved nations that has been permitted so far, and the scant detail provided so far, he can hardly be surprised that he has been asked to attend this important debate today.

Finally, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast South, can the Minister discuss the funding gap between the end of the current funding and the beginning of the shared prosperity funding, which puts community projects at risk before the shared prosperity fund even pays out a penny? With European funding provision ending in some areas as early as April, there is a real funding gap and it is causing anxieties and insecurities in our communities. Can the Minister respond to that important question?

Our collective vision should be a programme that genuinely powers up people, places and nations. It should have a focus on need. It should have fairness in its DNA and put devolved nations in the driving seat, as leaders in their localities, with not a penny or a power taken away. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Non-commissioned Exempt Accommodation

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Daly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The desire and policy of this Government is to ensure that we have beautiful homes developed for the benefit of everyone in our country, and there is money behind this: a £12 billion boost for affordable homes, including social rented homes, to help those with physical or mental challenges; and £5.4 million of additional funding for a pilot scheme in key areas, helping us to understand the most effective interventions for future national policy. We are also introducing a higher minimum standard for supported accommodation. So the money and the desire are there, and the policy direction from central Government says that local authorities come to us—[Interruption.] I am answering the point that has just been made. We want to support councils on this. We want to provide the funding that is going to develop those brownfield sites in their boroughs, but what are the Government to do if local authorities do not even have that conversation with the Government? I am assuming that the councils have not had it with the Mayor of Greater Manchester. What is the point if they do not do that? I am known as a collegiate parliamentarian, and I am simply here to encourage my local authority in Bury to work with the Government, who want to work with it to ensure that we get the housing stock that is absolutely needed in our borough. I am proud to be part of a Government who have this strategy, want to support local accommodation and do not take the view of my local authority. This is a difference of opinion. My local authority, in terms of prioritising social need, social housing or social rented housing, believes in the policy document, and believes in building four-bedroom and five-bedroom houses on the green belt. That is its choice, as a local Labour authority. I believe, and support this Government’s intention, that we should be prioritising the development of brownfield sites, and ensuring that people have access to a home and that those support services are in place. In my local authority, over the 18 months of the pandemic, over £180 million was provided, on top of the normal grant funding, to support important services—

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Fewer than 6,000 homes for social rent were built last year. The homes in the “affordable homes” programme are not affordable at all—it is a skewed, vandalised definition of “affordable homes”. Local councils, certainly in Greater Manchester, and up and down the country, have their hands tied behind their back; they cannot build those social rented homes. They cannot do it.

Local Government Finance (England)

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

There have been some excellent contributions, from Members across the House, highlighting the brilliant work that many of our councils—yes, I include parish and town councils—right across the country have been doing in these challenging periods. That has been noted by hon. Members today. We heard interesting contributions from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who has been mixing it up a little on the issues of region versus region, and rural versus urban. I suggest to him that he should probably get the broadband sorted out in Ilfracombe, so that when the Chancellor is there in the future he can send a positive tweet to the likes of the Prime Minister.

[Chris Loder]

rose—

[Mike Amesbury]

I must move on—I have acknowledged the hon. Gentleman.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who chairs the Select Committee, referred to the political choice of austerity over a 10-year period and the stark consequences for Sheffield City Council—I think £3 billion was cut from the council. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) referred to the need for three-year settlements. I believe we are now in the fourth year of one-year settlements. How can we plan resources effectively—how can we plan for the future and invest in early years—when we have continued one-year settlements?

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) rightly referred to the need for genuine fiscal and financial devolution, and I concur. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) spoke about the public health grant, which is being reduced in real terms, and the pressures on mental health. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) referred to devolution, concurring with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) referred to the cut of more than 50%, as measured by the National Audit Office, that has been imposed over the past 10 years in communities up and down the country.

If the levelling-up White Paper did not already out the Department as being devoid of any real ambition or strategy to better the lives of people across our regions, this settlement is the confirmation. It might not be 300 pages, and I might not have learned much about the last 10,000 years of urban settlements, but it once again reminds us that this Government do not truly back our communities, do not back our councils and certainly do not back our country. No wonder that Tory councillor and Local Government Association Chairman James Jamieson, whom the Secretary of State phones on a regular basis—

[Lisa Nandy]

Every morning.

[Mike Amesbury]

Every morning, I think. No wonder he stated that he was disappointed that council tax went up by a massive 31% between 2010 and 2021 while the area base grant has been cut, on average, by 37%. Tory Ministers have just piled the pain on to hard-pressed families, who pay more while receiving fewer services that are vital to making life work in our communities.

The Secretary of State has been waxing lyrical about the core spending power. Does he think that our residents, communities and constituents have missed the fact that inflation is at its highest for 30 years? Taking that into account outs this settlement for what it is: a 2.2% reduction compared with last year. It is a settlement that assumes local authorities will all raise council tax by the maximum amount without needing a referendum, meaning that councils will have to choose whether to raise much-needed funding while being well aware of the real financial pressures on households. The social care precept on top of the social care levy create a double whammy of taxation for residents, while providing insufficient resources for adult social care, according to the Tory leader of Surrey County Council. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst raised exactly that point.

The draft of the settlement also came with another announcement, because the Government have once again kicked local government finance reform—the fairer funding review—into the long grass. It is desperately needed. Council tax as the main source of local authority income, as hon. Members across the House have said, is inherently unfair and regressive. We need that funding review very soon indeed.

The reform of business rates is another thing that we apparently will not see this year. We desperately need a new system that reflects the modern nature of business, that has some relation with money that goes through the till, that rebalances our high street versus online, and that boosts local economies rather than stifling them. However, we are of course not getting that. Could there be a clearer sign that the Government do not have a real plan?

The Secretary of State mentioned the announcement earlier this month of the £150 council tax rebate. We would very much like to see the detail of that, because we have had little so far. Indeed, our councils’ financial officers and leaders have had little information. How are councils to be involved in handing out that money? Will it be by cash, cheque or electronic payment? In some areas, such as Manchester, 49% of residents do not pay by direct debit, so there are some real practical difficulties there. Have the Secretary of State or the Minister estimated how much the administration will cost?

These woefully inadequate short-term fixes will not stop the cost of living crisis. The Government choosing to put taxes up on working people—the Government cannot escape the fact that they are now at a 70-year high—while cutting benefits and utterly failing to tackle rising food and energy bills simply pushes more people into poverty. Of course, the money is spare change compared with the £15 billion that our communities have had taken away over the last 12 years. Finances have gone that could have kept vital services open. Instead, the public now do not have 921 libraries, over 1,000 children’s centres and 368 swimming pools, to name but a few. The public health grant has been cut, but we are not quite out of the covid/omicron crisis at the moment. Real-terms increases are desperately needed.

We do not have a Secretary of State for Levelling Up; he is quite rapidly becoming the Minister for closing down, boarding up and laying off. The Government have kept our regional towns and cities down and held them back. No wonder this week’s newspapers representing communities across the north used their front pages to plead with the Secretary of State not to leave them behind, after 12 years. They pointed out the fact—this is a damning indictment of the inequality under this Government—that a baby girl born in Salford will, on average, die 10 years earlier than one born in the Secretary of State’s Surrey constituency. I know that he will not be at all proud of that fact, but he really needs to do something about it.

In conclusion, the sad truth is that the Government have left people and communities behind for over 12 years. We now know that they simply do not have a plan to change; they just have a scorecard with 12 mission statements of failure over the last 12 years. We know that, as a nation, we can do better than this. Any genuine levelling up of our communities will chiefly be delivered by local authorities. They need three-year settlements. The funding needs to be adequate, with long-term resources, devolved freedoms and budgets that reflect the work that local authorities put into their communities—communities that are genuinely powered up to deliver the fair and green future that our constituents and our nation require.

Merseyside: Funding of Local Authorities

Mike Amesbury Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) for not only securing this important debate, but the work she is doing with local Labour MPs, councillors and residents to protect services from Government-imposed cuts in the Wirral. The Secretary of State is quickly gaining a reputation as the Minister for closing down, boarding up and hollowing out services in the Wirral and right across Merseyside.

Libraries, leisure centres and golf courses in the Wirral are facing closure, and their staff are facing the chop, as a result of centrally imposed austerity—an additional £27 million of austerity, despite the Chancellor and this lame duck of a Prime Minister promising that it was over. The stark reality can be witnessed right across every community in Merseyside and beyond. All right hon. and hon. Members present have exposed the continued pathway of Conservative-imposed austerity, despite the Government’s fine words, and have laid out the consequences for council budgets, people and services. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) referred to the exclusion of Knowsley Council from the mysterious levelling-up fund, while my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) referred to the 11 libraries that are being levelled down and facing the chop.

Last Wednesday, the Secretary of State and his team finally published the long-delayed and trailed levelling-up White Paper, as referenced by many Members present. After 12 years of Tory Government, we were presented with 12 mission statements that act as a scorecard for failure; it is a cut-and-paste job with no new money, reannouncements and vague targets to be met in 2030.

It may be fascinating to discover, on page 2 of this 300-page levelling-up White Paper, that Jericho was the earliest permanent urban settlement. However, Members present—and, more importantly, our constituents—want to know when our councils and communities will get back the funds that have been taken away from our villages, towns and cities over the last 12 years. Some £490 million has been taken away from the people of Liverpool, and another £34 million is expected to be cut; more than £50 million has been taken away from my local council of Halton. In fact, every Merseyside local authority has seen a cut of more than 50% in real terms, according to the National Audit Office.

The Minister will of course refer to cash-terms increases, but that excludes inflation, which is at a 30-year high. The consequences in many cases are workforces depleted, children’s centres closed, libraries shut, youth services decimated and new charges introduced. The Government’s approach to levelling up has been to give communities a fiver for jumping through mysterious hoops, while taking away a tenner.

In the case of Knowsley, Tory Ministers do not even see the council as worthy of the crumbs off the table of the levelling-up fund; they instead favour Richmondshire, multi-billionaires who happen to donate to the Tory party, and filling the potholes on the driveway up to their mansions. The good people of Knowsley remain left behind in Tory Britain.

Without doubt, the Minister will refer to the Government’s preferred measure when talking about local government finances: core spending power. There will be some additional funding for adult and children’s social care, but nothing like enough to meet demand or to plug the gaps. In fact, it was stated that in real terms there will be a cut of 2.5% in this settlement. This smoke-and-mirrors approach will result only in the Secretary of State being laughed off the Merseyside pitch during his visit to Liverpool today.

Between 2010 and 2021, council tax has gone up by a massive 31%, while the area based grant has been cut by 37% on average. Tory Ministers have piled on the pain, with hard-pressed families paying more while receiving less in services, as was rightly stated. People have seen services closed down, places boarded up, and more and more councils facing bankruptcy.

Having council tax as a main source of income is inherently unfair; many councils in Merseyside have a higher number of band A properties with a lower tax base, but the arrangement favours the Secretary of State’s Surrey authority. Ministers have promised a fair funding review time and again, yet councils and communities are still waiting desperately. When can we expect that, and a fundamental reform of business rates?

That unfairness and the cuts have consequences. It is no coincidence that, as was reported on the front page of the Liverpool Echo today, a baby born in Merseyside will on average die younger than a baby born in Surrey—a shameful indictment of the Government’s 12 years in office.