Alison McGovern
MP for Birkenhead · Labour · United Kingdom
“As part of that work, we expect all integrated care boards to complete a needs assessment so that we can get a detailed understanding of their current and future population, including people of all ages with palliative care and end-of-life needs.”
“Not for the first time this week, I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). He and I agree that we will all act according to our conscience and respect others if they come to a different conclusion.”
“Members and friends will know that in July, I lost my own mum, so I had a very practical education in this topic, and that experience will shape how I take this work forward. To conclude, I thank all hon. Members once again for all they have said.”
“The issue of assisted dying has been subject to extensive and detailed consideration over a number of years, most recently in this House and the other place in the previous Session, as well as outside Parliament.”
“I also respect my hon. Friend and, though it was not a point of order, the House will have heard what she said. I am attempting to address the points that have been raised in the debate, particularly on procedural matters, on social care and palliative care, which I turn to now.”
“On that basis, we would provide technical support to the promoter if Parliament chooses to progress the Bill. That said, I will repeat the comments made by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire from the Opposition Dispatch Box, which I now say on behalf of the Government.”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Alison McGovern, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 13.
“I thank my hon. Friend for making his way through the alphabet soup of devolution. I will make sure that the Minister for devolution hears his points. She will have read his letter and I am sure will respond to it. The next stage of our plan is to make sure that all places in this country have a plan for growth, and we will listen to what he says as we move forward.”
“We are committed to the timetable that I have just set out to the House. We are working very closely with colleagues right across government on reorganisation, including the Department of Health and Social Care, to address the issues that the right hon. Member has mentioned. I have already responded to the point about the importance of children’s services.”
“I think it is safe to say that people have a range of views on this topic. I am happy to listen to them all, but in the end, we need to move forward and improve services.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us back to the most important people in this—the people who are the future of this country, our children. I was very pleased to meet her and representatives of Blackpool only recently to hear about the work that they are doing.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting on the record his point of view, which is different from others that we have heard this morning. I can confirm that we are supporting councils through the transition. If he has any specific concerns, he knows that he can come straight to me.”
“Nobody could accuse the right hon. Gentleman of not having an opinion on this subject. I hear what he is saying. Close to me is the county of Cheshire. It was reorganised some years ago, and nobody would say that Cheshire no longer exists. We will move forward with these proposals. In the end, there is nothing that we politicians like more than discussing the architecture of power, but our job is to never lose sight of the wellbeing of the residents we represent.”
“I do hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I respect his views. The five-unitary proposal offered financial stability, balanced with care for rural and urban needs, and it creates the building blocks for successful devolution. I understand that we will respectfully disagree on some of these proposals, but I none the less thank him for sharing his opinion so clearly.”
“We think that this option reflects Norfolk’s communities and local identities, and the proposal also had wide support, which is important. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point on the need for investment in this country. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has managed to secure investment for housing, public transport and across a whole range of other areas, which we need to help this country grow. Our record on investment is a strong one.”
“I thank the right hon. Lady for setting out her views and concerns in the way that she has done. I will happily write to her with further detail on the finances, because there are issues with previous decisions in Essex that are of great concern to me. As I mentioned before in relation to Cheshire and other counties, the counties remain—they are part of our history and our culture; we are looking to have effective unitary authorities.”
“Well, it’s always worth a try! As I mentioned in response to others, this is not about the identity of our historic counties; it is about effective councils. If I may say so, the hon. Member’s point on what his constituents write to him about gives the game away. The reason we are doing this is to improve services and deal with the things that people really care about, and to make sure that councils are able to give people a good quality of life, wherever they are in England.”
“It is good to hear somebody on the Opposition Benches speaking in favour of reorganisation. The hon. Member raises an important point about ceremonial counties. If he would like to write to me about it, I will respond, as he would expect.”
“I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, given that I grew up in the Wirral where for many years people have been in a heated debate about whether it is Cheshire or Merseyside. I will take account of his views as we move forward.”
“I thank the hon. Member for putting his views on the record. As I have said on Sussex, it is important that we get it right. We want to ensure that we achieve our objectives on economic growth and ensuring that services can be delivered well. We will move forward quickly, but this next intensive period of consultation will not affect the overall timetable.”
“There were a couple of questions there. I have met the hon. Gentleman before and, in compliance with the process we are undergoing with reorganisation, I will happily meet him again. He has put his views clearly on the record and they will be taken into account.”
“I thank the hon. Lady for putting her views about Devon on the record. I reassure her that the views of the consultation are taken fully into consideration and that our team at MHCLG have worked extremely hard to do that, and I want to use this opportunity to thank them for doing so.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman not only for his question but for giving me the opportunity to hear him speak about the wonders of Huntingdonshire on a couple of occasions. I cannot comment on those proposals specifically, but he has never shied away from putting his views on the record, and he has done so again today.”
“By reading such a book, I hope that I might be able to see the future! [ Laughter. ] I thank the hon. Gentleman for meeting me, and for allowing us this pre-meeting so that we can make best use of the time.”
“As I have said to other Members, local authority debt is a serious concern for the Government. We will work through the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions in the transition process, and I am happy to provide him with more technical detail on that. The overall picture of local authority debt is not a happy one. It arises from policy failure emanating from this place, and we have a collective responsibility to put it right.”
“It would not be the same if I did not get to answer the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), Mr Speaker. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, before and throughout my time in Government, I have always considered what is happening in Northern Ireland to learn lessons from it. I thank him for making that point.”
“The question is how we make that happen. The truth about our country is that power is extremely centralised, which means we have historically taken decisions for those places with the most power—largely the south-east. However, recent decades of devolution—under both parties that have been in power—have begun to show a different story: when we give local leaders real powers, they can take better decisions, invest for the long term and change their fortunes. That is what devolution is all about. Mayors already hold levers for growth, from transport to planning, skills and housing.”
“But, believe it or not, tourists and visitors of all kinds have saved the city I love, so I am not remotely immune to the arguments Members are making. It is extremely important that we consider carefully how to grow those parts of our economy that really need it, and particularly coastal areas. I take what Members have said very seriously, and I will consider it as part of the Government’s consultation. When I was listening to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire describe very effectively the effect of tourism on our economy, I wrote down the word “Brexit”, given the effect it has had. It is too late in the day for me to become grumpy now, so I will just crack on, because this is a serious subject. The truth is that our country’s economy needs to grow at a faster rate than it has over the past decade and a half or so.”
“Member for Droitwich and Evesham on that. I will focus some of my remarks on devolution, because the approach we are taking is based in the strengthening of devolution. We now know that mayoral devolution works in terms of economic growth. From the construction of the Elizabeth line here in our great capital to Greater Manchester’s integrated transport, devolution has delivered results in getting the infrastructure that we need for growth. I just say to hon. Members that I am not immune to the arguments they have made about the challenges to economies in different parts of the country; those points have been well made. If somebody had told 13-year-old me that one day people would go for a mini-break on Merseyside, I would have thought they were barking up the wrong tree.”
“As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for securing today’s debate on the proposed visitor levy in England. It has been an absolute pleasure to hear from—I think—nine Members on the Back Benches about their constituencies, all of which, I am certain, are equally lovable and great places to visit. As Members have set out, this is an extremely important issue across the country. I respect the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), who speaks for the Opposition. He has a passion for the tourism and visitor economy, and he is right to say—as other Members, including the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, set out—what an important part of our economy the tourism industry is. I agree with the hon.”
“I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he first allows me to give a little shout-out to my local mayor, Steve Rotheram. The Centre for Cities recently found that over the past decade under his leadership the employment rate in Liverpool has gone from 61% to 71%—a 10-point increase. That is a miracle, and I pay tribute to Steve Rotheram for his work on that.”
“However, I have heard what Members have said and I understand where they are coming from, and we will take that on board as we move forward. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) also asked about that issue, and we will set out the legislative process as we move ahead.”
“Giving towns and cities more say over their revenue is essential. Our international counterparts give city leaders real fiscal powers, and we want to begin to make progress in closing that gap for English mayors. That is the context for the proposed visitor levy we have been discussing. Its purpose is to address the gap between the responsibilities we place on mayors and the funding they have in order to meet them. A modest levy can provide a reliable income stream that mayors can reinvest in local infrastructure, transport and the visitor economy itself. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked me to spell out what will be in primary legislation, which I am obviously not able to do at this point.”
“I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to respond to a point that a number of Members raised. We have just concluded the local Government funding settlement for the next three years, so we have set the path for local Government funding. This question before us is a separate conversation; it is about whether, in theory, as part of devolution, we should enable mayors—if they choose to, and they do not have to—to use this power to invest in and grow their economies. That is a completely separate question from local government funding, which I could bore this Chamber for England on, but I am not going to. In her speech last week, the Chancellor set out that if we are serious about growth across the country and not just in a few places, we must go further.”
“We want to give leaders the powers and tools they need to support growth, to introduce policies that can help shape their communities and to give their place the strongest possible future. By strengthening devolution and giving communities a greater say over their own revenues, we can build a system that is simpler, more accountable and better able to deliver for the people of this country. Again, I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire for securing this debate. I look forward to continuing to work with Members from right across the House and with local partners as we move forward in developing this policy.”
“The Government will set out their legislative priorities for the second Session of this Parliament in the King’s Speech, which we expect to provide the framework for local leaders to introduce a visitor levy before the end of this Parliament. Between now and then, we will continue to engage closely with all those who may be affected to ensure that this policy is well designed and locally led and that it delivers for communities as well as for visitors. I take it as read that Members who have contributed know that my door is always open to them if they want to discuss this issue. The proposals we have discussed reflect a clear direction of travel for this Government.”
“In the consultation, we asked about a percentage-based rate, which would scale with the cost of a stay, but we also recognise the potential benefits of alternative approaches, such as a flat-rate model. Recognising that local leaders know their area best, we asked whether mayors should have the flexibility to set levy rates locally, reflecting local priorities. Those questions, alongside many others, are being considered carefully by my Department and the Treasury as part of the next stage of policy development. I will ensure that other Ministers involved receive a copy of Hansard that covers this debate.”
“Those responses covered a wide range of views, and they will continue to inform our thinking about the design of this power. On the use of revenues, any money raised through a visitor levy should be reinvested in those places where it is generated. That is why we propose that the decision on how those revenues are spent should sit with local leaders, who can best understand local needs, pressures and opportunities. The levy must be fair and proportionate, which is why we consulted on the different types of accommodation to which it should apply. We asked whether there should be a threshold below which providers are not liable, and proposed a small number of national exemptions, which I have spelled out. We also sought views on how the levy should be charged.”
“A number of Members mentioned the cost of family holidays, and I want to flag that that issue is worth bearing in mind, particularly as we did not do all that work on the child poverty strategy to improve family incomes if they cannot afford a break, which many families up and down the country truly need right now. The devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales have already legislated to introduce visitor levies and we are learning carefully from their experience. We also want to learn from those who would be affected by a levy in England, which is why we have taken a thorough and open approach to consultation. We received more than 1,000 responses from mayors, local authorities, hospitality representatives, independent accommodation providers and many others.”
“The consultation proposed that the levy would apply to commercially let short-term accommodation, not a main residence, as queried by a couple of hon. Members. This is obviously a consultation, and we will say more when we bring forward proposals. Several national exemptions were also proposed, such as stays on registered Gypsy and Traveller sites where it is a primary residence, which a couple of hon. Members mentioned; charitable or non-profit accommodation for shelter, respite or refuge; and certain types of temporary accommodation. I take the point about scouts and guides very seriously. Final decisions will be set out in the Government’s consultation response.”
“Mayors will be best placed to judge whether a levy is right for their area, reflecting different priorities, their own economies and local democratic accountability. That is the point I want to emphasise. Hon. Members have mentioned different parts of England and different economies, a point I accept entirely. That is the whole point of devolution. If decisions about the economy are taken only in this postcode, they will not be right, because England’s economy is extremely diverse. I want to turn briefly to questions about exemptions, specifically scouts and guides. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) who spoke passionately about the campaign run by his constituents is sadly not here, but I hope he might find out that I applaud the civic responsibility shown by those young people.”
“If mayors are not talking to their local Members of Parliament, they are missing an opportunity and an important part of their role. I will certainly take what my hon. Friend says into consideration as we move forward with this. We have seen internationally how well-designed visitor levies can support growth, making places better to live, work in and visit, while also strengthening tourism and local businesses. Visitor levies have been used internationally for tourism, promotion and marketing, sustainable tourism projects, public transport, parks, public facilities, cultural heritage, restoration and so on. The principle is very straightforward: visitors who benefit from local services and amenities make a fair contribution to maintaining and improving them. That is fiscal devolution.”
“Another change stemming from the reform programme is the need to update formulae that have been replaced in the wider system. In the business rates retention system, we use factors representing the relative costs of operating in different areas, or area cost adjustments, to calculate a modest allowance of rates that each billing authority can retain to support its costs in administering business rates, otherwise known as a cost of collection allowance.”
“For most local authorities, the top-up or tariff figures set out by the settlement are the same values that we use to calculate their eligibility for the safety net or the requirement to pay the levy for a year. In such cases, we simply point to the settlement values. However, for authorities operating under 100% retention arrangements, we specify alternative top-up or tariff figures for the purposes of the levy and safety net. That ensures that councils operating at the standard 50% retention level do not bear additional costs that might arise in supporting authorities with 100% arrangements, should they require safety net payments. The top-up and tariff values for the coming year are interim figures that reflect the latest available data, but they will need to be updated next year once the final data is available.”
“The regulations also change the classification of grant compensation that local authorities are paid in lieu of business rates that they would otherwise have collected. These amounts will be treated comparably to business rates to streamline local government accounting under the business rates retention system. The reform programme has established new key values related to the business rates retention system, delivered through the recent settlement. Some of the values are used in safety net and levy calculations, which means we need to ensure that they are adjusted in the regulations to reflect their new values. As such, the instrument specifies new baseline funding levels and adjusted tariff and top-up values for local authorities.”
“That will provide authorities with improved certainty over their incomes for 2026-27 budgets as they know that they will receive their full baseline funding level—their assessed need to be provided via business rates income—offering stronger protection across the delivery of the reforms. The Government are introducing a new approach to the levy based on a marginal tax-style system, similar to the structure of income tax, that will apply to all local authorities. The approach balances the reward of business rates growth with the need to fund safety net protections. It will better support growth across the sector by applying a lower levy rate to early growth and a lower top rate than the current 50% levy faced by many authorities.”
“The rates retention regulations cover the day-to-day operation of the system and set out the full process for allocating business rates income between billing authorities, major precepting authorities and central Government. To balance risk and reward over the multi-year settlement, we are introducing changes this year to both the safety net and the levy to ensure an appropriate balance of risk and reward within the business rates retention system against the backdrop of wider reform. We are increasing the safety net from 92.5% of baseline funding levels to 100% for 2026-27.”
“The amendment regulations before the Committee provide the updates that are required this year to give practical effect to the reset and wider reforms that are being delivered through the settlement, in addition to the adjustments needed as a result of changes to the tax. Although technical in nature, the purpose of the amendments is clear, as I will now outline. The instrument changes two sets of regulations: the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations 2013 and the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) Regulations 2013. The levy and safety net regulations set out how councils are protected from significant reductions in business rates income by the safety net, and how that protection is funded by a levy on business rates growth.”
“Resetting the system realigns funding with need while maintaining the incentive for authorities to promote growth. In parallel with reforms that reset how business rates are used for funding, the Government are also reforming business rates tax policy. As a result, technical amendments are required to the framework through which business rates fund local government, in order to mitigate the impact that the changes would otherwise have on local government funding. The business rates retention system is built on straightforward principles, but it necessarily requires complex administrative arrangements that are underpinned by legislation that must be kept up to date as the system changes.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net: Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. The Government are delivering long-overdue funding reforms for English local government and introducing improvements to realign funding with need and deprivation as part of the first multi-year settlement in a decade. A key element of the reforms is the reset of the business rates retention system, which is a central component of the local government finance framework. Under the business rates retention system, English councils retain a share of the business rates they collect and benefit when their local business rates income grows.”
“Finally, we are making a number of small amendments to manage complexity where possible, including disapplying provisions that no longer apply, future-proofing routine calculations and streamlining major funding mechanisms in the system. These regulations make a series of important technical changes to the administration of the business rates retention system, and they implement what is required to update the system as a result of local government funding reforms and changes to the tax that have already been announced. If approved, the regulations will ensure that councils receive the business rates income that the system is designed to deliver. I commend the regulations to the Committee.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Department conducts significant work with local authorities to understand their costs, precisely so that we can make the adjustments I am talking about. If he has specific questions relating to Bromley, I encourage him to drop me a note at the Department so that I can get him a technical response. The City of London has a long-standing bespoke funding arrangement known as the “offset”, the administration of which is set out in the retained rates regulations. For 2026-27, it has already been agreed that the offset will remain in place, and that its value will be uprated from £13.5 million to £14 million in line with established precedent, to ensure that its value keeps pace with inflation.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for his speech. As ever, he made considered points and asked very reasonable questions.”
“As I have just set out, we want to allow local authorities to grow and to feel the incentive of keeping local business rates. However, from time to time, the system needs to be reset to make sure that local council funding aligns with need, as it must. Question put and agreed to.”
“That is the point of the reset, which was always designed to be in the system. The hon. Gentleman asked what the effect will be, and obviously it is part of the overall spending power that we set out as part of the settlement. Local authorities should now have a clear line of sight on their spending power and how this affects them. If any Members have concerns that they would like to raise with me directly, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill did, I would be very happy to engage with them on a one-to-one basis. As I said, I will write a note in response to the question raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner on the explanatory memorandum. In conclusion, these technical amendment regulations are essential to the system.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his diligence in making sure the Committee is absolutely clear on what he was referring to. I will write to him and circulate that response to the Committee, so that we all have absolute clarity on that point. On the reset, the Committee will know that the business rates retention system was always designed to be reset periodically. It needs to redistribute locally raised business rates, so that we get a balance between aligning the funding system with need and providing local authorities with the incentive for growth, as I mentioned in my speech. As a matter of fact, it has been over a decade since we assessed how much business rates authorities can raise, which means that retained business rates have accumulated over that period.”
“The law is absolutely clear that where a local authority believes that a household does not have a local connection to the district, it remains under a duty to accommodate until a referral to another district has been accepted. It is only when a referral has been accepted that the receiving authority must fulfil any duties to accommodate. There should never be any reason for families to be refused accommodation while there is a dispute about which authority owes that household a duty. There is no grey area here: families with children should never be left without accommodation.”