Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

Q I have a brief question in relation to something that was said. We agree that the bank card proposals are flawed, so we have tabled amendment 30. I do not expect you to know what that amendment is, and I am about to tell you: it would ensure that only

“bank cards that are issued subject to a search of a consumer’s credit file conducted in the way set out in the amendment”

could be used as voter ID, as we do with loans and the like. We understand that it is not a brilliant amendment, because we do not believe that that part of the legislation should be included at all, but do you think that having a bank card with a hard credit check would make any difference to the process, or—this is probably for you, Mr Stanyon—would it be better if that was not included in the legislation?

Peter Stanyon: I think the latter in terms of the uncertainty. The difficulty in putting that in place is that the individuals dealing with this at the polling stations are effectively volunteers. We already have a list of 23 versions of voter ID available, and it is quite a complicated process. Ultimately, if a bank card is presented and it is to the standard that the staff have been trained to receive, they will accept it, so the hard credit check thing will be more for the central control of the election than it would be for the staff at the station.

Councillor Bentley: I agree. I think that it is difficult to have that included, but I would re-emphasise that if it is, you must be very clear that it is not local government staff who will be at fault if someone commits an offence.

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

Q As may be obvious, I have met most of our witnesses today previously. Where in the Bill do you think things will improve, and what do you see as measures that will make our elections more effective?

Peter Stanyon: The first thing to say is that, as an association, we are pleased that the vast majority of the Bill echoes what we put in our blueprint following the last general election; there were lots of issues with the actual mechanics of the election. There are the more high-profile things such as votes at 16 or automatic registration, but if you ask an administrator, we are more concerned about the mechanics of delivering the election.

It is accepted that the timetable will not extend beyond 25 days, and there are lots of reasons for that. However, we feel that the moves to alter the deadlines for nominations to be received and to move the deadline for the receipt of postal vote applications go a long way to providing that wiggle room within the elections timetable. That will allow administrators to work with their suppliers to get postal votes out and to ensure that there are no issues on that side of the process.

There are lots of things in the Bill regarding the status of the returning officer in the local authority, and we echo the view that it should be a senior officer of the local authority. How that will be policed is another matter, but it gives the local authority the ability to assist the returning officer, because they will have that punching power within the local authority itself.

There are also lots of things about the postal vote replacements that were learned at the last general election. We are very reliant on third parties; once a postal vote leaves the control of the returning officer, Royal Mail will do all it can to deliver that, but there will be breakdowns in the system. The fact that the Bill gives the ability to put the elector back first in those situations is really important, because it is not their fault if they have not been able to receive a postal vote.

There are lots of really good bits in the Bill. The only areas where we have concerns relate to things I have mentioned already: bank cards, some things around the nominations process and the identity checks being proposed, and the lead-in time for the 16 and 17-year-olds. Those are the three big areas that we have concerns about. The rest of it makes absolute sense in terms of the mechanics of delivering the election and should address some of the issues that were quite high profile at the last general election.

Councillor Bentley: Anything that encourages people and makes voting easier has to be welcomed. That is very important.

I will pull out two things in addition to what my colleague said. One thing that we are learning about now —it has started to happen for the first time—is re-registering for a postal vote. That needs to be much better co-ordinated and to have much better communications. We are seeing already people who have not re-registered because they did not realise that they needed to. It depends on the local authority and how and when they communicate, but more of a national campaign would be helpful in all that.

The other piece is around harassment during elections. It is a specific part of the Bill, but I think it is very important. While freedom of speech is very important in our country, freedom to harass certainly is not. That needs to be emphasised to people. What is being proposed is right, but we need to emphasise that more. People should be encouraged to stand for public, elected office, but we hear anecdotally that many are put off by the harassment they receive on social media and so on. Freedom of speech is very important; freedom to harass certainly is not. I would like to really see that emphasised within the Bill. [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Q Following your arrival, Ms Yule, would you like to introduce yourself?

Emily Yule: Yes. Thank you, and apologies; transport got the better of me this morning. I am Emily Yule and I am representing Solace, which is a membership organisation representing returning officers and senior officers within local authorities.

[Samantha Dixon]

Q Nice to see you, Emily, and welcome. How do you feel the Bill will improve elections and make them more secure for the future?

Emily Yule: There are a number of things that we are really pleased to see within the Bill, particularly the extension of protections around abuse and intimidation to returning officers and their staff. That is an increasing area of concern; we are having more and more reports of that kind of behaviour at quite significant levels.

[The Chair]

Mr Holmes, did you want to ask Ms Yule anything? I will then come to Ms Smart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

You will have noticed some scepticism from the previous panel—I do not think it is ungenerous to say that—about the proposals for using bank cards as a form of identification. In your role, do you have concerns about the Government’s proposals to water down photo voter ID?

Vijay Rangarajan: We are also concerned about the bank cards proposal; that is largely for the administrative reasons the previous witnesses set out, so I will not repeat those. We do see growing public support for voter ID—73% of the British public are now in favour of it, up from 65% in 2024—and the way we have implemented it has broadly worked. About 0.1% of people in Great Britain were unable to vote, because of voter ID, and it definitely put off some voters, so there is a slight cost to this. However, in Northern Ireland, after 25 years of voter ID, it has become part of the fabric of how people vote.

Rather than continually changing the system, it would be helpful to allow a broad range of voter IDs—which should probably stay with the existing security standard to maintain public trust—and give some stability to the system. In time, people will get used to it; we are already well above 90% of people knowing that they have to bring voter ID. Again, before this May’s elections, and before every election, we will run, in areas where voter ID is needed, a campaign to remind people to bring voter ID.

[Samantha Dixon]

Q We work very closely with the Electoral Commission, but you act without fear or favour. It is important for your independence to be respected and for your objectivity as an organisation to be carried forward for the future. In your objective view, how will the proposals in the Bill progress the security of and participation in elections?

Vijay Rangarajan: Thank you, Minister. Broadly, we very much welcome the Bill. If I might go into a little detail about which areas, it picks up some of the crucial changes after the 2024 general election. For example, the change from 11 days to 14 days on postal voting will make a real difference, particularly in Scotland. We saw real issues about that in our post-poll report; I will not run through all of those, but the changes in the strategic review part are very important.

As I said, we very much welcome the changes on campaign finance. We would like to see that go further in the company donations area; our proposal is to use profit, not turnover, as the metric for what a company should be able to donate, and it should be able to donate that profit only once every year.

We strongly welcome the provisions on automatic voter registration, because up to 8 million eligible British voters are not on the register. That is even more important with the other part of the Bill—votes at 16—coming in. Being able to add attainers at 14 and 15, and then letting 16 and 17-year-olds be on the register, will remove a very clear barrier. Last week, we had “Welcome to Your Vote Week”, and that issue was raised quite broadly by youth organisations as yet another barrier for 16-year-olds. We also strongly welcome the elements on candidate safety, and they should all help.

Overall, it is a very strong welcome: the Bill is necessary, and it picks up some long-standing recommendations, as I have said. We also warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to repeal the SPS—the strategy and policy statement—for exactly the reasons you have mentioned. The Bill will never completely fix everything. I think this will be the 27th Representation of the People Act, so there is a never-ending process of trying to keep this going. A lot of work needs to be done outside the Bill—for example, with the police or on social media—but it will distinctly help with many of the processes involved.

[Lisa Smart]

Q I should declare that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. You have already answered one of my questions, which was about profit being a better measure than turnover for companies donating, so I will not ask you about that.

The Electoral Commission’s press release in response to the publication of the Bill said—I cannot remember the exact phrasing—that the Bill was welcome but that it did not go quite far enough, and that the commission would like to see more measures to tackle issues with where we are in our democracy. Trust in politics is at a very low level, and trust in our democracy is an important element in our democracy remaining legitimate and in our having the trust and faith of the electorate. What more would you like to see the Bill do to rebuild trust in politics?

Vijay Rangarajan: There are a couple of areas where we would like to see further work. I have already mentioned company donations—that is crucial. To be clear, our polling shows that while trust in politics in general is quite low, trust in the electoral system is very high, as two of your previous witnesses said. That is important.

We would like the “know your donor” provisions to be strengthened. At the moment, to pass them, a political party accepting a donation would need to produce a risk assessment, but it would be good if that had to be public, sent to us or used in such a way that others could judge whether there was a reasonable risk of a party accepting impermissible donations. We know that that is one of the areas the public have least faith in: somewhere between 14% and 17% of the public think the political finance system works for them.

The second area is automatic registration, where it is less about the change in the Bill and more about implementing it before the next general election. Most countries have systems like this, and they work well. We know the data sources quite well. We recently evaluated four pilots in Welsh local authorities, and showed that they were very successful at boosting not only the completeness of the register but, crucially, the accuracy. There is not a tension between completeness and accuracy when you are using good data sources. We can now do that.

Another area to flag is overseas voters, which I think your previous witnesses mentioned. In many cases around the world, we think they have a hard deal in actually being able to vote. We would like to see further work to help them.

Finally, if the Committee does not mind, I will just ride my hobby horse. This will be the 27th Representation of the People Act, and some consolidation and simplification of electoral law is necessary, not least for electoral administrators, parties and candidates. We would very much like to see a broad-ranging, cross-party and Government commitment to do some consolidation over the next few years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Q I am sorry to keep focusing on this point, but can you explain to the Committee how you would deem bank cards to be more secure than someone just turning up with a polling card, as they used to under the old system?

Dr Garland: I go back to my point about needing something that people carry on them, which has their name on it and provides the base level of knowing who that person is, as the policy initially set out. We could achieve that in a number of ways. In the voter ID pilots poll cards were used, and those pilots with poll cards as an option saw the fewest number of people turned away, so we know that those more accessible forms of ID are going to be better for the scheme altogether.

For most people, however, bank cards have really good coverage. We also have to think about what newly enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to access. That is part of the whole question of what we should be looking at—what will cause the least damage when it comes to people turning up to vote?

[Samantha Dixon]

Q In the strategy that the Government published last year, we set out that our electoral system is not keeping pace with an ever-changing world. How will the Bill bring us forward and keep us up to date?

Dr Garland: Many of the changes feel to me that they have been a long time coming: we heard from the Electoral Commission, which made a lot of these recommendations, about tightening political finance many years ago. There have been the large gaps in the completeness of our electoral register since at least 2011, and the Electoral Commission’s feasibility study was back in 2019. A lot of the changes are therefore catching up, rather than keeping pace.

One area where it is challenging to keep pace is in the digital sphere and online campaigning, but also in political finance. The Bill currently does not address cryptocurrency, which is a fast-changing area, so there are certainly areas where it is difficult to keep pace. “Keeping pace” is an important way to think about it, because of course in a democracy, unless we are moving forwards, we are necessarily sliding backwards. That is a challenge. We have to keep changing in order to protect what we have.

The one area that has changed the most in the past two years has been the electoral landscape. We are seeing things that we have never seen before—massive party system fragmentation and huge amounts of voter volatility—and that is having an effect on the operation of our electoral system. I appreciate that that is not covered in the Bill, but that does feel like one area where the Bill might find itself a bit out of step with what is happening in the wider electoral landscape.

[Lisa Smart]

Q For the record, Dr Garland and I used to be fellow trustees on a charity for a number of years. [Interruption.] No, I do not know every witness, but it is not far off.

In page 7 of your written evidence, Dr Garland, you talk about new clause 1, tabled in my name, on the voting system. That is something that affects a number of people, in the context of the changing landscape that you just laid out. We had the most disproportionate election ever in 2024, with a party that got a third of the votes getting two thirds of the seats and pretty much 100% of the power. Will you say a little more and expand on the comments you made about why a voting system change would better reflect the situation in which we find ourselves in 2026 and beyond?

Dr Garland: It comes down to the fact that first past the post, as a voting system, is designed for a two-party system. We have moved hugely towards a multi-party system, particularly in the last two years. In that circumstance, when you have many parties in contention, you end up with representatives elected on less than 30% of the vote. Whether you see that as acceptable or not, that is not what a majoritarian system is supposed to do, and it makes it incredibly confusing for voters.

If we think to the next general election, people will find it very difficult to know how to make their vote effect the outcome that they want. When you are in a multi-party system, but you are using a two-party voting system, you end up with very chaotic and unpredictable results. That is very bad for voters. We might also see Parliaments that really do not reflect how voters have voted, and that could do a huge amount of damage to trust in democracy, which is already on a life support machine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Thank you all for your answers.

[Samantha Dixon]

Q It has been a pleasure to work with the devolved Administrations in the interministerial work that I have done. Also, the officials have worked across all the Governments in the UK, which has been very productive. All of you have mentioned alignment, and that is an ambition that the Government have set out in this Bill. To what degree have we achieved that, and where could we go further?

Karen Jones: Thank you for the question, and thank you again, Minister, for the opportunity to contribute to the early stages of this Bill. We are really pleased to see a number of the long-standing proposals from administrators to make life a lot easier for voters and also administrators reflected in the Bill. We are very much supportive of that.

In terms of alignment, the devil will be in the detail, as we look at the rules for implementing the policies that the Bill contains. As I was saying about automatic voter registration, it will come down to the franchise and the timing elements. It may well be that we have to live with some disruption in the short term while we pursue greater alignment in the medium to long term. I think it is a step in the right direction, but more work will need to be done as we look at the detail of the Bill’s implementation.

Similarly, if there is a UK-wide approach to votes at 16 and 17, it will make it easier to engage with young people. We have found with votes at 16 and 17 in Senedd elections that, because we have years in between when young people are not casting their vote, the engagement can be a bit stop-start. But a consistent policy across the UK will make it much easier for us to work collectively to make sure that young people and others are educated as to why they need to participate in the democratic process and understand how to go about exercising the franchise they have been given.

Malcolm Burr: I do not have a lot to add, but alignment should be there unless there is a good policy reason for it not being there. Policy divergence is inherent in devolution—that is what devolution is about: there can be different policy choices in different areas—but administrative divergence should be avoided wherever possible.

This is the occasion to mention the Law Commission’s welcome recommendation that there should be a consolidation of electoral law as far as possible, because it is a highly complex set of legislation and regulation, and it is more than time for a consistent legislative framework governing all elections, recognising the policy divergences across the various nations. Unnecessary divergence leads to confusion for voters, as well as inconvenience to electoral staff, so alignment should be a very clear aim, except where there is a good principle or policy reason for not aligning.

Robert Nicol: Administrators can and do make difficult things work in the background. We absolutely recognise each Parliament’s right to legislate as it sees fit. The difficulty we have is when electors are asked to do something different for what they perceive to be the same thing. If an elector wants to register to vote, for example, and we say to them, “It’s okay, I’ve automatically registered you for this register, but you need to fill in that other form,” that not only makes me look daft as an electoral registration officer but causes confusion for the elector and does not help with overall confidence in the system. We have seen that recently with the postal vote divergence that happened, which has proven difficult and probably costly to stitch back together.

The Bill will enable people to register at 14. That does not align with Wales, but it aligns with Scotland, which is very welcome. There are other areas that are very welcome, but the Bill also has the potential to create different kinds of divergence if it is not implemented carefully. Administrators will do what they need to do, but think very, very carefully when asking an elector to do something different for what they perceive to be the same thing.

[Lisa Smart]

Q There are different voting systems in different parts of the UK, but we all want participation to be as high as possible, and we all want trust in our politics and our electoral system to be as high as possible. Do you have any reflections on the different systems that you operate with for different elections, and on the impact those systems have on trust in politics, participation in politics and keeping confusion to a minimum?

Malcolm Burr: That is a big question because we have so many different voting systems in Scotland. We have single transferable vote for local government elections, the mixed system for the Scottish Parliament—the regional lists and constituency MSPs—and, of course, we have the traditional Westminster one Member, one constituency system. I would probably be verging into policy matters if I commented on the various merits of those systems. Suffice it to say, voter confusion—if there has been any—has lessened over the years. That is because there is a great deal more material—mostly from the Electoral Commission but also from returning officers directly—about how to vote and how the system works. Voter education is particularly important when you have divergent systems.

As an electoral administrator, I always look to rejected papers as a good guide to confusion. Those have remained consistent in some areas, but not in others—I am thinking of the local government elections, which use a numerical voting system, obviously, as it is single transferable vote. Despite all the guidance, there are still a significant number of rejections of papers of that are marked with more than one cross: the message that you are voting for up to three or four candidates but that you must do so numerically has not gotten through. It is less so for the other systems. From our perspective, it is about voter education in advance of the election, during the electoral period, and particularly at polling places. That is the place. A good presiding officer makes all the difference by saying, “Are you clear on how you cast your vote competently in this election?”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Mr Burr, I think the Minister wants to say something in response to your response to the previous question.

[Samantha Dixon]

I had the privilege of attending the interministerial Government meeting late last year, and we had a presentation from the University of Glasgow about the effect of voting on the 16-year-olds who first voted in the referendum in 2014. Interestingly, the evidence shows that, compared with previous cohorts, they continued to vote in greater numbers. That evidence was presented at that conference.

[The Chair]

I will squeeze you in, Mr Joseph, if you are very quick.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Clause 1 is the core operative provision in the Bill. It provides the Government with the statutory authority required for expenditure on the construction and long-term management of a Grenfell Tower memorial. It also authorises expenditure on preservation, archiving and exhibiting at any site where elements of the Grenfell Tower are laid to rest. It also permits land acquisition in support of those activities where needed, and for work to be done on that land. It ensures that all expenditure for these purposes is properly authorised by Parliament in accordance with established public finance principles.

The clause does not determine the design of the memorial, the planning process, governance or ownership arrangements or decision-making responsibilities. The design remains with the community-led Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission and construction is subject to the statutory planning framework. The clause is tightly focused, allowing the Government to incur expenditure on the activities I have identified to the Committee.

Clause 2 provides the short title of the Act. The short title will be the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Act 2026. I commend these clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by thanking right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for the way in which they have approached today’s debate. The care and seriousness with which Members have spoken reflects the weight of Grenfell’s legacy—for bereaved families, for survivors, for the local community, and for the country as a whole. Whatever our political differences, today’s debate has shown a shared understanding that this Bill is about the lasting impact of Grenfell on the national conscience. It is about doing what is right and keeping faith with those most affected by the tragedy. It is about the collective promise we made as parliamentarians that Grenfell would be remembered with dignity, truth and permanence.

Before I turn to the points raised in the debate, I want to restate what this Bill does. It is a simple Bill with a simple purpose. It gives Parliament’s authority for the spending needed on the Grenfell Tower memorial so that it can be built, cared for and sustained over the long term. It also approves the spending on another site where elements of the tower are laid to rest and preserved, and where there is an archive and exhibition.

The Bill does not set the design or location of the memorial, nor its governance or how it is run, because this Bill is not about taking control. It is about supporting the community-led work that is already under way and ensuring that it has the financial backing that it needs. At this point, I thank the members of the community who are watching this evening and the co-chair of the memorial commission for attending in the Gallery. The Bill helps to ensure that Grenfell is not forgotten and continues to support this Government’s wide-ranging programme of reform.

Members from across the House have raised different issues about the memorial itself, the legacy for the future in terms of legislation, remediation, long-term maintenance and the police investigation. I pay tribute to everyone who has contributed today. I welcome the constructive approach of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), and I agree with him that the victims are at the heart of this legislation. I can reassure him, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), that we continue to work with the local authority, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, as it completes the refurbishment works and delivers for residents. We must walk alongside that community, and we will continue to do so. We must never lose sight of the people at the centre of this tragedy.

I welcome the question from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) about the Grenfell projects fund, which I assure him does not relate to the funding for the memorial; as he will know, that fund is administered by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I ask him to contact the council to confirm its ongoing support for the memorial.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) pointed out, we will never forget, and we should never forget. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) spoke most eloquently about how we should remember. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) reminded us that this is about the whole of the country, communities across our country and how we respond to them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) pointed out, we also remember those who served on that day and the legacy that it has left with them.

I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for recognising the work done by the journalist Peter Apps in respect of this community. He is well regarded and well respected. If any hon. Members have not read the book to which she referred, I strongly recommend that they do so.

Grenfell was a devastating tragedy. As hon. Members have observed, its impact has been international as well as national, and it has had lasting consequences for everyone who has been directly affected. The tragedy exposed serious failures and left searching questions that the state continues to answer. The responsibility to remember Grenfell, and to do so properly, rests with all of us.

As right hon. and hon. Members have said, the Bill does not address every issue to arise since that terrible night of 14 June 2017; nor does it intend to. There is still a great deal of work to do elsewhere on justice, accountability, reform and making homes safe. I remain committed to that work and to acting on the Grenfell inquiry recommendations so that they lead to lasting change.

The Bill instead has a different, more focused role. It supports the community in creating a memorial—a place of remembrance—by ensuring that it can be properly funded, with Parliament’s consent. I am grateful to hon. Members from all parties who have spoken in support of the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

Further proceedings on the Bill stood postponed (Order, this day).

Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State on, or in connection with the following activities in England—

(1) the construction of a memorial to commemorate the victims of the fire at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017;

(2) the preservation, archiving or exhibition of elements of the Tower, material from inside the Tower or other material relating to the fire;

(3) the use, operation, maintenance or improvement of the memorial, archive or exhibition;

(4) the acquisition of, works on, and the use, operation, maintenance or improvement of—

(a) land for the purposes of paragraph (1) or (2);

(b) land where elements of the Tower are, or may be buried. —(Nesil Caliskan.)

Question agreed to.

Fire Station Closures

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) for raising this important issue and setting out his concerns so clearly. I acknowledge the firefighters who have attended and welcome them to the Gallery. I am mindful that this is an issue of significant concern to many, including those who have travelled here today and those who feel passionately about this subject. He has quite understandably focused on proposals affecting his constituency, and I will address the points he has raised, while noting that there are, as he acknowledges, limits to central Government’s involvement in local decisions.

First, let me be clear: public safety is and always will be the main priority of this Government. I want to place on the record the Government’s deep appreciation for the dedication, professionalism and courage shown every day by firefighters and the support staff who stand behind them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) pointed out, their work saves lives and provides reassurance to communities across the country, as was demonstrated in the fire near Glasgow Central station on Sunday, which shows how much we depend on the bravery and rapid response of firefighters to safeguard lives and provide reassurance in moments of real danger.

Members will appreciate that decisions on how fire and rescue services are organised, including the number and locations of fire stations, appliance availability and crewing numbers, are not decisions for the Government. I am pleased that hon. Members recognise this and that they are rightly the responsibility of the local fire and rescue authority and its chief fire officer, who are best placed to assess local needs and demands.

All FRAs have a statutory duty to produce a community risk management plan in which they set out the key challenges and risks facing their communities and how they intend to mitigate them. Decisions on fire and rescue resources, including how staff are best deployed and the location of fire stations, are matters for each FRA based on risks identified within local community risk management plans.

Let me turn to funding. After a decade of short-term settlements, 2026-27 marks a significant change, as hon. Members have recognised. It delivers the first multi-year funding agreement for local government, providing councils and FRAs with the stability and certainty required to plan ahead and invest for the long term. Under the settlement, almost £1.95 billion in core spending power will be made available to stand-alone FRAs in England, excluding North Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. That represents an average increase of 4.71% on 2025-26 levels, rising to a total increase of 12.75% by the end of the multi-year settlement period. In addition, since the provisional settlement, an extra £15 million has been secured for fire and rescue services over the multi-year settlement. That ensures a minimum uplift of 3.8% in core spending power in 2026-27 for all stand-alone fire and rescue services, with some benefiting from increases of more than 7%.

[Dr Murrison]

I welcome the multi-year settlement, and so does the fire and rescue service. However, does the Minister accept that one problem is that the assumptions on which Government support is based—the growth of council tax—cannot be tweaked up or down, because we are looking at a longer settlement period than was previously the case? That is precisely the problem that we face. The solution being offered is precept flexibility, which would keep our fire stations open. In a sense, what we are talking about is an unintended artefact of the multi-year settlement.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points. I look forward to discussing them with him further, as I will no doubt be representing the Prime Minister in our meeting. In line with usual practice, and in recognition of the views raised, the Government will continue to keep our methodology under review when calculating the core spending power of local government for future years. I have noted Members’ comments.

The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes mentioned funding pressures. Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service will have access to £79.5 million in core spending power in 2026-27—a 4.1% increase compared with 2025-26. That strengthens the FRA’s ability to plan, invest and deliver for the communities it serves. Although the Government set the funding framework, decisions on how best to deploy resources to meet core responsibilities remains the responsibility of the FRA, ensuring a locally led response to local risk.

I pay particular tribute to our on-call firefighters, who balance everyday lives, jobs, families and responsibilities with the exceptional commitment of responding to emergencies. Whether they are attending a fire in a rural village or a major incident in a city centre, their readiness and bravery command the respect of the whole House. In many rural areas, on-call firefighters are not just important; they are indispensable. Those communities rely heavily on their presence, their local knowledge and ability to respond rapidly. I firmly believe that the on-call model is invaluable to the communities that it serves. Although the Government recognises the challenges for services in which the on-call model is integral to operations, it can, with innovative and strategic thinking, work and offer real resilience within fire services. With sustained collaboration between Government, fire and rescue services and fire and rescue authorities, there is real opportunity to strengthen and revitalise the on-call workforce as part of a wider workforce strategy that sees on-call staff treated and respected as the professionals that they truly are.

To support that work, the National Fire Chiefs Council has published detailed research into the sustainability of the retained duty system. This work has been shared with FRAs to inform future planning, improvement activity and local workforce strategies. The Government continue to engage closely with the sector on this important issue.

More broadly, the Government remain committed to a reform agenda that supports the sector to evolve, professionalise and thrive. I am encouraged by the work of the ministerial advisory group for fire and rescue reform, which has brought together a wide range of voices to identify good practice and remove barriers to progress. I do, however, recognise that the funding formula as it stands is out of date. We are working on reforming it for the next spending review period.

Operational decisions rightly must remain with local FRAs. I note that the Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue authority, in which the hon. Member’s party holds the majority, is consulting on these proposals. The consultation runs until 15 May, so I encourage all affected residents, firefighters and stakeholders to participate. Meanwhile, this Government will continue to support the sector with stable funding, a clear framework for reform—of the role of firefighters and FRAs and of funding—and an unwavering commitment to public safety. We will stand with firefighters as they continue to protect our communities with professionalism and courage. I thank the hon. Member once again for raising these important issues, and I look forward to working with Members across the House to ensure that our fire and rescue services remain resilient, responsive and equipped for the challenges ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Housing, Communities and Local Government

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Written Corrections

[Samantha Dixon]

…I reassure Members that citizenship will be taken on board from key stages 1 and 2 in primary education as a result of this legislation. The curriculum assessment review that is coming in will address the issue for teachers and give them the confidence to address this enhanced curriculum.

[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 692.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon):

[Samantha Dixon]

…I reassure Members that citizenship will be taken on board from key stages 1 and 2 in primary education as a result of this Government’s policies. The curriculum assessment review that is coming in will address the issue for teachers and give them the confidence to address this enhanced curriculum.

Flexible Voting Pilots

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Written Statements

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

The way we vote in a polling station has changed little since the Ballot Act 1872. As part of our commitment to encouraging participation in our democracy, this Government will explore how we can modernise the way in which polling stations operate, to make voting in person more efficient, more convenient and better aligned with the expectations of today’s electors.

As part of this drive towards modernisation, the Government are partnering with four local authorities at the scheduled elections in May 2026 to test innovative approaches to voting. I have made the pilot orders necessary to enable this testing. Cambridge city council, North Hertfordshire district council, and Tunbridge Wells borough council will be piloting early or advance voting, with electors being given the opportunity to cast their vote in person in the days leading up to polling day on 7 May. In Milton Keynes city council, the impact of providing a centrally located voting hub on polling day, in addition to the usual polling stations, will be tested.

These flexible voting pilot schemes are designed to explore how we can modernise the voting experience by introducing greater flexibility, improving accessibility and enhancing voter satisfaction while safeguarding the integrity, security, and transparency of the democratic process. They will also allow for exploration of how flexible voting methods can better support electors who may face barriers to participation, such as disabled voters, those in remote areas, and communities that are less likely to engage.

Comprehensive evaluation will be vital to our understanding of the impact of these new approaches on voter convenience and satisfaction, accessibility and inclusive participation, and their feasibility and cost-effectiveness when delivering resilient and secure voting. Evaluations will be developed and undertaken with the participating authorities and the Electoral Commission.

By working in partnership with local authorities, the Government aim to build a stronger evidence base for future reforms and ensure any changes to the voting process are grounded in real-world experience and robust evaluation.

We remain committed to strengthening our democracy and encouraging full participation in our elections. The flexible voting pilots will help to modernise our centuries-old and storied democracy, aligning it with contemporary expectations of voters, while continuing to ensure the security of our electoral system.

[HCWS1375]

Representation of the People Bill

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for all their contributions. The right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity, and one that we need to protect and uphold. The Bill marks a landmark moment in that process. I welcome the strength of feeling expressed by all Members today about the importance of upholding democratic practice, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to close the debate as the Minister with responsibility for democracy.

I will come to the points made in the debate shortly, but first I want to address the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) in his reasoned amendment. There is one specific point that I want to address. Opposition Members have tried to suggest that there was no proper engagement with political parties, but I do not accept that. Government officials have engaged in discussions with the political parties represented on the Electoral Commission’s parliamentary parties panel on the technical aspects of the reforms, and I am grateful for the time that party administrators have invested in these discussions. My predecessor wrote to shadow spokespeople across the House upon publication of the Government’s strategy for elections. They were invited to meet then, and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and I have tried again on introduction of the Bill. The Conservatives have not taken up our offer to meet on either occasion. However, I look forward to their engagement through the Bill’s progress.

Before I address the points raised during the debate, I want to remind hon. Members what the Bill seeks to do. This is a bold move to improve democracy in the UK through extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds at all UK elections, and through expanding the list of ID acceptable at polling stations to allow as many of those who are eligible to vote to do so easily.

The Bill seeks to improve and protect our electoral systems in this modern era through improving voter registration, moving towards a more automated system that makes it easier and simpler for people who are eligible to register to vote, building a fuller and fairer democracy in the UK.

The Bill will increase participation in democracy for all, engaging young people from an earlier age. It will also protect against those who seek to cause harm and weaken our democratic system. It also delivers on other manifesto commitments to improve and protect our electoral systems by strengthening rules on political donations, and by ensuring that political imprint rules are as comprehensive as possible.

As the regulator, the Electoral Commission plays an incredibly important role in upholding public confidence in free and fair elections, which is why we are expanding its role and powers. That will ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate.

The proposed changes to our political finance framework will safeguard against foreign interference, while ensuring that legitimate donors can continue to fund electoral campaigns. The current system provides numerous opportunities for corrupt donations and manipulation to influence our elections, whether through foreign donations through shell companies or large sum donations with origins left unchecked. That status quo cannot continue. These measures have been developed to block malicious interference and to ensure the safety of democracy.

The Bill also updates electoral conduct and registration rules, making processes smoother for those running elections, with measures being informed by the strategic review of electoral registration and conduct developed in partnership with the electoral sector. Over recent years, we have also seen growth in harassment and in the intimidation of candidates, campaigners and, as Members have said, electoral staff. That is a direct threat to our democracy. Measures in the Bill move to protect all those who participate in upholding and delivering our democracy by treating such harassment and intimidation as an aggravating factor in the sentencing of offenders, while also building on existing legislation to disqualify such offenders from standing at future elections.

Let me turn to the points raised during the debate. I thank Members from across the House who have supported the measure on votes at 16, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) and for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan). I reassure Members that citizenship will be taken on board from key stages 1 and 2 in primary education as a result of this legislation. The curriculum assessment review that is coming in will address the issue of teachers and give them the confidence to address this enhanced curriculum.

I am not quite sure where the fears of the shadow Secretary of State come from on auto-enrolment, but I reassure Members that it is our intention to pilot these measures very carefully indeed to ensure that the robustness and integrity of our elections and our electoral register are maintained. The piloting measures that we take will be used carefully and proportionately.

Harassment and intimidation are a really serious issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), my friend and predecessor, who has endured significant harassment and intimidation. That is completely unwarranted.

It will be disappointing to some Members across the House that the voting system will not be changing as a result of this legislation. However, we take extremely seriously the issue of foreign interference, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). I refer Members to the independent review being conducted by Philip Rycroft, which will report this month. It is the Government’s intention to leave space for us to respond to recommendations that come out of that review as effectively as possible. That is a really serious issue that we need to address.

Similarly, misinformation and disinformation were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). There are already measures in the Online Safety Act that require the removal of illegal content, but this issue needs to be addressed more forcefully.

Flexible voting pilots were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards). I draw her attention, and that of all Members, to the written ministerial statement issued today, which sets out the pilots that we look forward to seeing innovate in ways in which electors can address the vote.

I reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that this is a crossover Bill. The Committee stage will finish towards the end of April, but further stages will cross over into the next Session of Parliament.

On the measure surrounding bank cards, which was raised by the shadow Minister, I reassure him that only UK-registered bank cards will be used. We want to do this because we accept that the vast majority of electors have them, including those of the ages of 16 and 17. Our financial system and the issuing of bank cards is one of the most robust in the country, and we will measure that.

Democracies across the world are at an inflection point. We have a vital opportunity in this Bill to strengthen our institutions and processes and to ensure that they work for the people they serve. I urge all Members to step forward and embrace this opportunity. We must all choose openness and empowerment and to work hard to bring trust back into the system. By doing so, we close our system to those who would undermine that trust, stifle debate and twist our democracy for their own ends. This Bill is the next step in the evolution of our democracy, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

18. What progress his Department has made on reforming the Building Safety Regulator.

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

On 27 January, the Building Safety Regulator became an arm’s length body under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. This was a major step towards creating a single construction regulator. The BSR continues to make strong progress on overhauling its operating model. Only the most complex legacy new build cases remain, and new applications are being approved near the 12-week target, through the innovation unit. The BSR is building on this progress, and is focusing on delivering improvements in respect of remediation and the occupation regime.

[Sarah Olney]

The Mayor of London has set a target of building 88,000 new homes in London a year over the next decade. However, recent figures show that construction began last year on only 5,891. Over the past two years, construction of new builds has fallen by 85% for affordable homes and 94% for council housing, and delays in the Building Safety Regulator’s approval processes are stalling development projects, curtailing investment and losing people their jobs. Does the Minister agree that ensuring that the regulator operates efficiently is paramount if we are to deliver on housing targets and support the UK housing sector?

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government recognised last summer that the Building Safety Regulator needed to be reformed and brought in new leadership, and there has been a marked improvement in performance. Performance data is published monthly, so there is transparency on how the Building Safety Regulator is performing. In the final quarter of 2025, we saw the highest number of decisions—673—since the BSR commenced operations, and we are still pushing hard for further improvements.

[Darren Paffey]

Tomorrow marks one year since the residents of Sundowner Court in Southampton were forced to leave their home because of serious fire safety defects. Two neighbouring blocks followed suit soon after, and no one expects to be back in their home for at least another year. The Government rightly prioritised speeding up remediation, and it is important that our regulator shares that sense of urgency, but the Building Safety Regulator is taking up to 40 weeks to approve some of the remediation plans. What improvements can the Minister promise that this Government will make to speed up those approvals and end the misery for my residents?

[Samantha Dixon]

MHCLG and the Building Safety Regulator accept that many applicants have experienced delays, and we recognise that having to wait 40 weeks for decisions is unacceptable. That is why the BSR has established a dedicated external remediation team, and is engaging with stakeholders to work through the detail of applications. A new batching model is being trialled to reduce the length of time taken to assess building control applications, while maintaining building and resident safety.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

When announcing reforms to the Building Safety Regulator last June, the Secretary of State’s Department promised to

“enhance the review of newbuild applications, unblock delays and boost sector confidence”,

but in London, where demand is highest, house building has fallen to its lowest level since 2009, which was under the last Labour Government. At gateway 2, towards the end of quarter 4 of 2025, there were still 740 live cases. On top of that, where decisions were made on applications, the vast majority were invalid, withdrawn or rejected; 67% were not classed as approved for one reason or another. That is not success, is it?

[Samantha Dixon]

In the last 12 weeks, 11,962 new-build homes have been approved, allowing construction to start. The BSR is moving forward. We will continue to press it to do better.

[Gareth Bacon]

With all due respect, the Government need to do an awful lot better than that. They hide behind the claim that there is a clear downward trend in live gateway 2 applications, but the reality, according to the Government’s own statistics across all categories, is that the number of live applications in London has fallen by a mere 6% in the last 12 weeks. That is hardly a reason to celebrate, is it? Will the Government admit that they, Sadiq Khan and their under-delivering reforms are hindering building, rather than helping to get London building?

[Samantha Dixon]

Performance continues to improve steadily across gateway 2, and decisions are being made increasingly quickly and at higher volumes. We will continue to press the BSR to do better, faster.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

11. What assessment his Department has made of the level of need for additional social and affordable housing in Bradford.

Building Safety Regulator

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Written Statements

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

Today, the Building Safety Regulator moves from the Health and Safety Executive to become a new non-departmental body of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We are also launching the first phase of work to improve the implementation of the higher-risk building regime, so that the regulator can become more proportionate while continuing to deliver the highest safety standards for residents.

The Grenfell Tower tragedy exposed multiple systemic failures across the built environment. The BSR was created to help ensure those failures do not occur again. It has worked with others to begin a deep culture shift across the sector, improve safety standards across the built environment and deliver a major shift in how buildings are regulated, constructed, and managed.

The Government demonstrated last summer that they are prepared to act decisively to support the regulator and make sure it can work effectively, by bringing in Lord Roe as chair and setting up the BSR as a separate organisation. Today’s change in how the regulator is governed will ensure it remains dedicated to building safety and standards, with greater operational flexibility and clearer accountability to the Department. It pursues a renewed mission to uphold and advance safety standards across its areas of responsibility with rigour and expertise. This marks an important step in our programme of reform for the sector and a key milestone on the journey towards a single construction regulator.

We must go further and build on the progress already made. Today we are announcing the first phase of work to ensure the higher-risk building regime is applied in a proportionate way, and that regulatory requirements are fit for purpose and complement the operational progress made by the BSR. Strengthening safety across the system remains our overriding priority, and these measures are designed to reinforce the safeguards that underpin the regime.

We are launching a consultation on how building control, both within the higher-risk regime and in some cases across the wider system, should apply to telecommunications building work. Our aim is to ensure residents can access modern digital infrastructure quickly, without compromising safety. By refining the approach to high-volume, lower-risk telecoms building work, we can improve decision making and safety outcomes, reduce pressure on the system, and enable the BSR to focus its expertise on the most complex and highest-risk activity. This will help maintain the rigorous safety standards rightly expected, while allowing essential works to proceed at pace.

We will also be consulting on further proposals to refine the application of the regime for high-volume, low-complexity work and to ensure that the system operates in a proportionate manner. Later in the spring, we will bring forward consultations on minor building work within homes and on existing fire doors. Building homes quickly and building them safely are not in conflict; that is why we are consulting on making the system more proportionate while keeping safety at its core. Throughout this process, we remain firmly committed to ensuring safety standards and oversight of the highest-risk work are not diluted. We will engage closely with the BSR, industry, technical experts, local authorities and residents as these proposals are developed.

The consultation can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/improving-proportionality-and-safety-outcomes-in-building-control-telecommunications-work

These proposals reflect a commitment to appropriate levels of oversight, while freeing up regulatory resources to ensure the safe delivery of vital homes, and the refurbishment and remediation work this country needs.

[HCWS1279]

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (England) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mr Turner.

On 1 April 2026, business rates bills will change as a result of the 2026 revaluation of all rateable values. The draft regulations will deliver a transitional relief scheme to gradually phase in bill increases resulting from the revaluation over three years. They will also deliver a 1p transitional relief supplement, in 2026-27 only, to help fund the cost of the support scheme.

I want to be clear to the Committee that the transitional relief scheme we are discussing is only one part of the support package announced by the Chancellor at the Budget in November. The transitional relief scheme by design only protects ratepayers from changes in their rates bills before other reliefs. As we know, changes in other rate reliefs can occur at the revaluation, which also affects rates bills. An obvious example is the ending of the covid-era 40% relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, which helped many businesses recover from covid over recent years.

That is why we also have in place the supporting small business relief scheme, which provides further support beyond transitional relief for those ratepayers who, at the revaluation, will lose certain other reliefs, including the 40% retail, hospitality and leisure relief. The supporting small business relief scheme is delivered by guidance rather than regulations, and the full details of the scheme were published in early December.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the concerns raised by the pub sector in recent weeks. As hon. Members will be aware, the Chancellor is looking at what more we can do to support pubs, and further work is under way. The details of that will be announced in the coming days. These further interventions are not formally part of today’s debate, but they are important context: as we consider the draft regulations, we must remember that they are only part of the picture. When taken together, our overall support package will ensure that most properties seeing bill increases will see them capped at 15% or less next year, or £800 for the smallest properties.

As hon. Members will be aware, revaluations are an important and necessary part of the business rates scheme. At revaluations, the rateable value—the estimated annual rental cost—of all 2 million non-domestic properties is uprated to reflect market conditions. At the same time, the multipliers—or tax rates—are adjusted in response to the overall movement in the tax base. To put it simply, if the overall total of rateable value increases at the revaluation, it has a downward pressure on the tax rates, and vice versa. That is why the multipliers for next year will be at a lower rate than they are currently. The new rateable values, which were published by the Valuation Office Agency in draft in November, will be applied from 1 April.

The nature of revaluations means that some ratepayers’ bills will go up, some will stay the same, and of course some will go down. The Government know that, and we know that support is required to help some of those ratepayers seeing increases to move gradually to their new liability over time. That is why we have introduced the generous support package to help ratepayers with their new liability over three years, at the centre of which is the transitional relief scheme we are discussing today.

The transitional relief scheme that the draft regulations will deliver will provide support to around half a million ratepayers that will see their bills rise substantially as a result of the 2026 business rates revaluation. That support will be provided over three years, and is worth about £3.2 billion.

The scheme will cap bill increases that arise due to the revaluation by a set percentage each year; for example, in the first year of the revaluation, 2026-27, the caps in the transitional relief scheme are 5% for small properties, 15% for medium properties and 30% for large properties. The caps are before changes in other reliefs and local supplements, such as the Crossrail supplement charged in London, so changes in actual bills may differ from the caps. As I have said, we have provided further support for properties losing certain other reliefs, such as the current 40% retail, hospitality and leisure relief.

For this revaluation, the transitional relief scheme will provide more generous caps for large properties in years 2 and 3, compared with previous revaluations. The caps will also rise with inflation in 2027-28 and 2028-29, as has been the case previously. Of course, ratepayers’ bills may also change for other reasons, unrelated to the revaluation—for example, if the property has been improved.

At the Budget, the Chancellor announced that to help fund the cost of the transitional relief scheme, the Government would introduce a 1p transitional relief supplement. This will only apply for one year, from 1 April 2026. The impact of the supplement will add only 2% to 3% to the bills of affected ratepayers in 2026-27.

As I have said, it is important to note that the precise increase in bills next year, and in the future years of this rating list, will vary depending on the individual circumstances of each ratepayer and, in later years, on inflation. However, the caps will ensure that large increases are moderated, so that ratepayers have time to adjust to their new bills, as opposed to seeing a very large increase overnight on 1 April 2026. Transitional relief is calculated and applied automatically by local government; ratepayers do not have to contact their local authority to apply for it.

Revaluations are an important and necessary part of the business rates system. By ensuring that rateable values are updated in line with recent market values, we ensure that the burden of business rates is fairly distributed across the tax base in line with market conditions. Equally, we recognise that a large overnight change in their rates bill can be challenging for some businesses. That is why, at the Budget, the Chancellor announced a generous support package worth £4.3 billion, which includes protection to help ratepayers to transition to their new bill, with further support for pubs to be detailed in the coming days. The draft regulations will help to deliver that important support package by implementing the transitional relief scheme, and I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Today’s debate illustrates clearly how passionate Members are about their local high streets and the businesses in their constituencies, which I completely recognise. I will try to address Members’ comments.

The introduction of the permanently lower rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, paid for by the high-value multiplier, is just the first step in the Government’s programme to transform the business rates system, which the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner asked me about. In September 2025, the Government published an interim “Transforming Business Rates” report to set out what we will do next to meet our objective of delivering a fairer business rates system that supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. At the Budget, a call for evidence was published on the role of business rates in business investment, which will help us to develop a system that better supports investment and economic growth. The transformation of the business rates system is a multi-year programme happening throughout this Parliament, with much more to come.

I turn to other issues. The hon. Member asked about the impact on local government. We hope that the revaluation will be, as much as possible, neutral. We will adjust the business rates retention scheme to offset the impact on local revenues.

[David Simmonds]

I am grateful to the Minister for addressing that point. It slightly begs the question, however, if the main purpose of these increases—we have heard about 2,000%, 60% and 27% increases for independent shops, as well as 200,000 job losses—is to raise additional business rates income, but the effect on local government finance is neutral. What on earth is the point of inflicting all that pain on the business sector if it does not put a single extra penny in the pockets of local government?

[Samantha Dixon]

We do recognise that business rates make up about a quarter of local authorities’ core spending power and they support critical local services, but the revaluations maintain fairness in the system by redistributing business rate liabilities among ratepayers to reflect recent market conditions. Standard features of the business rates tax system mean that between financial years, tax take may increase or decrease due to inflation or changes in relief. Hon. Members will be aware that rates rise in line with inflation and change annually to reflect inflation. On the wider impact on local government, I will respond to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner in writing.

Members have raised the issue of the high street. It is important to note that the temporary and unfunded—I repeat unfunded—40% RHL relief for 2025-26 will end on 31 March, and will be replaced by the permanent lower retail, hospitality and leisure tax rates from 1 April. The change, coinciding with the revaluation, means that some retail, hospitality and leisure properties will need greater support to help them transition to their new bill.

We have provided exactly that through expanding the supporting small business relief scheme, which will, as I outlined, cap bill increases for ratepayers who are losing some or all of their small business rate relief, rural rate relief, 2025-26 retail, hospitality and leisure relief, or 2023 supporting small business relief, at the higher of either £800 or the equivalent transitional relief cap. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley put it most ably: to vote against this particular measure would be to see businesses facing higher bills, which is not what the Government want.

I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. As my right hon. Friend the Chanceller announced at the Budget, the business rates support package, of which this relief is a part, will help ratepayers facing bill increases as a result of the revaluation to move gradually over time to their new liability. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this matter today, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

[The Chair]

It seems that the Committee may divide on the draft regulations, so let us be clear on what we are discussing. The motion being debated is that the Committee has considered the instrument; it is not a motion to approve the instrument. The House will decide whether to pass a motion to approve the instrument, if such a motion is put before it.

Question put.