Commons Chamber

Monday 24th November 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:34
14:34
14:35
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
None Portrait Q2. If he will take steps through the planned homelessness strategy to increase Housing First provision. (906476)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. Gentleman who has a long standing record campaigning for those who have experienced
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
None Portrait Q4. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of his Department's funding for Buckinghamshire Council. (906478)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

as they deliver essential services to my constituents? Minister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And we
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:58
None Portrait Q10. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Floods Resilience Taskforce on future planning considerations. (906485)
-

constituencies affected? I have constituents now wading through sewage after that development to talk about how we can integrate planning with flood prevention.
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
None Portrait Q13. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of Pride in Place funding eligibility criteria in Scotland. (906488)
-

Minister.
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
None Portrait Q15. What steps his Department is taking to help ensure adequate levels of accountability of estate management companies. (906490)
-

Yes.
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
None Portrait Q16. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that new housing developments are adequately flood resilient. (906491)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

upon for development. Thank you. I thank the hon. Gentleman for
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
None Portrait Q19. If he will take steps through the Fair Funding Review 2.0 to ensure that the most deprived Lower layer Super Output Areas receive the largest increases in funding. (906494)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

2.0 truly reflects vast. Internal inequalities, so that resources reach the communities most in need. Mr.
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
Josh Simons Portrait Josh Simons MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Makerfield, Labour)
-
-
now published on a monthly basis, aligning more closely with the practices of members across this House. We have also doubled the frequency of publication of information about Ministers interests from twice yearly to quarterly. The Prime Minister further strengthened the ministerial code last month to implement reforms in relation to ministerial severance payments. And just last month, we set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, as promised in our manifesto, and we reformed the business appointment rules system. The reforms introduced on ministerial severance payments ensure payments are proportionate and fair.

Before the government introduced these reforms, we saw thousands of pounds of public money going to waste. After being claimed again and again and again by members opposite in the last Parliament, as members of the House will no doubt remember, it did not matter whether former conservative Ministers were reappointed or, in the worst cases, forced to resign due to unacceptable behaviour. But I digress. Mr. speaker, unfortunately it is not clear from the question which aspect of the code the hon.

Member wishes to ask about. But for me, as for the Prime Minister, restoring public confidence and trust in this House and in the government across the country is a defining mission. We will continue to seek to uphold standards in public life as we deliver and serve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this great country here. I thank the Minister for coming

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for coming today and being. Here. Once again, I'm reminding Ministers of the requirements in the government's requirements in the government's own ministerial code that major announcements should be made in the House in the first instance and not House in the first instance and not the media. I understand that the media announcements must be managed media announcements must be managed carefully, as long as the expectations remain as they are in the ministerial code. And that is the ministerial code.

And that is the problem. It is the ministerial code that has been broken. I will code that has been broken. I will continue to uphold the rights of this House and its members to be treated with respect and to be treated with respect and to be first to hear any major announcements. And unfortunately, some Ministers decide to make comment. Last week when I also had to criticise where they said something about having a Bootle. something about having a Bootle. Well, the point is those Ministers need to learn.

Maybe they ought to learn the facts of the ministerial learn the facts of the ministerial code before they make comments in the media. Yes, Alex Burghart.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the media. Yes, Alex Burghart. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for granting this urgent question. I mean, no offence
15:46
15:46
Alex Burghart Portrait Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)
-
-
of the ministerial code. Ministers must ensure that no conflict of interest arises or could reasonably interest arises or could reasonably be perceived to arise. But in the case of David Kogan and the Prime Minister, it's clear that a Minister, it's clear that a perceived conflict has arisen. Mr. Kogan told Select Committee on the Kogan told Select Committee on the 7th of May that he donated money to the Prime Minister's leadership campaign, before the Prime Minister campaign, before the Prime Minister appointed him as football regular.

Surely, given the circumstances, full transparency is required. How full transparency is required. How much money did the Prime Minister receive from Mr. Kogan? We also had the absurd situation of the Prime the absurd situation of the Prime Minister clearing the culture secretary of wrongdoing in this case, despite the fact that the Prime Minister should have recused himself. How did this happen? Over the weekend, the Prime Minister said that Ministers know that if there's any issue, they must refer themselves to the independent adviser. Has the Prime Minister adviser.

Has the Prime Minister referred himself? If not, why not? Surely the House will see that this is pure hypocrisy. Otherwise. And is pure hypocrisy. Otherwise. And last, the Information Commissioner's Office has today said that Ministers criminal said that Ministers criminal convictions do not have to be disclosed to the public. This seems odd. Will the Minister reassure the odd. Will the Minister reassure the House that this government will reveal any criminal convictions that Ministers have? And is he able to confirm that no current Minister does have a criminal conviction?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, Minister. Well, can I thank the hon. Member opposite for his series of Member opposite for his series of questions connected, I think, by virtue of being in relation to the ministerial code, up to to separate us from them. Things happen in politics. Things go wrong and people misbehave. But the difference between us and them is that whenever something's come up, we have always followed processes and then acted. That's why the Prime Minister has strengthened the Prime Minister has strengthened the ministerial code and put public service at its heart.

And he has strengthened the role of the strengthened the role of the independent adviser. And I noticed that the hon. Member opposite is not joined by the Foreign Secretary, not joined by the Foreign Secretary, the shadow Foreign Secretary, who, when faced with bullying claims and having broken the ministerial code, having broken the ministerial code, the former Prime Minister, to whom he was a PPS, did not sack her. He made his independent adviser on standards quit instead. I notice he's also not joined by the shadow he's also not joined by the shadow housing secretary, who called a north east town not that far from me.

A. I won't repeat the word, so
15:49
Josh Simons Portrait Josh Simons MP, The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Makerfield, Labour)
-
-
me. A. I won't repeat the word, so we will not be taking lectures from the members opposite, who were roundly rejected by the public for having corroded trust in politics.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Got it. Right. Phil Brickell speaker. May I commend the. Minister for saying quite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister for saying quite clearly that it's right that we shouldn't be taking lessons from the party opposite. What more can he say about the reforms that will he say about the reforms that will come through following the establishment of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, to make sure that former Ministers are not able that former Ministers are not able to trade on their knowledge through the revolving door, because for once, we've seen actually that with once, we've seen actually that with the scrapping of Acoba, previously derided as a toothless regulator, that there are going to be far stronger safeguards on former Ministers and taking up jobs in the private sector.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

private sector. Yeah, Minister. Well, can I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know he's done for his question. I know he's done a lot of work to look into and promote some of these important reforms. This was a manifesto promise that we made to establish promise that we made to establish the Ethics and Integrity Commission, and it is now a manifesto promise kept. We have abolished acoba, and kept. We have abolished acoba, and that means that there will be financial penalties for ex-ministers who are breaking any rules on jobs.

That is something the former Prime Minister opposite to whom the member asking the question today was a PPS will
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:56
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:03
16:04
16:04
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:06
16:06
16:07
16:07
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:09
16:10
16:10
None Portrait Urgent question: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the intelligence used by West Midlands Police that led to the ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from attending Villa Park on 6 November 2025.
-

and event organisers. In this case, West Midlands Police, in consultation with the club and the consultation with the club and the Local Safety Advisory Group, made the recommendation to advise that away fans should not attend based away fans should not attend based on their assessment of the intelligence available to them at the time. I'm sure the House will
16:11
16:11
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
to protect public safety. The West Midlands Police issued a statement in response to the latest media reporting on the intelligence they reporting on the intelligence they used, and are carrying out a debrief of the events leading up to the match and will be publishing the match and will be publishing the timeline of events, the decisions taken and the rationale for the recommendations that were for the recommendations that were provided to the Safety Advisory Group. In light of recent events Group. In light of recent events and to ensure robust oversight.

The Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Fire and Rescue services to review how police forces in England and Wales provide risk assessment advice to local safety advisory groups and other bodies responsible groups and other bodies responsible for licensing high profile public events. This inspection will consider whether police advice takes proper account of all relevant factors, including the impact on wider community relations and whether the balance between public safety and community considerations is being struck effectively.

I want to assure members that understanding the series of events that occurred in the period before the match was played, and the remain remains of keen interest to me, and, of course, to the Home Secretary. The government is clear that there is no place for hatred or discrimination in football, or indeed in wider society. We are committed to ensuring that fans can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

attend matches safely, regardless of background or affiliation. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The ban on Israeli Jewish supporters was a disgrace, but the justification disgrace, but the justification given by West Midlands Police, it turns out, was based on fiction. The police said their intelligence The police said their intelligence came from Dutch counterparts after the Maccabi Tel Aviv match last year. West Midlands Police called year. West Midlands Police called the Israeli fans quotes highly organised, co-ordinated, experienced fighters linked to the experienced fighters linked to the Israel Defence Forces.

They said they intentionally targeted Muslim communities and 5000 officers were communities and 5000 officers were deployed in response, but this was contradicted by an official Dutch report and the Dutch police report and the Dutch police themselves. They called the West Midlands Police claims not true and obviously inaccurate. In some cases, obviously inaccurate. In some cases, such as the Israeli victim thrown into the river, the facts were inverted, with Israelis presented as aggressors. West Midlands Police repeated their claims to the Home Affairs Select Committee chairman on Friday, and they refused to on Friday, and they refused to answer specific questions from the Sunday Times or justify their claims.

So will the Minister ensure
16:13
Nick Timothy Portrait Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
claims. So will the Minister ensure the publication of all intelligence material? It's mostly not sensitive. It can be redacted where necessary relating to the ban. Will lists of individuals and organisations consulted by West Midlands Police and the Safety Advisory Group, and all those who submitted evidence be published. Can the Minister confirm no organisations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood or organisations subject to government Non-engagement participated. Can she confirm? The Hindu Rajab Foundation submitted a paper and that this was accepted by West Midlands Police.

What intelligence was shared by West Midlands Police with the UK Football Football Policing Unit and National Police Chiefs Council, which information was given to Home Office Ministers and officials. And when officials were told of the options under consideration on the 2nd of October, two weeks before the ban was announced. So what did Ministers do in the intervening period? Mr. speaker, under pressure from Islamist agitators, local politicians and thugs, an English police force is accused of fabricating intelligence and misleading the public.

This could hardly be more serious. We need Ministers to hold the chief

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Constable to account and give the country the truth. Yeah. Yes, sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, sir. Can I thank him for his questions? And I hope he will understand in the first instance understand in the first instance the principle. I know he does of police operational independence, police operational independence, and we need to make sure we are reflecting that in a correct way when decisions such as this are taken. I think stepping back, there are wider lessons that we need to are wider lessons that we need to learn, which is why the Home Secretary has written to the inspector to ask him to look at how the process occurs and how it makes decisions.

Members will know it was decisions. Members will know it was set up basically following the Hillsborough tragedy, as a sort of Hillsborough tragedy, as a sort of means by which we can make decisions and ensure secure safety decisions and ensure secure safety in football and indeed in other large scale events. But the Home large scale events. But the Home Secretary has asked the inspector to consider the degree to which the
16:15
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
to consider the degree to which the police take account intelligence the degree to which the SAG process takes into account wider community impacts. And that speaks to the question that I can't answer to him now of who was who was giving information and what basis was the police making their decision on or making their recommendation on. And the review will look at whether the balance of these factors is being correctly. So I hope we will come back through that process, which we've asked the inspector to come back to us with initial conclusions by March next year.

We've made the funding available for him to do this additional inspection. And we and we wrote to him just at the end of October to ask him to do this work on the specific details of the chronology of events. He's absolutely right that Home Office officials asked us, the United Kingdom Football Policing Unit, for an update on the match on the 2nd of October, and we they were told that there was force gold was considering and it would go to the SAG for decisions.

And they laid out several different options at that time that were available in terms of the decision that was being made. I've written to the West Midlands chief to ask for some clarity following, of course, yesterday's newspaper article. I can't tell the hon. Member. I'm sure he'll appreciate why the truth of those claims. It's a newspaper article. We want to get to the bottom of it. But of course there are questions within that that we need to understand.

And I've written to the police chief to to answer those questions. And of course, I'm very happy to share more information as I get it. And of course, I think the Home Affairs Select Committee will be taking and already have, in terms of their liaison with West Mids, already

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taking a lead on asking some of these questions. Foreign Secretary Mr. speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Foreign Secretary Mr. speaker, as a local MP, I've expressed my concerns previously about this concerns previously about this decision making process. I welcome the Minister's commitment today that a review is being carried out that a review is being carried out about how these risk assessments are made. Now, I understand why some information may not be suitable for placing in the public domain, but can she give the House an assurance that the government's an assurance that the government's view is that as much information as possible should be made available

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for public scrutiny? And can I thank my hon. Friend for that question? And of course, for that question? And of course, we want to make sure as much information as as possible is in the public domain. And there were statements in the article yesterday statements in the article yesterday that we do not yet know the truth of, and we need to get to the bottom of that. And I know that bottom of that. And I know that this House will be very interested in in where the inspector gets to in in where the inspector gets to in terms of their look at this, as well as ensuring we have answers to the questions that members are raising today.
16:18
16:19
16:19
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-
explanation, the Chief Constable should resign. Disturbingly, two members of the safety advisory group, Waseem Zafar and Mumtaz group, Waseem Zafar and Mumtaz Hussain, both previously previously expressed vehement anti-Israel expressed vehement anti-Israel views. So they were not impartial and we have seen the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in Birmingham Solidarity Campaign in Birmingham trying to hunt down Maccabi players before the game. That is despicable. before the game. That is despicable. And when my hon. Friend the Member for West Sussex went to the game, he was abused and called a dog by pro-Palestine protestors, thereby revealing their true colours.

And revealing their true colours. And now we have discovered, through a written answer to my hon. Friend, the Member for Droitwich and the Member for Droitwich and Evesham, that the Home Office was made aware of the possibility of the ban as early as October. The the ban as early as October. The second, a full two weeks before the decision was taken. So why did the Home Office then do nothing to ensure the Maccabi fans could be properly protected? Does the government really think it is acceptable that the threat of antisemitic mob violence can dictate policy? Because I think that is morally wrong and should country.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. Can I thank the Shadow Home Secretary? I agree with him that we shouldn't allow the threat of mob violence to stop matches going violence to stop matches going ahead. I agree with him entirely on that front. I think with respect, I that front. I think with respect, I think he is jumping the gun a bit on some of the phrases that he has made, saying it was just made up. made, saying it was just made up.

We're not clear on that at this point, and I wouldn't want this house to take what was in the newspaper yesterday and and jump to conclusions. That's not to say we conclusions. That's not to say we don't want to get to the bottom of what happened. And I can reassure hon. Members of that. Anti-Semitism hon. Members of that. Anti-Semitism has absolutely no place in our society, and we are taking a strong lead in tackling it in all its lead in tackling it in all its forms.

The Prime Minister made his view about the decision on this match very clear, as did the match very clear, as did the Secretary of State for the Department of Culture, Media and Sport when she came to this place
16:22
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
Sport when she came to this place to speak of it. In previous weeks, we have a duty to find the right balance between operational independence and making sure all of our communities are protected in exactly the way that we need them to be. And we know, and lots of hon. Members here will know of the work of lots of Jewish organisations, in particular the Community Security Trust, who help us in that task. And we will not shy away from that. And indeed we will not shy away from what we need to do.

If there are changes to the SAG process, which, as I say, were set up following Hillsborough for for a different purpose, and we find ourselves in a different world with a different set of situations, then we will make the changes that we need to make. And as I said, I've written to the chief in the West Mids to ask some questions of him. We've asked the inspector to do a review, and I should say the Home Secretary is right. We've already. Shadow Home Secretary is right.

We've already mentioned that it's only a matter of time, he says, I think not, but there we are. It's best wishes to my neighbour in Croydon always. But on the 2nd of October, this was the point at which the Home Office asked the officials in the United Kingdom Policing Unit for the update, and we were told that there were a range of different options being considered and that that was certainly true and I wouldn't shy away from that.

Now, it's important that we all, if there are lessons them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jo White. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. High risk football matches, including several local derbies away fans, have only been given tickets once they were on the coaches and those buses have been coaches and those buses have been taken in by a police escort, removing any fan clashes. Would the Minister agree that questions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister agree that questions should be asked and why this. Tried and tested method was not used?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

used? Can I thank my hon. For that, for that question. And of course, there are there were lots of considerations that the committee was looking at in terms of what the options were. Should it be a close options were. Should it be a close match, for example, with no fans, which sometimes happens, and should it be one that didn't go ahead at all? Should it be one, as she says, where the tickets could indeed have been limited in number? There were been limited in number? There were many options that were being weighed up.

And of course, it's not just the policing advice that Assad will look at when it makes its recommendation. It will also look at other factors. And that's why we want to get to the heart of how the want to get to the heart of how the process is working, what kinds of decisions are being made and how
16:24
16:25
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
Max Wilkinson Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is alarming that the decision made by West Midlands Police was based on intelligence, parts of which the Netherlands National Police Force has stated are not true. According to reports in the national press this weekend, the public should be able to trust the authorities to base decisions on credible, well-sourced and proportionate intelligence. Will the Minister set out where this intelligence came from, if not the Dutch police? And if she can't, is that one of the questions she's asking West Midlands Police, who was ultimately responsible for sourcing that intelligence? What investigations has the Home Office asked for to ensure that any circulation of misinformation and the use of that misinformation that was ultimately used by police was not prompted by anti-Semitic sentiment? West Midlands Police have continued to defend their decision and to say that the threat was related to a specific subgroup, not the wider fan base.

Will the Home Secretary ensure that senior West Midlands Police officers come back to Parliament to appear before the Home Affairs Select Committee the Home Affairs Select Committee to defend their decision, and to explain why a total ban on all supporters was justified? And finally, anti-Semitic incidents finally, anti-Semitic incidents remain at record highs. What steps is the government taking to reassure the Jewish community of their safety and to tackle the root causes of anti-Semitism? This government promised a community cohesion strategy last year cohesion strategy last year following the Southport attacks.

Parts of that must focus on anti-Jewish racism. So when will anti-Jewish racism. So when will the Minister commit to publishing it again?
16:26
Max Wilkinson Portrait Max Wilkinson MP (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank him for his questions. I can't give him the answers that he wants in terms of the intelligence at this point and in terms of the root of them and the truth of them, we we, we are responding simply to the information that we got yesterday, and we have asked the appropriate questions to get to the bottom of that. He's right to say that, of course, the Home Affairs Select Committee has a strong role, I think, in this space and can be quite helpful in helping us to unpick some of these challenges.

He asked about the the support and the signals, indeed that we are sending and that we intend to send as a government to our Jewish communities to to reassure them that we take their safety incredibly seriously. And I can reassure him that, of course, you know, I've met with Jewish community leaders, with the Community Security Trust, as has the Home Secretary, and we are making available more funding as a response of the Manchester attack. In terms of Jewish synagogues and other buildings, and that is available for them.

We've also commissioned a review, an independent review of our public independent review of our public order legislation and our hate crime legislation. And Lord MacDonald of River Glaven QC, who MacDonald of River Glaven QC, who is a former director of Public Prosecutions who will be well known to this House, has been appointed to do that review and it will to do that review and it will examine whether existing legislation this is in the wider parameters of public order and parameters of public order and protest, is effective and proportionate, whether it adequately protects communities from intimidation and and hate, and from intimidation and and hate, and whether it strikes a fair and sustainable balance between the freedom of expression and peaceful freedom of expression and peaceful protest, and the need to prevent disorder and keep our communities disorder and keep our communities safe.

He also referred to the wider review that is being undertaken not in my department, but we are working with them and that will be published as soon as it's ready.
16:28
16:29
16:30
16:31
16:31
16:32
16:33
16:34
16:34
16:35
16:36
16:37
16:38
16:38
16:39
16:39
16:40
16:40
16:41
16:42
16:43
16:44
16:45
16:46
16:47
16:47
16:48
16:49
16:49
16:50
16:51
None Portrait Ministerial statement: The UK’s 2025 Critical Minerals Stategy
-

copper and iron. The Industrial Revolution led to the industrial metals of steel, aluminium and
16:51
16:51
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
fuel cells or copper for infrastructure are critical minerals strategy will ensure that the UK can access these vital materials and that we all benefit from the security and economic opportunities they offer. The UK is already home to one of the largest nickel refineries in Europe at Clydebank, a rare example of European cobalt refining. At Widnes European cobalt refining. At Widnes we have titanium production in Swansea, aluminium at Fort William, chromium in Rotherham, platinum chromium in Rotherham, platinum group metals and vanadium, all with the highest standards of environmental control.

In Cornwall. environmental control. In Cornwall. We have Europe's largest deposits of lithium and in Devon, the world's largest deposits of world's largest deposits of tungsten. The UK has the only western source of rare earth alloys for F-35 fighter jets. To quote my for F-35 fighter jets. To quote my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, where things are made matters. We have world leading academic institutions. The University of Birmingham is commercialising a process to pulverise magnets into a powder for remanufacturing.

Queen's University Belfast are developing magnet recycling technologies, using ionic liquids to recover rare earth metals. Camborne School of Mines has remained a leading British institution for over a century, and I'm looking forward to visiting there tomorrow. Having spent much of my career in metals research, I know that as a country we underestimate the global standing of our institutions. But of course, the point of research is to create value for the UK economy, which means commercialisation at home in Britain. We understand the advantage that can be created by a global dominance in metals.

For centuries, half the world's tin came from Cornwall and Devon. Britain dominated the graphite industry thanks to the Borrowdale deposits in Cumbria. Almost all of the world's copper was smelted in Swansea, and the majority of global steel production came from Sheffield. As a nation, we confidently built a global competitive advantage from ingenuity alone, taking action to shape the world around us. And now we have the opportunity to confidently do so again by combining our natural mineral deposits, secondary resources from recycling, strength in midstream processing, innovation and a role as the global centre for finance and trading, we will ensure that by 2035, at least 10% of annual UK demand is met from domestic production and 20% from recycling.

This displacement of imports by the development of both primary and secondary recycling routes, is driven by a need to enhance our economic security. The deployment of this strategy will ensure that these capabilities are marshalled and supported appropriately. Supply chain opportunities identified, and that resources, both public and private, are targeted towards strengthening the UK's competitive position. Our Industrial Strategy is a deliberate partnership between government and private investment, and this is the case too, in critical minerals, with up to £50 million of new government funding for domestic production, taking total funding to over £200 million.

The City of London is already a global centre for the listing of mining companies and mining finance, with the London Metals Exchange, the global hub for metals trading, and ice Futures Europe, expanding into critical minerals. Our opportunity is to redirect our financial investment strength into UK industrial development. Significant investment support is also available from UK Export Finance and the National Wealth Fund, reducing the need for UK entrepreneurs to sell their companies to overseas investors at an early stage, and increasing the opportunity for Britain to benefit from the growth of new UK owned, UK headquartered, UK listed industrial champions.

Our British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme, the consultation for which has also been announced with a written statement I have laid before the House today, will improve the competitiveness of the business environment, reducing electricity costs by up to £40 per megawatt hour from April 2027 for over 7000 eligible manufacturing businesses, reducing their energy bills by 25%. Having identified our needs and domestic capabilities in critical minerals and acting now to secure investment, we must also take action to ensure that our policies on trade and international cooperation ensure diversity of supply and safeguard our nascent industries, as well as exploring our natural, primary and secondary sources of critical minerals.

We will take action to diversify international supply chains such that by 2035, no more than 60% of any critical mineral will come from a single country. We will achieve this by ensuring that future trade agreements allow increased access to critical mineral supply chains, and enter into bilateral agreements that increase the breadth of our supply base. We will work through organisations such as the G20, G7, the WTO, NATO and the IEA to improve supply chain resilience. In June, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War.

And for the sake of national security, we are considering mandating stockpiles to be held by industry, using procurement to create diversity in the supply chain and work as part of the NATO Critical Minerals Stockpiling Project. Our trade strategy also includes a strengthened approach to trade defence, ensuring that we can safeguard UK businesses from an increasingly volatile international trading environment. This includes introducing new legislation to expand our powers to raise tariffs in response to unfair trading practices. This government is not agnostic about the fate of British industry and British manufacturing.

Given a fair business environment, our industry, our workers can outcompete others. It is our belief that the industrial capability of Britain should not be at the whim of the international market or foreign governments. Our industrial strategy and the place of critical minerals within it, is a marked
16:57
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
departure from the hands off approach of the past. With the UK government now working in close partnership with UK industry to support private sector investment and growth. Just as other developed economies have done and continue to do, this new Critical Minerals strategy is another step forward in that ambition, giving businesses investors the confidence to ensure that the materials, the industry, the jobs for Britain's future are secured. In summary, Madam Deputy Speaker, critical minerals are essential for building the modern world.

Control and supply of these materials are the means by which nations will secure power and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wealth in this century. I commend this statement to the House. Well, I'll definitely be paying close attention. I'll call the close attention. I'll call the Shadow Minister, Dame Harriett Baldwin. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I thank the Deputy Speaker. And can I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement? Critical minerals are statement? Critical minerals are indeed vital to our national security in submarines, in missiles, jet fighters and radars. We need critical minerals for our national defence.

Critical minerals in defence. Critical minerals in electric vehicles and wind turbines are also vital in our clean energy are also vital in our clean energy generation. But Madam Deputy Speaker, it's striking that the government's Critical Minerals government's Critical Minerals strategy doesn't mention China once, despite the fact that China, which despite the fact that China, which has built an almost a global monopoly on processing recently imposed export licence requirements imposed export licence requirements on seven rare earth elements samarium, gadolinium, terbium, samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and
16:59
Harriett Baldwin Portrait Dame Harriett Baldwin MP (West Worcestershire, Conservative)
-
-
dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium. Could the Minister say whether his department has made any assessment on China's dominance in the critical minerals market, and whether the government considers them a threat? This UK Critical Minerals strategy document also seems to have been written in a bit of a rush. It's sloppy, it's riddled with spelling mistakes. It has inconsistent statistics and errors in geography. Why should industry trust a government that cannot even proofread? For instance, according to the Cobalt Institute, current global demand is 200,000 tonnes and is set to grow by 14% a year.

This means that by 2030, the global demand for cobalt is forecast to be 438,000 tonnes. But in the government's document, UK domestic demand is 636,000 tonnes in 2030. So could the Minister kindly proofread the document and place a corrected version of the whole strategy in the library? The strategy recognises the impact that high energy prices have had on the critical minerals industry. But under Labour. Madam Deputy Speaker, our energy bills are up. Why doesn't the government just adopt our cheap power plan to cut electricity bills by 20%? And oil and gas are key inputs in the production of critical minerals.

What impact does the Minister believe this government's policy of closing down the North Sea will have on domestic critical mineral production under Labour? Madam Deputy Speaker, foreign direct investment into this country has fallen to an all time low. How does the government expect to build a critical minerals industry if no one is investing? So can the Minister today rule out any tax rises heading towards this industry? On Wednesday, the National Insurance, Jobs Tax and the unemployment bill are set to cost the critical minerals industry £50 million, exactly the same figure as the funding the government has pledged today.

The Chancellor's job tax in the 330 page job killing Employment Rights Bill are costing businesses £1,000 per worker, and there's a total of 50,000 people employed in this critical minerals industry. So is this a recognition from the Minister that the government's tax rises are crippling British industry? In summary, Madam Deputy Speaker, the first duty of any government is to keep our country safe, refreshing the Critical Minerals Strategy is an essential part of that mission. But does the Minister agree that given the scale of global competition and the risks of supply chain disruption, there's still a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

great deal of work to do to ensure Britain is secure in the critical minerals we need for our future. Minister MacDonald.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister MacDonald. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I start this by saying that if can I start this by saying that if there are indeed any errors, spelling errors or factual errors in the document, then I offer my apologies to the House. That is clearly unacceptable, and I will ensure that any corrections are made and a new copy is laid before made and a new copy is laid before the house. And can I thank her for bringing those matters to my attention in terms of the substantive issues that were raised, I think the point about China is is clearly very important, and the government is very well aware of the dominance of China, of the supply chains of critical minerals in some areas, particularly in processing as the, as the as the shadow spokesman, spokesperson will shadow spokesman, spokesperson will be aware, China controls 70 to 90% of the market.

And our Critical Minerals strategy is designed Minerals strategy is designed precisely to provide greater diversity of supply supply at home through primary and secondary through primary and secondary extraction, where we have the materials to do that, and also through our G7, G20, NATO and other through our G7, G20, NATO and other partners. As I as I mentioned in the statement, and I think a
17:03
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
the statement, and I think a critical point to to notice is that the supply of secondary raw materials is a is a natural resource that the UK has, and currently we we offer those resources to be for processing overseas and return to the UK. A considerable cost, and a focus of this strategy is ensuring that we have those in the UK. She mentions electricity bills. I think that my statement is best read in conjunction with the written statement I mentioned on the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme, which aims to reduce electricity bills for industry by 25% as compared as compared with their current levels of £4,040 per megawatt hour reduction and the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme and the Critical Minerals Strategy are all part of this government's relentless focus on growth and our success in attracting inward investment.

As to the points about taxation, I'm afraid she'll have to wait 48 hours

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the budget for that. Perran Moon. Whereas, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whereas, Madam Deputy Speaker, anyone that has visited my Camborne and Redruth and Hale constituency cannot miss the signs of our industrial past. But after decades industrial past. But after decades of post-industrial deprivation, global demand for critical minerals is surging.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To accelerate the transition to a clean energy future entirely a clean energy future entirely opposed by reform. With our unique geology, Cornwall is at the epicentre of the opportunity. The geology hasn't changed, but the market is back with a government that gets it. And this Labour government has published a strategy government has published a strategy with teeth to target for domestic production, a new growth minerals list and £50 million funding. Does list and £50 million funding. Does the Minister agree with me that investment must flow into Cornwall investment must flow into Cornwall to create jobs and reduce the reliance on China that was allowed to run rampant under the to run rampant under the Conservatives and in so doing, unleashed the Cornish Celtic Tiger?
17:05
17:06
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I also thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement? The critical minerals are vital to national security, economic development, the green transition and regional prosperity. Liberal Democrats believe the UK must strengthen and regularly update its industrial strategy. The 2022 plan, the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre, are useful foundations but insufficient. We've long been champions of industrial strategy. We're proud of the strategy that we introduced in government, and I'm glad that the government is taking steps to address green growth, regional inequality and sustainable economic development.

And we welcome the ambition shown in this strategy announced today, increasing domestic production to boost our national resilience to supply chain changes. And we support the commitment that at least 10% of annual UK demand will be met from domestic production by 2035. However, I wish to ask the Minister what further steps is the government taking to reduce reliance on unreliable foreign sources of critical minerals? And furthermore, how will the government ensure that the UK remains competitive with the US and remains competitive with the US and the EU, both of which offer substantial incentives for critical minerals processing? We also minerals processing? We also welcome the launch of the consultation today on the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme.

Industrial Competitiveness Scheme. But the energy intensive industries are set to benefit from a 90% discount on their electric their discount on their electric their electricity network charges. But I wish to ask the Minister what support will be available to small businesses, including many in the businesses, including many in the hospitality sector, who were omitted from the industrial strategy and continue to struggle with energy bills? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Chris McDonald.
17:07
17:08
17:09
17:10
17:10
17:11
17:11
17:12
17:13
17:13
17:14
17:15
17:15
17:16
Chris McDonald Portrait Chris McDonald MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Stockton North, Labour)
-
-
to produce these, do this processing economically in the UK so that environmental harms are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

caused anywhere else in the world. Justin Madders thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I welcome this Deputy Speaker, can I welcome this report and statement from the Minister today and also referring to the Select Committee's report issued today on economic security, issued today on economic security, which touches on some of the issues that he has talked about. But it talks about also the much wider talks about also the much wider threats that we have to the UK in terms of our resilience as as an economy.

And on that point, I wanted to just ask him about stockpiling. Now, the statement today refers to some stockpiling today refers to some stockpiling potentially taking place in the defence industry. But having seen what the select committee have what the select committee have identified as many threats to our national security, what do you consider expanding the scope of consider expanding the scope of stockpiling to other critical minerals? Because I think there is a real potential for industries a real potential for industries just to be completely crippled.

If other hostile actors wanted to take that route, sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that route, sir. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I thank him for his question and also thank him for the work
17:17
17:18
17:19
17:20
17:20
17:21
17:21
17:22
17:23
17:24
17:24
17:25
17:26
17:26
17:27
17:27
17:28
17:28
17:29
17:30
17:30
17:31
17:31
17:32
17:32
17:33
17:33
17:34
17:34
17:35
17:35
17:36
17:36
17:37
17:37
17:38
17:39
17:39
17:40
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
Wendy Morton.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Speaker. When it comes to the devolution of powers down to our mayors and the West Midlands is a really good example because we've had a mayor for a number of years. Can the hon. Lady assure me, though, that those the devolution of powers will be accompanied by a devolution of accompanied by a devolution of accountability and scrutiny to local councillors and importantly, to local communities? Because I to local communities? Because I fear this is exactly what is missing and continues to be missing in this piece of legislation.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Absolutely. We are very clear that with power comes responsibility and accountability. We are strengthening scrutiny powers for local government, and we will local government, and we will continue to look at ways in which we can strengthen scrutiny, powers and accountability powers for mayors. But we are absolutely clear that we've got to devolve power. But alongside, it is really important that local people can hold to account the institutions that we are creating and that we that we are creating and that we are building.

Since the bill, I'll make some progress and then I will give way. Since the bill left this chamber at Second Reading, the chamber at Second Reading, the government has made a modest number of amendments to ensure that the bill will operate as intended. To bill will operate as intended. To be clear, we have not introduced significant new policy. Rather, we have responded to concerns raised by members in best tradition of parliamentary scrutiny. I am confident, therefore, that we are bringing a better bill back for report.

Today's debate is concerned with parts one and two of the Bill on strategic authorities and their powers, duties and functions. Many of our amendments are minor and technical. I will therefore focus on explaining the more substantive changes we made at committee and the further amendments we brought forward at report, which relate to these parts of the Bill. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful that in taking in her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful that in taking in her the government's clear intention to devolve powers. But in the reorganisation of local government, the government is taking sweeping powers to determine the outcome of powers to determine the outcome of any reorganisation, for example, in Essex. Will the Minister undertake Essex. Will the Minister undertake actually to listen to the consultation and to reflect the consultation responses in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decision the government takes? Because at the moment in the Bill there is no obligation to do that. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are very clear that the process of local government reorganisation should be driven by local areas. should be driven by local areas. That is why we're going through a process where local areas at the moment are coming up with proposals. They're consulting constituent They're consulting constituent authorities, they're consulting their communities, and then we will make a decision based on those make a decision based on those proposals. This bill, it is very clear, is about devolution. Yes, there is a backstop power, but that there is a backstop power, but that backstop power is not one that we intend to use.

It will only be used in extreme cases. The process of in extreme cases. The process of local government reorganisation is proceeding at the moment. All areas that are in that process are that are in that process are engaging currently. And what we are seeing is that proposals are coming forward and we will make decisions based on those proposals, because at the heart of that reorganisation is an objective to make sure that we have local authorities that are more sustainable and local authorities that can deliver for their local people.

That's the central purpose of reorganisation, and it is something that we are absolutely committed to delivering on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister for giving way, and I want to just echo the point made by want to just echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Minister, through Bill Committee, outlined that she wanted this process to be that she wanted this process to be a happy process, but can I ask her to confirm on the floor of the House that if local authorities do House that if local authorities do not wish to go through local government reorganisation, this government will force them, won't it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it? Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is quite some cheek for the opposition to be raising this opposition to be raising this because under their watch, under their watch, local government was put under huge amount of pressures put under huge amount of pressures under their watch, reorganisation that should have been happened, should have happened. They ducked. should have happened. They ducked. So we are now gripping this. We are driving the change and we're not doing it for the fun of it. We are doing it for the fun of it.

We are doing it because we are very, very clear that we need to deliver for local people. We need services that make sense at a geography that make sense at a geography that makes sense, that can fundamentally deliver the outcomes that we want in places. So we are going through in places. So we are going through a process. All areas are engaging with that process in good faith. We will see their proposals. And my colleague in the Department for my department will make a decision based on the criteria that we have explicitly and transparently set out.

I will make some progress on the things that will be debating today. So at Committee stage, we amended schedule one and nine of the bill to require the combined foundational strategic authorities decisions on adopting local transport plans and agreeing their budgets will require the unanimous agreement of all constituent councils. This recognises that budget setting and the Local Transport Plan are key strategic decisions, which all councils should agree to. In the absence of a mayor with a clear democratic mandate, further amendments to schedule one will also require the consent of relevant constituent constituent councils in matters which could result in financial liability on that council.

Moreover, we believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, strategic authorities are uniquely placed to understand the demands for education and training places in their area. We have therefore widened duties on strategic authorities to work with their constituent councils to plan, provision locally and ensure that enough education and training is provided in their areas. This will ensure that the needs of those aged 16 to 18 and those over 19 with an education, health and care plan are met. We have also ensured that at least one full academic year has passed between the establishment of the designation of a new strategic authority and its ability to exercise the six adult education functions.

This is an approach in line with that taken for strategic authorities who already exercise this function on local growth plans. I will make a little bit more progress and then I will give way on local growth plans. We have expanded the definition of relevant bodies that can be named in secondary legislation, who must have regard to the shared local growth priorities that the government agrees with mayors. This reflects our original intention set out in the White Paper. It is essential that mayors know that know that their agreed priorities will be acted upon, and that all parts of government are pulling in the same direction to grow the economy.

Let me now turn to the more substantive amendments that the government is making at Report stage to these parts of the bill. The bill already provides mayoral strategic authorities with the general power of competence. As currently drafted, schedule four of the bill allows non mayoral combined authorities and Non-marital combined county authorities to exercise the general power of competence only for the purpose of economic development and regeneration. Our amendment removes that restriction, ensuring that all combined authorities and combined county authorities can make full use of the general power of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

competence, in the same way that local authorities can Jim Shannon. Thank the Minister. I won't be the only MP Madam Deputy Speaker the only MP Madam Deputy Speaker that has received a letter or correspondence from the Country Landowners Association. They're quite clear. They fear that rural quite clear. They fear that rural regions will be left behind. They're worried about the mayor's taking on the unprecedented control taking on the unprecedented control over transport, housing, planning, skills and economic development. How can the Minister assure all of How can the Minister assure all of us in this House that the challenge that ensuring mayors understand which powers will genuinely support which powers will genuinely support rural businesses, rural businesses Minister.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Thank you to the hon. Member for raising the point of rural areas. As we see mayors in more rural areas. It is incumbent on them to respond to the priorities, the needs of their local people. That needs of their local people. That is the beauty of the democracy that we are putting in place. That is the beauty of the fact that mayors the beauty of the fact that mayors will be democratically elected. And what we are seeing is in areas where we have mayors that cover rural areas, they are absolutely clear about the challenges and rural in the rural economy, and they're working to ensure that their economic plans and their their economic plans and their investment plans address that.

And that is what I expect, because at the end of this is a democratic lock. And if a mayor does not respond to the challenges in his or her local area, then local people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can vote them out. I will give way. I'm grateful. During the debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Minister of State for planning said that the government would be using the devolution bill would be using the devolution bill to strengthen the status of assets of community value. Can the Minister confirm that this devolution bill will indeed devolution bill will indeed strengthen that status, so that we don't see the demolition of such an asset in pursuit of new housing?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

asset in pursuit of new housing? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yes, we will be. We will be moving Yes, we will be. We will be moving on when we talk about the bill around community, right to buy and assets of community value. We are assets of community value. We are very, very clear that communities should be able to both identify assets of community value, but that assets of community value, but that they are then protected and that we are looking to give communities greater power in order to take on greater power in order to take on those assets.

So we are very clear that every community will have those assets that they very much those assets that they very much value. And what this bill will do is make sure that we give them the power and the tools in order to power and the tools in order to protect those assets. I am moving on to another key amendment that we are making at Report stage. I'm sure that members across the House sure that members across the House agree with me that London's pubs, its restaurants, are the beating heart of our cultural life.

They contribute to our capital's world class status and to the growth of our economy. Yet for too long, hospitality businesses have been held back by licensing regime, which lacks proportionality, consistency and transparency. This is why we are bringing forward amendments to pilot a new licensing regime in London, which will give hospitality businesses greater confidence and create the conditions for London's night time economy to thrive. These amendments will give the Mayor of London the power to publish a strategic licensing power for hospitality venues within London's night time economy, which licensing authorities in Greater London will have a duty to have regard to when carrying out their licensing function.

The Mayor of London will also be made a statutory consultee on licensing authority policies, and the GLA will become a responsible authority in the licensing process. These amendments will also introduce a call in power for the Mayor of London for licensing applications of strategic importance, while while the policy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way Florence Eshalomi. I thank. The Minister for giving way and I thank her for outlining this new I thank her for outlining this new power that the government are looking at. I came from a meeting earlier this morning with my two neighbouring parliamentary neighbouring parliamentary colleagues, the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and the Member for Brixton and Clapham. Clapham. One Brixton and Clapham. Clapham. One of the issues that we are seeing is where some areas where there are licensing policies which are having a detrimental impact.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. Local communities. Does the Minister agree that the proposals Minister agree that the proposals being outlined, there still is a crucial role for local licensing authorities, where our hard working

**** Possible New Speaker ****

authorities, where our hard working councillors are working with the community to determine what licensing applications are coming forward. Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this. We are very clear that the local licensing authority will still continue to be the key authority. And things, for example, like licensing fees will flow to those local authorities. flow to those local authorities. What this does is it creates the ability for the Mayor of London to call in in particular instances call in in particular instances where we think that the licensing will work for areas that are of will work for areas that are of strategic importance.

But in doing that, the mayor will invariably have to work with the local licensing authority and the community, because whatever is done, because again, the mayor is elected, must be done with the support of the local community. Turning now to planning to empower our mayors to unlock housing and infrastructure. I will make a little bit more progress and then I will give way. The bill provides mayors of strategic authorities with the ability to intervene in planning applications of potential strategic importance, and to make Mayoral Development Orders to better support growth in their area.

These powers are currently only available to the Mayor of London. When a mayor decides that they will become a local planning authority for an application of potential strategic importance. Our amendment will enable them to choose between either a written representation procedure or an oral hearing so that applicants, local planning authorities and other parties can make representations before a final decision is made. Let me be very clear. We want oral hearings to continue to be an important part of moral decision making.

Applications of potential strategic importance, which a mayor will be dealing with, will often be very significant developments which have wider ramifications for the area. So it is absolutely crucial that there is an opportunity to make direct representation to the mayor. However, an oral hearing may not be necessary for certain applications where planning matters may be less substantial. For instance, when an application deals with a variation to an earlier permission where the planning matter has already been established. This, we believe, by creating options and flexibility for the mayor, could save up to several months, in some cases by avoiding an unnecessary repeated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

oral hearing period. I will give way. I am really concerned that this will result in a railroading of will result in a railroading of planning applications that will impact on constituencies such as mine, which is on the periphery of mine, which is on the periphery of the of the West Midlands. So I'd like to ask the Minister in her proposals, what specific safeguards will she be putting in place to make sure that ward councillors, local planning committees continue local planning committees continue to have a voice and so do local members of Parliament? Because, quite frankly, Madam Deputy Speaker, quite frankly, Madam Deputy Speaker, at the moment, the mayor of the West Midlands doesn't even reply to my letters.

Listener. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my letters. Listener. Well. Look, we are very clear that in the instance where Mayoral Development Order is being put in Development Order is being put in place, that there will be processes and procedures that the mayor will and procedures that the mayor will have to set out so that people can make direct representation. And ultimately, I come back to the fact mayors will be democratically mayors will be democratically elected. Therefore, the need to consult with their constituent authorities in order to deliver, authorities in order to deliver, but critically, the need to consult with their community who can vote them in or out will be absolutely them in or out will be absolutely critical.

So we have set this out and designed this in a way that will allow that representation, that will allow that consultation. that will allow that consultation. And ultimately there is a democratic look, if you have a mayor that does not abide with that, amendments to schedule 12 of the bill remove the need for the mayor to secure the local planning authority's approval before making, revising or revoking a Mayoral Development Order. I would, however, reiterate, and this is really important, that this change is not an attempt to bypass local planning authorities.

Mayors will still have to bring them along, as they will be crucial for delivering these orders. If they cannot build the consent and support of the local planning authority, delivering the development and ensuring that consents and approvals go through will be much, much more difficult. So this is about empowering mayors, because we believe that they have a democratic mandate to be able to provide that strategic leadership. But critically, they must and they will do that in lockstep with their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituent authorities. Simon Hoare. I will be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will be. Very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Could you say a word or two about what her expectations are in this new arrangement that she's creating, which will have some plus points which will have some plus points and some minus points, because no system is perfect with regards to timeliness of decision making, timeliness of decision making, investors and others want timely decisions so that they can move decisions so that they can move things forward, not getting them lost in the weeds of officialdom and strategies and papers and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and strategies and papers and consultations, etc. if we are to power forward growth. Time is of the essence. Mr.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. I completely agree with the hon. Member. We absolutely want pace in planning and pace and development. planning and pace and development. And look, one of the frustrations for this side of the House is that we have inherited a system where we have inherited a system where the development, the house building that should have happened did not happen under the last government. So we're trying to grip that. And through these Mayoral Development Orders, we think we can deliver pace. We think we can deliver strategic clarity so that our strategic clarity so that our mayors are able to designate strategically important sites that are critical for investment in infrastructure and ensure that they happen, making sure that they work alongside their constituent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

authorities. I will give way. She mentioned earlier the hospitality sector, and I would just briefly want to come back to the hospitality sector. My Bath Council and I are seeking power for Council and I are seeking power for local authorities to introduce a modest visitor levy, alongside our proposal of a 5% cut in VAT for proposal of a 5% cut in VAT for hospitality. Does she agree that a visitor levy on overnight stays would generate a new ring face? A revenue stream for the hospitality sector and actually be very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beneficial for it. Beneficial. Thank you to the hon. Lady for raising this point. You know, our raising this point. You know, our mayors across the country have been strong advocates for visitor levy, strong advocates for visitor levy, but the hon. Lady and Madam Deputy Speaker, you will forgive me because this is within the remit of because this is within the remit of the Chancellor, and I wouldn't dare to pre-empt anything that the Chancellor may or may not say in Chancellor may or may not say in the budget, which is only 48 hours away.

But suffice to say that our mayors have been making the case mayors have been making the case very vociferously about the benefits and what it could do for both the visitor economy, but both the visitor economy, but critically, to enable them to unlock some of the investment that they want to see in the areas. they want to see in the areas. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been clear throughout this process that the devolution framework is the floor, not the ceiling, of our ambition and where there are sensible opportunities for us to go further and devolve more powers to mayors, we should take them.

We have therefore brought forward an amendment which will devolve the approval of rental schemes from the Secretary of State for Transport to mayors of strategic authorities, putting decision in the hands of those with the knowledge of the area. Lane rental is a simple I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I urge colleagues to make short intervention? Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will do. I welcome the lane rental. It's what the government put in the white paper and now it's put in the white paper and now it's in the in the bill. However, could I ask why the Secretary of State I ask why the Secretary of State and the Minister don't trust other authorities on this? And why this only applies to elected mayoral only applies to elected mayoral authorities? Is that not fair that all authorities should be able to use the lane rental, which is so important to improve road works?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important to improve road works? Well, lane rentals are there for all highways authorities. This is about the approval of lane Rentals, about the approval of lane Rentals, which currently sits with the Secretary of State for transport. We think that if we can devolve that to another Democratic person, the mayor, that is a good way to do the mayor, that is a good way to do it. It's a quick way to do it and critically will ensure that we are responsive to what is required responsive to what is required locally.

And I would like to thank my hon. Friend, the member of Northampton South, for his efforts Northampton South, for his efforts in pushing this eminently sensible amendment. I will now turn to Government Amendment 116 and 118, Government Amendment 116 and 118, which will amend the Health Improvement and Health Inequality duty. This government recognises the importance of environmental factors for people's health, the conditions in which people live and the air they breathe, the green spaces and the waterways they have access to, something known as blue spaces are all fundamental drivers of health outcomes.

The general health determinants set out in the clause 43 were not intended to be an exhaustive list, but we think that there is an opportunity in clarifying what we mean by this, and I'm grateful to members of the Bill Committee for their insightful discussion on this topic during Committee stage. And to my hon. Friend for Stroud for raising the importance of environmental protections throughout the bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill will devolve real power to local leaders so they can get on and deliver for their residents.

Our amendments build on our promise to go further and faster on devolution and ensure that the Bill works as intended, and I commend them to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause 43 be read a second time, and I call the Shadow Minister. Yes. Thank you very much, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I firstly welcome the Minister to her place? We spent a long time together on We spent a long time together on the bill committee with many members across this House on a cross-party basis. I know that that included the Waldorf and Statler of the Bill Committee, the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Redruth Gentleman, the Member for Redruth and Camborne and the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Banbury, whose heckling of me throughout the number of sessions was very, very welcome.

More from a sedentary position. Many people say the position. Many people say the Minister was, as I say, bombarded with what I would argue are many excellent amendments from right excellent amendments from right across the House. But I think that the hon. Lady has been taking a leaf from her ministerial colleague, leaf from her ministerial colleague, the hon. Gentleman for Greenwich's book, when her most of her responses to amendments from either responses to amendments from either myself, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and some of the more
18:02
Paul Holmes Portrait Paul Holmes MP (Hamble Valley, Conservative)
-
-
Democrats and some of the more colleagues of hers wanting to see some movement on the government that she would reflect, she would reflect, to make the bill better. She would reflect, to see if she could make the bill better. With amendments across from members across this House. Instead, she's reflected on nothing. Instead, she has brought a bill here today where she has made a number of a small number of amendments that the government wants. But any amendments from other parties across this House have been completely ignored.

And just to show, Madam Deputy Speaker how unprepared this government was in bringing this legislation to this House today. Most of the bill committee was discussing government amendments because the government was so riddled, full of holes from a government that wanted to govern in this country in the interest of the people. It was so full of holes that they spent most of the bill committee discussing their own proposals and not the opposition's. Of course I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm most grateful to him. In fact, today the government has brought brought forward 23 of its brought brought forward 23 of its own amendments. And the Minister own amendments. And the Minister therefore barely allowed more than less than a minute for each amendment. And that includes two amendment. And that includes two new schedules. And we still have a great deal of regulation that will flow from this bill that we've not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

flow from this bill that we've not even seen in draft form. Is this bill ready in any way? Clearly, to my my right hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clearly, to my my right hon. Friend. The answer is no. Otherwise we wouldn't have had as many holes as it did at Bill committee, and it as it did at Bill committee, and it wouldn't have as many holes as it has today. And if it was a bill that from a government that generally sought cross-party co-operation on what could be a very exciting programme of devolution for our local authorities and the people across authorities and the people across this country, the Minister and the government would have looked more seriously at some of the excellent amendments and new clauses that have been put through by members across this House, just not her own across this House, just not her own backbenchers and the Minister, when I intervened on her earlier did show some anger, which is not show some anger, which is not typical of the Minister.

I'm a big fan of the Minister, but she showed some anger when she tried to some anger when she tried to somehow object to the quite clearly certain element of what will go on, which is that councils across this country, through her local government reorganisation programme, will be forced to reorganise even if they do not want to. There is a backstop that the Minister said she doesn't want to use, but I ask her in her comments later that she confirms what she refused to confirm during the bill committee, which is that if local authorities across this country in an area do not want to want to reorganise in terms of local government, she will force them.

It's about time the government came clean on that, so that local authority leaders across this country know what they are going to have to deal with and have a gun against their head to reorganise, rather than get on with delivering efficient services, which they try to do on a day to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

day basis. I'll give way to my right hand. Very grateful to him for giving way, and I just wanted to add my way, and I just wanted to add my support for the position that he's taking in terms of not making it a taking in terms of not making it a compulsory mandatory reorganisation that local authorities simply do not want to do. The people of Staffordshire Moorlands do not want Staffordshire Moorlands do not want to be in a greater Stoke on Trent.

They want to have their own say over this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my right hon. Friend absolutely knows her own constituency and that is something that we have tried to bring forward that we have tried to bring forward today, but also on the bill committee that local authority leaders should be choosing who they want to work with. They shouldn't want to work with. They shouldn't be being forced from a Minister from a desk in Whitehall. That is absolutely what this Minister and absolutely what this Minister and this department is doing. That is shameful.

That is not what members across this House want. That is not what local authority leaders want. And they know best. And I would ask the Minister to look at that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister to look at that compulsion again. We very briefly. He's being exceptionally generous, and I commend the generous, and I commend the Minister for being on top of her brief. But I didn't get a chance to raise this question, which is directly relevant to the point he's directly relevant to the point he's he's making, that the regulations have not been written for how the have not been written for how the neighbourhood, the neighbourhood panels or whatever they're called will be created.

But the bill does contain very sweeping powers to direct how those neighbouring neighbourhoods should be constructed. Wouldn't he agree with me that if we believe in devolution, this should be left to the local authorities to determine and not determined by Ministers?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my my hon. Friend is absolutely correct, but not only in the areas that he has said. There are plenty of other areas within the bill committee that we discussed, but also within this legislation where instead of coming legislation where instead of coming to genuine devolution, that actually gives local mayors and gives local authorities and combined authorities the powers combined authorities the powers that they would actually quite like, the government is giving them powers that they want them to have. But taking powers away in other regards, and that is not true devolution.

And the government should look again at delivering should look again at delivering true devolution across the whole of the United Kingdom very briefly, and I'll make some progress.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I'll make some progress. Therefore, would my hon. Friend there then agree with me? This is more of a English centralisation more of a English centralisation and community disempowerment. Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My right hon. Friend tempts me and I wholeheartedly agree with her. I do think that it is crazy, quite frankly, that the government has embarked on one of the largest planning reforms, set of planning reforms in the country at a time reforms in the country at a time where many of the fair funding formulas that have been announced today, planning reforms that have been announced, announced over the been announced, announced over the past few months are being given to authorities that are being abolished and being essentially abolished and being essentially reorganised.

There is a topsy turvy world in which this government has approached its reforming agenda. I really think it needs to go back and go back to the drawing board. But this bill, far from creating clarity, piles, new combined authorities, new mayoralties and new boards on top of already overlapping local councils, the government is introducing complexity at a moment when the public want simplicity, clear lines of responsibility, not an ever changing maze of institutions. And while they're doing all of this, they are fundamentally changing planning laws.

A resident should be able to know without needing a flowchart. Who is responsible for transport, planning, regeneration or housing? And this bill fails to do that basic test of good governance with a plethora of different reforms, as I've said, at different stages on different bits of legislation, there have been lots, I would argue, madam Deputy Speaker, of very good amendments tabled by my right hon. And hon. Friends, and I want to briefly just turn to a few of them that we support.

The first is from my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Gosport in her new clause 39, and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East, on his new clause 49 I pushed and moved new clause 49 at the Bill Committee, and my hon. Friends are new clause would essentially allow a mayor to have what the government has set it set out, which is true devolution, and allowing him them to have regulatory responsibilities for ferries.

I know that the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Isle of Wight East, but also the government government member, the Member for Isle of Wight West, have signed that new clause. I did bring that up at the Bill committee. The Minister did commit that to her credit, did commit that the Department for transport would have a look again at establishing the body that was promised to my hon. Friend, that I believe hasn't happened yet, and this new clause would essentially allow a mayor to make sure that they are acting in their transport connectivity on behalf of those people who elected them.

I don't see why the government is resisting that new clause, because in other areas, they have allowed mayors to have regulatory responsibility for many areas across the whole of the United Kingdom, not only geographically, but in terms of the areas that the mayor is responsible for. And the Isle of Wight is a special case. For too long, the desperate access that is required by members on the Isle of Wight who leave just to the side of my constituency in Hamble Valley, they have been relying on a service that is basically being run into the ground.

It is extortionately high fares. It's often has cancellations. Its equipment have not been updated for a very long time, and the government and the company has just been sold. I would ask the Minister to look at giving those true powers of devolution to mayors once again, and I know that my hon. Friend will talk to his excellent new clause, but I do hope that on behalf of her hon. Friend, the Member for Isle of Wight West and the Member for Isle of Wight East, that she looks at giving those mayors those true powers, as well as my right hon.

Friend the Member for Gosport. New clause 39, which was essentially allow water taxi services to be under the regulation by a mayor. Madam Deputy Speaker, as the official Opposition, we propose amendments eight and 16 to this bill, together with the related amendments it accompanies, because they speak to a principle that should be absolutely fundamental to our system, that changes to local governance should not be imposed from Whitehall without the consent of councils and communities they affect. The amendment removes of the to create or to alter the governance orchies without the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreement of the local authorities involved. I will. Give an example. When a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give an example. When a conservative government ever gave a veto to a local authority. I'm afraid I did, I genuinely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm afraid I did, I genuinely did, I give way again, I didn't hear what the hon. Gentleman said. What I was asking for. If he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What I was asking for. If he could give an example of when a conservative government gave a veto

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conservative government gave a veto to a local authority. I can say that the last conservative government worked with conservative government worked with local authorities to devolve to local authorities. But I can give an example of a Labour government an example of a Labour government that gave local people a veto on devolution, and that was the proposals by the former deputy proposals by the former deputy Prime Minister, Lord Prescott, who asked local people whether they wanted to have devolution when they wanted to have devolution when they said no.

In the north of England, the government dropped their plans. Instead, this government is going forward and forcing devolution on local people and not even bothering to ask them. That's the difference between this Labour government and between this Labour government and the Labour governments of the past. And that's why I think the hon. Gentleman should speak to his Gentleman should speak to his Minister. And I will say, with all I will say, the last Labour government was a very, very principled government led by principled government led by principled politicians.

Where are they? I say, and this government certainly has doesn't bother asking local people for the devolution that they are seeking to impose on them. Madam Deputy Speaker, combined authorities are voluntary partnerships. They function effectively only when the constituent councils trust one another and have confidence in the structures within which they operate. If we grant the Secretary of State the unilateral power to reshape those structures, redraw governance arrangements or impose new members functions without consent, we risk undermining that trust at its very foundation.

Devolution cannot be delivered by coercion, and genuine partnership cannot be created by ministerial order. Mr. speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's worth remembering that combined authorities, unlike ordinary local authorities, do not arise organically. They exist because councils choose to work together on terms. They negotiate and agree among themselves. They are built on consent. If that consent is overridden or taken for granted, we risk destabilising the very institutions which we are trying to strengthen. That is not acceptable. This bill, despite its lofty title, does remarkably little to empower the truly local level.

The parishes, the town councils, neighbourhood groups and civic institutions that understand their communities best. Instead, it concentrates more authority in the hands of regional leaders who may be many miles away, both geographically and demographically democratically from the people affected by their decisions. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government speak, of course I would. My hon. Friend will be aware

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend will be aware that the District Councils Network has actually been briefing members has actually been briefing members on both sides of the House about the fact that if the government do go ahead and force these changes through, the very least they can do is to have district councils is to have district councils represented on the strategic authorities until all the changes authorities until all the changes have come to completion. Does he think that is a more limited aim is something he might be able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something he might be able to persuade the government to do? Yeah, yeah. I think the the my hon. Friend and my county neighbour really has probably putting a bit too much faith in me. I've never been able to convince a government Minister to convince a government Minister yet to change their mind and improve legislation. But he is absolutely right and raises a very absolutely right and raises a very important aspect and may be a time to come in. The gentleman Northampton South, but he raises a Northampton South, but he raises a very important issue, which is while local district councils are while local district councils are in action and why they represent their local communities, they should have a place because they know their areas best.

Madam Deputy know their areas best. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm going to make some progress for the other amendments in relation to amendment 24. On this point, the need to ensure greater responsibility at the local level and value for money for the Council taxpayer amendment 24 inserts a new limitation into schedule three, making clear that a remuneration panel may not recommend allowances for commissioners that exceed the salary of a director level officer within the relevant authority. Madam Deputy Speaker, that is not an extravagant proposal.

It is a radical proposal. It is not radical. It is simply common sense. Commissioners, when appointed, are brought in to provide oversight, stability and direction at a moment of challenge. They are temporary custodians, not long term executives. Their role is to work for the mayor, not to run the organisation indefinitely. It would there be for there. It would therefore be wholly disproportionate and frankly indefensible to allow Commissioner allowances to exceed the remuneration of directors who work full time within that authority, carrying permanent operational responsibility.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to new clause two, for years, Labour local authorities have charged more and delivered less and we don't want this to happen across the country. When devolution is imposed on local people to stop this. That is why we propose new clause two. This amendment makes a simple and I believe, entirely reasonable proposition. If combined authorities possess the power to levy a council tax precept, then they should be subject to the same referendum principles and the same constraints apply to the vast majority of county and unitary councils.

The amendment aims at two things. Firstly, it ensures that when the Secretary of State determines categories of local authorities for the purposes of council tax, Excessiveness, mayoral combined authorities and CCAs form a single, clearly defined category that provides clarity for government, consistency for local leaders and most importantly, transparency for the taxpayer. Madam Deputy Speaker, the principle underpinning this amendment is straightforward equal powers must come with equal accountability. Over recent years, combined authorities have been entrusted with significant and growing responsibilities on transport, housing, skills, regeneration and more.

Many of us support that trend, but with those responsibilities has come the power to levy a precept on local taxpayers. Taxpayers who are already grappling with rising bills, who who have every right to expect that their money is being managed prudently, and transparency perhaps transparently, pushing more and more onto council tax payers as this government has done, releases the government from putting a sustained funding model in a second, releases the government from sustained funding. More and more, more and more responsibilities will be piled on to mayors, and that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not sustainable for the long term future of our local government family. I thank. The Shadow. Minister for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving. Way and discussing the issue of council tax, which I'm. Sure he will agree with me, is one of the will agree with me, is one of the most regressive forms of taxation, which again, if he's honest, successive governments have dodged

**** Possible New Speaker ****

successive governments have dodged in the too difficult. Box. Including the last 14 years. Does he agree that maybe this is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something that the previous government should have looked at? Go ahead. Well, if I'm proposing an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, if I'm proposing an amendment to limit the increases that mayors can bring forward, then yes, I'm happy to look at it. That's why I'm tabling it before That's why I'm tabling it before the House today. That's why I argue that the government should look at it. But what I will wear, I will it. But what I will wear, I will agree with her, is that council tax has, for a very long time, been used as a natural model to try and raise more money, and that our government on both sides haven't taken the and I, I've, I've been honest with her before that governments on both sides have not put the long term sustainable funding model in that doesn't just rely on council tax increases.

But rely on council tax increases. But I say to her gently, and she does an excellent job as chair of the MHCLG committee. The government is MHCLG committee. The government is making it worse and allowing central mayors to have no limit on the amount that they can increase. Council tax will just deliver and just encourage mayors to put more of their responsibilities onto the balance sheet through increasing people's taxes. And that is not a good thing. That is why we would argue that this new clause is proportionate, principled and offers a certainty that residents deserve new.

Clause four, which seeks to ensure ordinary house holders who wish to extend their own homes and for their own use, are not unfairly burdened with the Community Infrastructure Levy. The purpose of this new clause is clear and sensible. It would insert into the Planning Act 2008 a straightforward principle that that CIL is not charged on householder extensions where the property remains the family's own residence and the development is for personal use, not commercial gain. The Minister knows we've brought this up before. My right hon.

Friend, my right hon. Friend. The Member for Godalming and Ash has long been campaigning on this, where too many local authorities across this UK are taking people for granted in the way in which they are charging CIL. If they are just creating extensions. The government, to its credit, the Minister to her credit, have said that they would do something about this, but there is no reason why she can't back this new clause to enable what she wishes and what she has said to come true.

If she can't back this new clause, I would look to her in her wind up to say for certainty to the people who are affected by this, when will the government bring forward measures to tackle what this new clause does? Very briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the last two amendments, amendment 25 seeks to place clear, sensible and strategic priorities at the heart of Mayoral Development Orders frameworks. It ensures a rational, evidence based approach that aligns development with it. Sorry, it does does so by ensuring that development under MDOs focuses where it delivers the greatest public benefit in areas of higher density, stronger transport, accessibility and previously

**** Possible New Speaker ****

developed land, I will. I'm grateful to the Shadow Minister for giving way, especially Minister for giving way, especially I missed the first few words of his speech, which only imagine my disappointment at that. But what? Whilst promoting higher density development near transport nodes development near transport nodes makes a lot of sense. Can you explain why the third party's amendment requires mayors to issue a blanket planning permission for a blanket planning permission for the development of all previously developed land, which includes all residential areas in some places, residential areas in some places, residential gardens? It spent a lot of time talking about the rights of local councils.

This will take away their planning permission powers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their planning permission powers and issue blanket planning permission by the mayor on all previously developed land. Well, I think the hon. Gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I think the hon. Gentleman is probably being, dare I say, is probably being, dare I say, slightly naughty in that what we are trying to put down in the legislation is that we want to counter what this government has been doing, which is to make it easier to build on rural areas easier to build on rural areas where infrastructure is not deliverable, but in town centres and high density areas where most and high density areas where most people in this country want to live.

That is where we should be building first, and that's why we will be first, and that's why we will be supporting that amendment tonight. Amendment 26 is places a simple but vital restriction on MDCs. When they are designating land for development, they must not designate greenfield land unless there is no suitable previously developed land available. This is a principle that has long commanded support across this House. Well, members on all sides really, except the government, recognise that we must make the best possible use of brownfield land before

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contemplating the loss of undeveloped countryside. Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr. Holmes, before you flick

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Holmes, before you flick through any more pages, you're obviously very interesting to hear you speak, but we have over 25 colleagues hoping to contribute.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Holmes. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are other amendments that the Official amendments that the Official Opposition have tabled. I can speak about them all evening, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to reassure you, to reassure you, the officials in to reassure you, the officials in the box and members across this House, I will draw my remarks to a close. Madam Deputy Speaker More close. Madam Deputy Speaker More Madam Deputy Speaker. Many local authorities want to. Bless the hon.

authorities want to. Bless the hon. Member for Harrogate. Madam Deputy Speaker, we should not confuse our amendments with progress. We should not confuse this bill as something that delivers. True devolution that delivers. True devolution through devolution requires clarity, accountability and sustainability in funding. This bill offers none in funding. This bill offers none of those things. It's a patchwork of half formed ideas, untested assumptions and powers handed out assumptions and powers handed out with a democratic scaffolding needed to, without the democratic scaffolding needed to hold them up.

scaffolding needed to hold them up. I believe in devolution done properly, but this doesn't do that. England deserves a coherent settlement, not a constitutional patchwork. Communities deserve real empowerment, not distant regional authorities replacing national ones. Taxpayers deserve accountability, not new structures that spend their money with little scrutiny. We urge the government to look again and accept the amendments we've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

outlined this afternoon. Florence Eshalomi. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker, and. I. bringing. This. Bill back and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill back and. On a more. Happier note from the. Former. From the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From the. Shadow Minister, I think this bill does actually. Outline some of the powers going down to local communities. My understanding is that this is the first bill to actually have community empowerment actually have community empowerment in the title of the bill, and that shows the government's commitment, the government's commitment to to the government's commitment to to push on this. And as a fellow with with the Minister, a fellow Labour Co-op MP, I'm very excited about Co-op MP, I'm very excited about the community right to buy.

Tribute to the many co-op across the co-op to the many co-op across the co-op movement who've been fighting for this for many years. There are, I'm mindful of time. There are three specific areas that I just wanted to reflect on this afternoon. The
18:25
Florence Eshalomi Portrait Florence Eshalomi MP (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )
-
-
first one is New Clause 25, which has been tabled by my select Committee colleague, young woman for Newbury. And this clause would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on community infrastructure levy charges on homeowners, and including how local councils will respond to some of those technical areas. Now, our committee has heard representation from the Silt and Justice group. They represent dozens of homeowners who've been unfairly charged for home extensions for self-build and other small projects. Even though CIL is intended as a levy for large scale developments now, councils have seemingly issued the charges due to technical administrative errors such as paperwork being completed incorrectly.

But the impact of these charges are life threatening for a number of residents. We heard evidence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Where homeowners were facing unexpected bills ranging from unexpected bills ranging from 40,000 through to £200,000. Some councils, we heard, were applying a zero tolerance approach and the zero tolerance approach and the threat of imprisonment if these bills were not paid. And ultimately we are seeing homeowners suffering the real distress as a result. Some of them have been forced to sell their homes because they've been charged for something that they shouldn't have been. And to the Minister for Housing and Planning credit, he told our select committee that the CIL regulations are not intended to operate this are not intended to operate this way, and that the government is given very serious consideration to amending them to ensure no one is amending them to ensure no one is unfairly charged.

However, Madam Deputy Speaker, that was back in Deputy Speaker, that was back in July and in a letter to the committee earlier this month, the Minister was unable to provide an Minister was unable to provide an update on the plans on this. Tremendous. And he told us that the department has not issued any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

department has not issued any formal or informal communications to councils regarding charging bills. So the. New clause.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

New clause. 25, tabled by Ron Wood Frame, would require the government to take steps which would urgently need to address.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to address. To. Address the unfair sale charges. So it'd be helpful if the Minister and I'm not sure if the Minister will be winding up. But just to give an update to the House on when they saw the reviews and the guidance will be coming, or if we expect any secondary legislation to address this, we understand that Ministers cannot intervene on individual cases, but there should be clear direction issued to councils that they cannot treat applicants like this.

And having a clearer in terms of the paperwork, which would stop more homeowners being pursued for thousands of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

charges. I want to turn to clause 31, the tourism levy, which has been tabled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by the honourable. Member for Liverpool Wavertree. This new clause would establish strategic authorities the power to strategic authorities the power to impose a levy on overnight accommodation within their area. And, importantly, subsection six of And, importantly, subsection six of this new clause requires that money received from this levy are to be paid into the general fund of the authority. So it's going directly to local councils. Our Select to local councils. Our Select Committee has pressed the government to go further with fiscal devolution.

We welcome the fiscal devolution. We welcome the empowerment of of of many areas for local councils. But I think we are very clear that the one omission in this is fiscal devolution, down to our local colleagues, our report in our local colleagues, our report in the funding and Sustainability of Local government finance, which we published earlier this year in July, published earlier this year in July, included a recommendation to the Treasury to devolve tax setting powers to local authorities, allowing them to set their own forms of local taxation, such as the tourism levy.

And I understand the tourism levy. And I understand that the Minister outlined that, you know, that anything with taxation is down to the Treasury, and that's not something that MHCLG Ministers will look at. But I'm hoping that they have there are actively having these conversations with Treasury Ministers. We acknowledge that visitor levies have pros and cons they benefit, and making sure that they won't be equal and right across the country. And it has to be the right local approach for each local area.

But our our committee heard that where it does work, it will be helpful as a new form of fund raising at the regional level. So, for example, Mayor Tracy Brabin, the mayor of West Yorkshire Combined Authority, told us that a visitor levy would give them the opportunity to become more self-sufficient. Councillor Louise Gittins, the chair of the Local Government Association, told us that some form of a tourist levy would be really helpful to deal with the pressures that tourists can put.

Tourists can put on local economies. The government's explanation notes to this bill states that the purpose is to transfer power out of Westminster. But as I mentioned, the fiscal devolution element has been very quiet. I hope that the Minister will recognise that until Westminster is allowed and willing to let the tight grip on tax setting and revenue raising down to local authorities, we will not see the kind of independence and community empowerment and local accountability that we all want. This new clause would grant local authorities the powers to impose visitor levies, and it would be a positive direction in the first step.

Finally, I wanted to turn to government Amendment 149, which would grant new powers to the Greater London Authority to acquire new land by agreement for housing or regeneration purposes. Again, I'm mindful that the Minister may not be minded enough, but it would be helpful if Ministers could provide more detail about these and how these powers are intended to be used. How would these powers chime with the new powers which relate to the homes for London package announced by the department and the GLA earlier this month, last month, we all recognise the acute shortage of housing, especially in London.

It's an issue that fills my inbox and the Minister's inbox on an almost daily basis. We recognise that the government and the GLA must work together to make sure London boroughs deliver their share of housing that we desperately need. However, if the government is to proceed with the package announced last month, we must ensure that new social and affordable homes are built in a capital, which is why the committee is calling on the government to publish the impact assessment of how the changes to London's affordable housing targets will deliver more affordable housing units.

A significant proportion of these homes must be for affordable local people, so I'd be grateful if the Minister could outline how the government Amendment 149 relates to the homes for London package, and how these new powers are being offered by the GLA specifically. Just to summarise Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we all welcome the steps that the Minister has taken in terms of engaging in and and making sure that some of the amendments to this bill will see that transfer down to power.

But it's vital that we continue to have those conversations with local leaders, many of whom who are seeing more pressures, pressures in terms of more councils are applying for exceptional financial support, more councils are facing pressures in terms of adult social care, temporary accommodation and affordable housing. And it's really important that we are looking at more ways to help empower our councils to take those decisions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

closer to the communities that they represent. Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Zoe Franklin. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to speak in support of the Liberal Democrat support of the Liberal Democrat amendments to this bill. They remain true to our party's tradition of empowering local communities, upholding democratic communities, upholding democratic accountability, protecting the environment and defending the role of local government at all levels. of local government at all levels. Our amendments, numbering around 120, exist because the legislation, 120, exist because the legislation, as drafted, falls short of the government's own declared aim for meaningful devolution.

My meaningful devolution. My colleagues and I, on this side of the House have found ourselves needing to strengthen provisions, close loopholes and introduce close loopholes and introduce safeguards just to ensure that power genuinely flows outwards to communities rather than upwards to communities rather than upwards to centralised mayoral offices. Before turning to the amendments, I would like to thank my colleagues, the like to thank my colleagues, the hon. Member for Stratford upon Avon, for her work during the Committee stage and the hon. Member for Mid
18:33
Zöe Franklin Portrait Zöe Franklin MP (Guildford, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
stage and the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole for her efforts, both in the earlier stages of the Bill and at the Committee stage. The volume, detail and quality of the amendments they presented and defended have improved the Bill and clearly reflect the seriousness with which Liberal Democrats approach devolution. I also feel that, as the MP for Guildford in Surrey, it would be remiss for me to not comment on the government's outlining the decisions being led in terms of local government reform by local people and local councils.

I can state this has not happened in Surrey. Government has overruled local people who indicated a strong preference for three, have ignored geography and natural place and communities, and have clearly stated the decision was led solely by the financial state of Surrey, which was created by a number of conservative led authorities. But I will leave that thought there. As currently drafted, the bill would allow mayors of combined authorities and county combined authorities to appoint unelected commissioners to exercise substantial areas of substantial areas of public service delivery, potentially covering anything from transport to planning, economic regeneration and even aspects of social care.

It is astonishing that a bill claiming to devolve power begins by concentrating it in the hands of one individual, with the authority to outsource major public functions to people who have never faced a ballot box. This isn't localism, it's not devolution. It is centralisation masquerading as reform. Let me be clear this is not a minor administrative detail. It is the ability to hand over control of core public services that shape our constituents lives. To someone who has not been elected, cannot be removed by the public, and whose appointment could be based on personal loyalty rather than competence.

And we've seen this in the past with police and crime commissioners, where concerns have been raised about appointments of close associates or unelected political allies to influential roles. Even the perception of this is damaging to public confidence in the role. It is extraordinary that the government would open the door to repeating those mistakes on an even larger scale. Liberal Democrat Amendment 85 stops this from happening. It eliminates the ability to make these unaccountable appointments entirely. It guarantees the important public roles cannot be delegated to individuals chosen behind closed doors, safeguarding the integrity of devolution by ensuring power is exercised transparently and by those answerable to the public.

Now, if the government insists on pressing ahead with this centralising model, this top down, trust us, we know best version of localism, then the bare minimum is democratic safeguards. That is where our new clause 14 comes in. It ensures that an elected representative must carry out any development or delivery of policy within a strategic authority's remit. But let me be clear new clause 14 is the fullback. Amendment 85 is the safeguard. If the government is genuinely trying to create democratic, community led devolution, we must not allow unaccountable commissioners to be appointed to run major public services.

Turning to environmental protections, I welcome the government's concession on air quality. It is a meaningful win for public health. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their work lobbying for this inclusion at the Committee stage and the government for engaging so constructively and now including it in the bill. But we are still looking for one crucial assurance from the Minister will nitrogen dioxide be explicitly included in these provisions, not just general air quality. Nitrogen dioxide is one of the most harmful pollutants we face.

It disproportionately affects children, older people and those with respiratory illness, and I hope the Minister can offer that reassurance today. We also bring forward amendment 75, which requires a review of financial needs of local authorities in tackling health inequalities. Devolution without actual resources is not devolution, but rather the delegation of responsibility without means to deliver. In my constituency of Guildford, for example, the difference in health outcomes between neighbourhoods just a short distance apart is stark. Life expectancy, rates of chronic illness and access to preventative services varies dramatically.

Local authorities cannot hope to address these inequalities without the right resources, data and powers. Amendment 75 ensures that those needs are properly understood and resourced. I also want to take a moment to recognise the work of my hon. Friend. The member of Twickenham who has tabled has retabled important amendments on sports provision and the committee system. I thank her for doing so and the government for picking up the committee system amendment. And finally, regarding town and parish councils for the government that has repeatedly assured me and others of the importance it places on these levels of local government, this bill is surprisingly silent on their vital role.

We as Liberal Democrats have consistently proposed amendments through the bill process to address this gap, safeguard their role and ensure they are not overridden or abolished without genuine community approval. Parishes are often the tier of government closest to our constituency. Strengthening them strengthens democracy. Yet the government has generally refused our amendments. Taken together, the amendments presented from these benches today make this bill stronger, fairer and more democratic. They turn a framework that risks Decentralising power into one that can, if implemented properly, deliver genuine community level devolution by protecting against unaccountable concentration of power, ensuring environmental and public health commitments are meaningful, and giving local communities right down to parish and town councils the voice they deserve.

We've already seen when concerns are raised clearly and constructively, the government can listen, as they did with the committee system and clean air commitments. But there is so much more to be done. If we want devolution, the public can trust. Devolution empowers rather than bypasses communities and we must ensure robust safeguards are in place. Amendment 85 is absolutely central to that effort. It ensures public services cannot be handed to unelected appointees, and that accountability remains where it belongs, with the people elected by the people.

I urge members across this House to support the amendments I have spoken to today and, above all, support amendment 85 so that this bill delivers the democratic, transparent and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

community led devolution. Our Speaker. There Meg Hillier.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There Meg Hillier. Thank you very much. Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak to new clause government, new clauses new clause government, new clauses 44 and new schedule two. These give powers to the Mayor of London to establish a pilot to set up a strategic licensing policy statement, which would cover sections four and five of the 2003 sections four and five of the 2003 act covering this area, which is, in summary, the sale by retail of in summary, the sale by retail of alcohol, a licence for provision of regulated entertainment under schedule one of the 2003 act, and schedule one of the 2003 act, and provision of late night refreshment licences within the meaning of schedule two of the 2003 act.

I'm schedule two of the 2003 act. I'm proud to represent a borough that has some of the best licensed premises in the country, as well as Shoreditch and Dalston we have in those areas and elsewhere some of the best restaurants in the world. In fact, I visited counter 21, in Shoreditch only a little while ago and they were telling me how they and they were telling me how they hit social media. I think it was in Japan and and that led to a lot of Japan and and that led to a lot of a lot of visitors.

So we I would urge the Minister, if she wants to come and ever do any outreach on licensing, she's very welcome to licensing, she's very welcome to come to my borough where she'll get the best of the best. But there are also people who chance it and try it on. So it's very important that we have licensing rules that local authorities can enforce properly and that they have the money to do that. And in Hackney, it's a growth area. It's boosting the economy in the way that the Chancellor wants to see.

It's also facing pressures. I know we all know that from our hospitality industries, but they have a well-worn route on licensing in Hackney, which is well understood. And we need to both support the licensing process, but and ensure that there are fees available to cover the costs, while also supporting businesses and making sure that they can do this with relative ease, where they are, where they play by the rules, and if they don't play by the rules, that enforcement kicks in. So in context, this bill is I think it's important to lie alongside the
18:42
Meg Hillier Portrait Dame Meg Hillier MP (Hackney South and Shoreditch, Labour )
-
-
joint industry and government taskforce, which was which recently taskforce, which was which recently reported to the Department for Business and Trade. I think it was Business and Trade. I think it was on the 6th of November this month, because that legislation that sorry, that taskforce in its report plays that taskforce in its report plays into some of these proposals that are outlined in this bill. One of are outlined in this bill. One of the concerns, some of the concerns we have in in Hackney, and I know other inner London constituency MP other inner London constituency MP share some of these.

Our impacts potentially on pavement licences. These are obviously important to These are obviously important to support businesses who want to grow their business. But we know in Covid, when there was a proposal to Covid, when there was a proposal to rapidly increase pavement licences under the 23 and then later solidified in the 23 act, that solidified in the 23 act, that there could be real issues without proper involvement of the community, police and licensing authorities. In that case, it was a very rushed process, 28 days under to change the highways rules to allow the highways rules to allow licences to the same level as licences that were provided for in tier and internally.

And it was an tier and internally. And it was an unholy alliance of inner London MPs that managed to get that ameliorated eventually in the Lords. ameliorated eventually in the Lords. That was that was done at pace in Covid. We've got more time to think about it now that this new clause 44 and new schedule have both been inserted into the bill at quite late notice. The length of licences is also an issue. As if licences are allowed to run on too long. It can be very complicated to resin that licence.

It can take 12 months, so having a licence that needs a regular fee that can be rolled over relatively easily, obviously that's a fee on the business, but actually overall it can be a low fee if the business behaves well. And there are some measures that many boroughs try and introduce to make sure that those who play by the rules are treated fairly, and fees, although is not directly related to this act, could be very much part of this wider debate on licensing. Some are very low.

Temporary events notices, for example, are still £21 each, which would be £37 if it had been uprated. Still very low. When you think that's barely really an hour of an officer's time. And there are examples in my borough in Hackney, where some licensed premises put in regularly put in for temporary events, notices give way to Florence Eshalomi.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way on that, just on that in terms of the losses to the council, does she recognise that council, does she recognise that for many councils, additional street cleaning and refuse collection, additional signage, lighting, all of those costs add up when an event is granted a temporary licence and there is no compensation to many councils for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that. Indeed, and I absolutely understand and support the government's approach to supporting government's approach to supporting businesses. But actually good businesses are not supported if the fees for these temporary events fees for these temporary events notices and other fees don't keep up with inflation. And when you have a flooding of temporary events have a flooding of temporary events notices for extended hours by some businesses, this causes a huge burden on the local authority for burden on the local authority for which it's not funded.

In fact, in Hackney it's around six an annual Hackney it's around six an annual deficit of around £16,000 on temporary events notices alone. So we need enough fees to enforce while not overburdening business. while not overburdening business. And I think we've got to get that balance right. But the best businesses will understand that the enforcement costs, the refuse enforcement costs, the refuse collection, all of those issues that are related to areas with large numbers of licensed premises, large numbers of licensed premises, it's it's important that that is in place.

And the Licensing Act of 2003 hasn't been updated in 20 years. So as I say, the temporary events notices is one very big area of that. And then Hackney Council processes around 20 temporary event notices each year, and a number of those repeatedly from some premises. And as I say, it leaves a deficit. So it is the council taxpayer and the government and other taxpayers who are funding that deficit, which doesn't seem reasonable. And it was right that the temporary event notice came in as a as a quick route for doing things for small community businesses.

But there's, I think, an area here that the government should look at. But the council needs really a cost recovery model. At very least. It's not asking to make money on this. But if perpetual licenses become standard, that would be a very large reduction in money available. And on this in this bill. And I really do thank the Minister for her letters of the 20th of November and then to London MPs today on the 24th of November, where she was outlining that she doesn't expect the new strategic licensing powers granted to the mayor in London by this new clause 44 to necessitate, and I quote it, to necessarily necessitate, any reduction in licensing fees collected by London borough councils, which will remain the default decision makers.

I do think we just need to be really clear about that and be very grateful if the mayor, if the Minister could respond in her summing up to make it very clear where the responsibility for licensing fees arise, that there may be an argument for actually devolving that so that it better reflects the local costs, because in London, just the cost of salaries and and so on, and the concentration can be an issue. But I'm sure that there are cities like Manchester and Birmingham that will also have additional costs just because of the concentration of premises.

But on this new clause 44 and the new schedule I silent on the licensing of pavements, the the proposal is that there will be an amendment to the 2003 act, not not the local London London Local Authorities Act of 1990, but the licensing of pavements is a very important area of licensing in Hackney, and it does lead into the issue about licensed premises, because obviously if you're a restaurant or a pub or a business serving drink, you may well want those pavement premises or indeed presenting as a shop a shopfront display, some of those, those issues.

So I hope that the Minister can reassure that while the new schedule doesn't amend the 1990 act, that there will be. Can you be very explicit about the plan because it's very open ended as proposed. And that means that potentially the mayor of London and his team could look to look at pavement licensing. It doesn't seem to exclude it. So I'd be grateful if the Minister could be very clear about that, because it is important to reserve the powers of London, the London Local Authorities Act 1990, that covers the issues of licensing for shopfronts and pavements, and it is a very important element of income for local councils.

With the squeeze over the last 14 years on council budgets, which lost my borough around 50% of its budget, this money is spent to do. It's to do the job it's required to do. If that was affected, that would have a very big impact. About up to nearly half £1 million worth of loss to the borough, which would have to be found from somewhere else. This covers other inner London boroughs, as I mentioned, and the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act of 2023 changed the Highways Act as it relates to paid licences.

But it did not affect that 1990 act. So there are two acts dealing with this, one really affecting the London boroughs. And I just hope the Minister is fully aware and understanding of that and the need to preserve that 1990 act, which legal advice says has supremacy over the 2023 act. Because of the nature of the legislation, which I will assure you, Madam Speaker, I won't go into the detail of. So a few questions, really in summary to the Minister, will the mayor's strategic licensing statement include pavement and shopfront licensing? Because the bill is silent on this, does she intend it to be that? And if not, how will that be prevented? If it's still an open question, can she be explicit about that? How long will the mayor's pilot last? Because the mayor of London is piloting this potentially for the rest of the country.

And would there be any likelihood of this being extended to other cities and other mayoral authorities during that piloting process? Or is the pilot intended to be a way of testing it before it's rolled out? Any any further? And how will the new schedule be amendable? Will it require primary legislation and what will what will be any safeguards put in place? So if the pilot were to last into a future government, what powers does the government have and in future Minister have or future Mayor of London have to amend that because we need to be legislating for the institutions, not the individuals.

And I'm sure the Minister herself is very on top of this. But it's not that long ago she was in another job. So even in one government you can have a change of Minister. And I think we need to be legislating for the long term, not the short term. So I hope she can answer questions in her summing up, Peter Fortune.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm speaking today in support of I'm speaking today in support of new clauses 64, 65 and 66, all tabled in my name. As I said at the tabled in my name. As I said at the Second Reading, my concern is that this bill does precious little to strengthen accountability of existing devolved bodies, especially the Greater London Authority. This bill establishes Authority. This bill establishes simple majority voting in combined authorities as the default decision authorities as the default decision making process.

However, the bill does nothing to bring other authorities in line with this new standard, and the London Assembly standard, and the London Assembly will retain its two third majority requirements. Two thirds has proved requirements. Two thirds has proved impossible to achieve in the London Assembly, which is why no budget or Assembly, which is why no budget or strategy has been amended in 25 years. New clause 64, in my name would establish the two thirds majority rule, would abolish the two thirds majority requirement to amend budgets and strategies by allowing a simple majority, Assembly members will have the opportunity to realistically debate changes, bringing mayors back to the table and ensuring proper accountability.

Unlike other combined authorities, the Assembly cannot call in mayoral decisions, and London's 32 boroughs are excluded from decision making. As a result, the mayor does not need to seek consensus, negotiate or even listen to opposing views. In a city the size of London, it effectively alienates and disenfranchises millions of people, leading to disengagement and distrust of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

London wide government. I will give way. For giving way. Obviously, we both serve. We should declare an interest. We both served as London Assembly members and for South Assembly members and for South London boroughs. I just wanted to just wanted to highlight in terms just wanted to highlight in terms of his comments with regards to the mayor not having and the accountability, would he recognise accountability, would he recognise that even after the changing the voting changes, our current mayor still won an overall majority and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

still won an overall majority and was re-elected for the third time? I thank the hon. Member for her.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Comments and one of the things I've been I've really tried hard to do with these amendments is to make sure that they are objective, that they would apply to anybody who is serving as the mayor. And if I can be cheeky, I can completely understand why she may not want to limit mayoral powers. Mindful of future ambitions that the hon. future ambitions that the hon. Member may have. UQ clause 65 would Member may have. UQ clause 65 would rectify the democratic deficit in London by giving the Assembly the power to direct that proposed decisions of the mayor are not decisions of the mayor are not taken while under the Assembly's review and scrutiny.

It would also give the Assembly power to give the Assembly power to recommend that the mayor reconsider a proposed decision. These powers should be standard for any devolved authority and will ensure the views of all Londoners are heard loud and clear by the mayor. The leaders of the 32 London boroughs have made a united cross-party call for a seat at the table as part of the devolution settlement for the capital, and I fully agree with them. New clause 66 would start the process in delivering that new settlement, requiring that the Secretary of State consult on proposed reforms to the London Assembly, including proposals for greater involvement of London Borough representatives in GLA decisions.

I am firmly of the view that any new model must give the 32 boroughs a voice and a vote in London, so that not only in my borough of Bromley, but all London boroughs are able to contribute and challenge decisions which impact them directly. It is right that power is returned to our cities, regions and communities, but this must come with effective scrutiny and accountability for those who hold devolved power. There is a glaring democratic and accountability deficit in London, and anyone who is serious about devolution in London succeeding will see that the amendments I have proposed are sensible.

First steps to rectifying that deficit. This is not political in nature, and at this point I want to note the excellent amendment by the hon. Member from Brighton Pavilion, number 23. I think it is, which also looks at the equalising this democratic deficit, because, as I said to the hon. Member opposite, this is not political. Indeed, the very make up of the GLA means that these amendments return power to Assembly members of all parties, as well as empowering the London boroughs and local councillors to do the job they were elected to do.

I urge the government to embrace these amendments. Listen to London's council leaders, the majority of whom are from the Labour Party, and ensure we have a properly accountable mayor in London and in all combined authorities up and down the country. It is difficult to see how anybody could seriously argue for less

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accountability. Yeah. Yeah yeah yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah yeah yeah. Alex Mayer. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I really welcome. Devolution. And I look forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I look forward. To a time when every. Local area really wants a mayor. I have tabled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

really wants a mayor. I have tabled go. Through in turn. So first of all,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Through in turn. So first of all, turning to clause nine on the question of commissioners, I have to say I completely disagree with to say I completely disagree with the hon. Lady opposite on the Lib Dem amendment 85. I really welcome Dem amendment 85. I really welcome commissioners being brought in, and I think if we want our mayors to do the do a good job, we need to give them the tools to enable them to do that. So I kind of think of these people coming in as the Magnificent people coming in as the Magnificent Seven, but I have tabled two amendments, 161 and 162, because my amendments, 161 and 162, because my concern is really how we got to that number of seven.

And I have a gut feeling that maybe we just went down the list and counted all of the responsibilities that there the responsibilities that there were, and then came up with the number seven. And as it stands at the moment, an individual the moment, an individual commissioner can only work in one specific area. And I think that just gets rid of any sense of being able to bring in people who have got cross-cutting responsibilities. I mean, the government talks a lot about governing emissions.

What if mayors and want to do the same kind of thing? So potentially you could get rid of the cap of seven, or potentially you could get rid of that list of responsibilities just to enable people to look at different things. And I also think that if we look at the responsibilities that mayors have got at the moment, transport and infrastructure tend to be where they've got the most responsibilities. So couldn't it be that if you wanted to stick with
18:57
Alex Mayer Portrait Alex Mayer MP (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard, Labour)
-
-
the number seven, that maybe a mayor might want to look at somebody who was, you know, just doing more of transport? So active travel commissioner or, or anything like that, but let, let the mayor like that, but let, let the mayor decide. My next amendment is new clause 60, which is the question of clause 60, which is the question of deputy mayors. Now, this, I just think, is a bit of an oddity at the moment. The pool of people that a moment.

The pool of people that a mayor can choose to have as their deputy is really, really limited because it is made up of the people who are effectively in their Cabinet from each of the constituent authorities. And that means that you can have a situation means that you can have a situation we already do in one part of the country, whereby you have a democratically elected mayor who stands on a political ticket and stands on a political ticket and then is forced into choosing a deputy mayor who is not of their own political party.

So my own political party. So my amendment opens this up so that they would be able to choose for a councillor who is also democratically elected, but from any of the different authorities any of the different authorities that they represent. Now, I don't think it would entirely solve the problem if you had an independent elected, for example. But I think elected, for example. But I think for the vast majority of people, if you had a conservative, a Liberal Democrat, a Labour, green, IT reform probably as well, it would solve that problem.

Turning now to new clause 61. This isn't something that I don't think is going to be particularly popular, but I do think it would be useful. So this brings in the concept of mayoral special advisers. I think this just needs to be done transparently. It happens at the moment, but it happens at the moment with a nod and a wink. I would like to bring out into the open the people who are providing political advice to democratically elected mayors on a more general level.

It continues to concern me to some extent that all of this devolution is very much based upon the Greater Manchester model, and I do think that we need to look more widely than that. The Greater Manchester model is very different from other parts of the country, not least because they have a lot of councils that are all of the same political persuasion. So therefore, a mayor ends up with a Cabinet made up of people of the same political persuasion of them.

That is not going to be the case as we roll out devolution further. And I think that's something that we need to think about carefully. And also, as local government reorganisation goes forward, we're going to have fewer councils who make up that Cabinet. So it's going to be much easier for one individual to block something. And I actually think mayors need to be able to get on with decisive and responsive government governance. Now finally moving on to transport and Section 27, I often bore the Transport Minister on the fact that I really think bus stops and bus lanes and buses should all be looked after by the same individual, and they are not at the moment.

And that's down to the long standing issue of the split between transport and highways. And actually in an area like mine, should we ever get a mayor. I hope should we ever get a mayor. I hope we do eventually. Currently, we've got a unitary authority where they are together. As soon as you put a mayor, it splits them up again. So I very much welcome the power of direction on the key route networks. And I think that's something that actually we could continue to take further when looking at that split.

I do have some sympathy also with amendment 23 from the party opposite on micro mobility and trying to make sure that there are enough provisions to park your e-scooter. But I again think that does also talk to that highways and transport split, which we really need to look at. Again, I would argue. So I do welcome this bill. I think it's a real opportunity. I think it could well be the most consequential bill of this Parliament, but I am absolutely committed to try and make sure that we get devolution right by looking at a few tweaks that we might be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able to make. I call Peter Bedford. Thank you. Thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me begin by discussing the title of the bill. The bill claimed, perhaps optimistically, to empower optimistically, to empower communities. But by the end of this debate, we will see whether the government truly intends to do so. government truly intends to do so. Community empowerment matters, and I believe that my constituents and the councillors that represent them the councillors that represent them are far better placed to make informed decisions about their local area than bureaucrats sitting in Whitehall.

Every amendment that in Whitehall. Every amendment that I have tabled seeks to do one thing to empower communities, and if members on the benches opposite members on the benches opposite truly believe the government's rhetoric and intentions, that I hope they support those today. hope they support those today. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will focus primarily on my amendments, introducing a statutory requirement for referendums ahead of local government reorganisation. But before I come to that, let me briefly highlight my proposal to briefly highlight my proposal to the House regarding cross boundary planning.

My new clause 33 seeks to
19:02
Peter Bedford Portrait Mr Peter Bedford MP (Mid Leicestershire, Conservative)
-
-
planning. My new clause 33 seeks to fix a specific flaw in the planning system. At present, my constituency straddles three local planning authorities. Too often, too often, councils place their required housing allocation right on the edge of their boundaries, knowing full well that the impact of the services on infrastructure will fall primarily on a neighbouring authority who have little power to do anything about it. Now, I'm not a Nimby. I recognise the need for better affordable homes, but the current system encourages siloed thinking, enabling councils to tick off their housing stock members, while residents living on the boundaries bear the brunt.

Introducing joint planning committees for development for developments within specific distances from neighbouring authorities would at least bring a dialogue which is currently absent. And I would ask the Minister to specifically look at this anomaly in the planning system so that local communities are better empowered over decisions in their area. Madam Deputy Speaker, I now turn to amendments 104, 105 and 106, which offer the greatest opportunity to empower communities. We know that the government are going to press ahead with local government reorganisation, and I understand the motives behind this.

There is there is too much waste and there is often duplication in the current system, and this is one way of reducing it. But if the government want to take people with them, take my constituents with them, the residents must have the final say on their preferred re-organised boundaries through local referendums. And this is a real importance to the villages that I represent in Mid Leicestershire, where there is immense concern about being absorbed into the greater Leicester City Council area. Residents in Burston and Anstey have told me their concerns that if reorganisation takes place and places them in within Leicester City, they will face higher council tax than they currently pay.

And I thought we in this place always believe in the principle that no taxation without representation. Meanwhile, residents in Braunstone Town and Leicester Forest East have highlighted and are visibly and immensely concerned about the sad decline of Leicester City over the last few decades. After years of mismanagement. They have no desire whatsoever to see Leicester City mayor influence in their communities. My constituents in Glenfield and Kirby Muxloe know exactly why the mayor wishes to extend his boundaries after declaring a housing crisis, it is obvious that he would look at sites such as the old Weston Park Golf Course in Glenfield to meet the city's housing stock requirements.

The city mayor knows full well that this place is the burden squarely on the villages and not the city itself. So in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to commend the government's stated intention to empower communities and reduce waste in local government. However, they should accept the amendments that I tabled.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He's giving a characteristically excellent speech. characteristically excellent speech. Does he find it strange, and does he agree with me the kind of disjointed attitude that the government has on referendums, government has on referendums, where, where, where a local authority might want to change its internal structures. The government internal structures. The government is happy to keep referendums, but when it when it's looking at its forced local government reorganisation, it will not allow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reorganisation, it will not allow local authorities to have them, despite previous Labour governments committing to them. What does he think about that? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I think my constituents are very concerned about that. And I think it's it's a strange anomaly. And it's it's a strange anomaly. And it's also very strange that under the current legislation, councils are required to hold referendums are required to hold referendums where they wish to increase council tax beyond a certain level. So it just seems strange that they will just seems strange that they will not empower local communities where there is going to be local boundaries redrawn. So in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, let's actually empower our destinies. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mike Reader. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to say I had a great time on I have to say I had a great time on the bill committee for this piece of legislation. 400 pages, expertly navigated by the Minister. I have to say, an absolutely brilliant job by our whip. The hon. Member for Ealing Southall unfortunately isn't here today, but I should put on record how well she kept us in check as the opposition goaded us. I was very impressed today.

I think we cross-party are very impressed with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley and Northwood and Pinner. Their ability to string out 10s of what they need to say to about ten minutes to keep the bill going was exemplary, and we've seen some of that today as he was cut short by Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can I just politely say to him that if he carries on
19:06
Mike Reader Portrait Mike Reader MP (Northampton South, Labour)
-
-
to him that if he carries on congratulating whips like that, he'll go far?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's fantastic advice from a very experienced politician. I'd also like to, you know, cross-party also like to, you know, cross-party support. So thank you very much to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North and Paul, who we both served in the Armed Forces scheme together. And fascinating, no matter what the issue was, it always went to the issue was, it always went to the heart of local authorities and someone who did not speak up, who spoke up so much for district and spoke up so much for district and parish councils, we've been told to stop intervening on her, the amount of power she wants to give these of power she wants to give these poor parish councils.

I have to say I did ask my parishes. I've got 14 parish councils in my constituency what they thought of all the many Lib Dem proposals to invite them to engage in every single consultation and thing that a mayor may do. I and thing that a mayor may do. I have to say, overwhelmingly their view was please leave us alone. Let us get on with doing what we're doing. But I like the intention nonetheless. And of course, the Member for Brighton Pavilion, who I never knew that she was a London never knew that she was a London Assembly member, but boy do I know.

Now, after sitting on this bill committee, her experience in London committee, her experience in London Assembly went a long way. Actually, it was really good. I don't take what the shadow Minister said that there wasn't constructive there wasn't constructive engagement on this. I saw some amendments put forward by the Member for Brighton Pavilion on Member for Brighton Pavilion on changing how we think about the environment in terms of mayoralties that have been brought forward by the government now. And I know I'll talk to new clause 29 a bit, that I think whilst the intentions there a bit more refinement than Lords, we may get to something really strong there to ensure there is an environmental responsibility on our new mayors as well.

I'd like to thank to the Minister for acknowledging the work that I've done and others have done on lane rental schemes, which is new clause 43. They are a great way of bringing forward a way to control roadworks, make sure they're delivered efficiently. It's not a penalty. It's an incentive to make sure that utilities companies work in a way that minimises disruption and where they don't perform, that money goes back into fixing more potholes, sorting out more roads. And actually, I'd like to thank particularly Streetworks UK Clive, I should have checked his name for speaking Clive Pearson and Bairstow and David Capon from Hawk UK, who supported me in a lot of work on this from two of the big industry bodies, as well as the work by our brilliant Transport Select Committee, the the chair of which is no longer in her place, but who did a fantastic piece of work on this.

And it really goes to show that actually, when we work collaboratively across the House, through committees and through government, we can make changes, legislation that will make people's lives better. And if we can say nothing else at this bill that we've made sure there's roadworks and more potholes filled, I'm sure all of our constituents will be quite happy. The Minister and I have always engaged quite heavily on upward only rent reviews, and I thank the Minister for being constructive in in the way that she's engaged with me.

And my challenge on how the government has approached this. I'll repeat again what I said, both at Second Reading and in the committee. The intention of the bill is to protect the high streets, even with the amendments. Now, the way the bill is written is it potentially impacts the whole of the commercial sector. The UK's really fortunate to have a very buoyant commercial property market. We see double the investment in France, over 50% more than Germany. But there's a real risk that the uncertainty brought forward by not putting a ring fence around.

How the Upward-only rent review ban was brought forward will stifle investment. Stop the investment in things like data centres, which are big data centres in my constituency by the government just last week, warehousing, which is absolutely critical to my constituents, with about 1 in 5 constituents working in warehousing, logistics, new hospitals, healthcare, commercial offices, you name it. And I think we heard in the evidence in the bill committee that we need to see more from government on this. And I'd ask the Minister if she can confirm that before any ban is brought in, will we see a full consultation on the proposals? And at the back of that consultation, can we make sure we see restrictions put in place so we don't see these unintended consequences that stop growth, the growth that our country desperately needs? I did say I talked to new clause 29, and I think the tenacity of the hon.

Member for Brighton Pavilion, who we we met separately and explained to me that the Greens have to be very selective which committees they join. You know, they have a small representation. But she she argued very well for the need for mayors to have more responsibility in terms of air quality, environment and the like. And it's really positive to see the government has brought forward changes already to introduce that. And I'm sure the Minister will will confirm that she's going to work with members from the other place to bring forward further such amendments in due course to the bill, to make sure that's really well cemented, and that mayors do have that responsibility as well, to make sure they protect our environment.

And some might Northampton, which on some days has worse air quality than London and Birmingham and the many other towns and cities across the UK. I live in the town centre. It's the equivalent of smoking 80 cigarettes a year, just because I choose to live in the town centre of Northampton. Anything we can do to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

improve air quality in my town and across the country is absolutely give way. I'm grateful to my hon. Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I support him in his advocacy, particularly on new his advocacy, particularly on new clause 29. I would observe that the Minister mentioned that this piece of legislation should be a floor, of legislation should be a floor, not a ceiling, on ambition, and I would be keen. I'm sure he is seeking similar reassurances that seeking similar reassurances that on this, particularly the climate duty, it is vital for local authorities to be able to shape decent local level, partly because they have they're responsible for a third of emissions.

But also, interestingly, organisations such interestingly, organisations such as the Local Government Association, which is not known for wanting to increase the obligations on local authorities, and indeed UK 100, authorities, and indeed UK 100, which I must declare the my interest as a founder director of. I have supporting the duties for these local authorities, so I'm keen as indeed I'm sure he is, to see reassurances from the see reassurances from the government that they will seek these kind of obligations in the future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future. I agree, and I recognise actually this is quite a challenge because it requires some cross-department working and we've cross-department working and we've been exploring in the first 16 months of government how siloed the previous government left Whitehall. previous government left Whitehall. And actually that working cross department is going to be absolutely critical to get the legislation right. And I thank the hon. Member for bringing it forward. But I think it can be better refined and hopefully it will be in the other place before we get a chance to put that into legislation.

I have to say, as a general observation, I found the position from the Conservatives quite interesting during the debate. When I did listen to the extensive contributions from my hon. Members, I can never quite get their position. At one point they were more bureaucracy, more measures, more restrictions on mayors, and at the same time arguing against powers and wanting more freedom for mayors to choose. And we even see that in the amendments today, some amendments that are putting restrictions on mayors and combined authorities and some that are opening up the stock.

So I think perhaps in a party without real policy, it's very difficult to provide effective opposition. And I particularly appreciate the member trying to bring in changes to support ineffective oppositions in holding mayors to account. But I would just finish my observations on where I came into this around South, the South Midlands, and how this impacts on my constituency. I have written about this publicly, so I'm not I'm not hopefully overtaking the line. The South Midlands region critical to Ox-cam has kind of slightly been forgotten in this devolution argument.

We had a deal. It fell apart through part through political wrangling from my own party and the party opposite, and now the party that is barely here in the House. We do need strategic leadership in the South Midlands region to to drive growth. The government has centred a lot of the focus on clean tech, on advanced manufacturing, on the Ox-cam corridor, we see a lot of focus on Oxford. We see a lot of focus on Cambridge, but not a lot of focus on the middle.

So whilst we may not have a mayor in the early pilot of devolution, perhaps the Minister will consider whether an economic development area or something similar could be brought forward. It's backed by the South Midlands Business Council. It's called for by those who want to invest in Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire, and I recognise well there may not be political consensus on how that mayor should be formed, and perhaps even some gerrymandering from both sides of the House. We do need to see some direction from government to make sure we are not losing out on the billions and billions of pounds of investment that could come into the South Midlands region, the Ox-cam corridor.

But overall, I'm very pleased to be speaking to support of the government today. I think this is a great step forward. There's been lots of observations, some of the brilliant things that are buried in this bill that will help our constituents, and I look forward to seeing the bill further improved in the other place and seeing it come back in due course to deliver devolution, simplified government and make sure we're getting the best bang for buck in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all our regions. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak to the amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat colleagues and by myself in particular, new clause five and amendment 27. If this bill is to deliver meaningful and real devolution, it must involve the people who live with the decisions made by mayors and combined made by mayors and combined authorities. And too much of the bill, as drafted, keeps power in the hands of the Secretary of State, the hands of the Secretary of State, or of a very small group around the mayor with little scrutiny.

The amendments we have tabled, like amendment 85, seek to put that right. New clause five, which I have tabled, will place a clear duty on mayors to meet regularly with local councils, public service with local councils, public service partners and, importantly, with town and parish councils. In my
19:16
Manuela Perteghella Portrait Manuela Perteghella MP (Stratford-on-Avon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
rural constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, these councils are the closest form of local government rooted in their communities. They play a vital role in delivering services and supporting communities, and have a depth of local knowledge that no regional authority can replicate. Requiring structured engagement would ensure that decisions are shaped with those who understand their communities best. What is currently discretionary power to convene will become a mandatory obligation, ensuring that parish and town councils are explicitly recognised as part of this framework.

These councils, which will inherit assets from District council when these are going to be abolished, are indispensable partners for combined authorities and mayors, offering direct insight into local issues. New clause five would establish a structure forum for dialogue between mayors, councils and public service providers, ensuring coordination on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shared priorities and improving cooperation across the region. Give way. On.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On. That point I will with pleasure. I appreciate the hon. Lady, the Member for Stratford upon Avon, for Member for Stratford upon Avon, for giving away and giving way, and she made a number of excellent contributions on the Bill Committee. contributions on the Bill Committee. She would also know that my party supported some of her amendments on new on town and parish councils. Is she not concerned as I am, that as the government are pushing forward the government are pushing forward with many more, town and parish councils will be taking on assets that district councils are down, that district councils are down, are giving to them and having a greater role in communities, but being completely sidelined by the being completely sidelined by the actions of this government.

If she she has our support on what she's been doing. But can she just been doing. But can she just elaborate a bit more on what she thinks that might mean.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the right hon. Member for his intervention and of course, for his support as well during the Bill committee? Yes. So obviously we know that in two tier governments, the district councils in the shires the district councils in the shires in particular, will be abolished during local government reorganisation. And of course, this reorganisation. And of course, this means that town and parish councils will have to take even more assets and deliver even more services that once used to be those of district councils.

But as I said in in bill committee, the voices of town and parish councils is completely absent from, from this bill, a present decision making regional level often feels remote from the communities it serves. And given the significant powers over transport, housing, skills and regeneration, it's imperative that local councils and community representatives are consistently engaged rather than consulted. Only mayors discretion. Fundamentally, this measure reflects the very purpose of devolution to bring power and decision making closer to the people whose lives are directly affected.

It is a simple, practical step that requires no additional funding and does not alter existing powers, but it will deliver better communication, coordination and community engagement, and this also links to wider concerns about governance and geography. In Warwickshire, there is a strong case for two new unitaries for the north and south of the county, rather than one. Large super unitary analysis have shown that in Warwickshire, the two unitary model performs better than a single county wide authority, and public support is clear, with 73% of residents of South Warwickshire favouring two councils.

Several Liberal Democrat amendments on today's paper, including those I have tabled, work to safeguard proper local engagement in any future devolution arrangements. The Bill, as drafted, empowers local and strategic authorities to encourage visitors, yet it contains no statutory requirement to involve town and parish councils in this process. Amendment 27, which I have tabled, goes to the heart of our strategic authorities should work with places they represent. Tourism is not a side issue for Stratford-on-Avon. It is central to our local economy, our cultural life and our international reputation.

Stratford Town Council plays a leading role in major events such as the Shakespeare birthday celebrations, which bring visitors from across the world, demonstrating the vital contribution of town councils to cultural exchange and soft power. Yet the bill includes no duty for any new strategic authority to engage town and parish councils when shaping tourism plans. And that is a real risk for a place like Stratford, which has so much to offer but depends on constructive partnership to keep thriving.

Amendment 27 would put that duty in law and would require a published record of engagement, so that towns in my constituency are not overlooked in regional strategies. Taken together, these measures give local communities a genuine voice in tourism planning. Town and parish councils know their areas best, the attractions, the infrastructure needs and the opportunities for growth. This amendment also promotes inclusive planning. Too often small towns, villages and rural areas are overlooked in broader strategies despite their vital contribution to the economy.

By embedding their perspectives, we will support equitable growth across both urban and rural areas. In short, these amendments are practical, transparent and community focussed. They strengthen devolution by ensuring the local voices are heard, respected and reflected in tourism policy, thereby delivering strategies that are both effective and rooted in the communities they serve. I also want to talk briefly about New clause 7074, submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. An important addition to this bill to give local areas the ability to limit and regulate junk food advertising in their communities, and this amendment will make a positive impact on health, especially that of our young people.

Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the government truly wants devolution to succeed, they should accept these proposals along with a wider set of amendments tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues. Thank you Allison Gardner.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the advantages of this government's plan for devolution is that it offers the opportunity to that it offers the opportunity to address the many regional inequalities that exist across the country and indeed, strategic authorities, particularly those with moralities, have the ability to address inequalities within to address inequalities within individual regions and regions. Now, in reading the Bill, the original clause 43 addresses health, wellbeing and public services reform and it is DHSC amendments 0116 and 118.

The government, Government Amendments and Amendment 172. I wish to speak this section of the Bill confers a new duty on all combined authorities and combined County authorities to have regard to improve the health of regard to improve the health of persons in their area and reduce health inequalities between persons health inequalities between persons in their area. Amendment 172 outlines the requirements for a health inequality strategy, which
19:23
Allison Gardner Portrait Dr Allison Gardner MP (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)
-
-
health inequality strategy, which may include the metrics for healthy life expectancy, infant mortality rate, and poverty, including that of child poverty. My constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South and The villages has the interesting profile of sitting across a number of councils. The two unitaries of Stoke on Trent City Council and Staffordshire County Council, and also Stafford Borough Council and Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, and I was also a councillor in neighbouring Newcastle under Lyme for several years hence. I have the advantage of a broad view across the long recognised area of North Staffordshire and I will add that there is a road, Uttoxeter Road, in my constituency, that has five lots of bins from five lots of different councils, so it's quite an achievement.

There are clear inequalities across all areas and of course there are pockets of wealth and deprivation in all. However, the health statistics outline a harsh reality. Just comparing Staffordshire county and Stoke on Trent city Council's female healthy life expectancy in Staffordshire is 63, compared to a national average of 61.5 in Stoke. It is just 55 for men. They can expect a healthy life until they are 56, compared to 63 in Staffordshire, but the national average being 61.

And we see the same for overall life expectancy, with Staffordshire above average and Stoke below average. I have on many occasions raised this shocking fact that Stoke on Trent routinely scores highest for infant mortality rates, and the shocking statistic that a baby born in Stoke on Trent will have half the, you know, chances of surviving to the fifth birthday than the national average.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, sir. Will. Thank you very much to the Member for raising this, because Member for raising this, because this is a similar issue we have in Northampton, between Northampton town centre and the rural areas. In Brackley we see a 15 year Brackley we see a 15 year difference in life expectancy. You're talking across maybe 20 or 30 miles. So does she agree that, you know, positive change is already coming to the bill to address this. But we can see more in the other place to maybe improve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the other place to maybe improve the bill further. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I agree, and it is with great sadness that I see is with great sadness that I see this this fight between city and this this fight between city and rural areas where we demonise the city areas and within Stoke on Trent, this is we have a doughnut Trent, this is we have a doughnut economy, not just, you know, in wealth, it generates the wealth for North Staffordshire, but that North Staffordshire, but that filters out to the rural areas.

Yet we see people going no to Stoke, no to Stoke. People need to understand to Stoke. People need to understand that we are all one in North Staffordshire. I offer a new fact under 75 mortality rates from all causes as of 2023, statistics for Staffordshire was 319.5, compared Staffordshire was 319.5, compared to an England national average rate to an England national average rate of 341.6. In Stoke under 75, mortality rate from all causes is a whopping 474, so it is understandable that any devolution has to address this disparity.

And I look at this broadening to be able to help us do this. And I also stress this does not mean that by improving Stoke's outcomes, we are going to take away or reduce that or staffordshire's. This is often a knee jerk reaction of some and a tool for conservative, conservative and reform parties to use for political scaremongering. And I am very saddened to the lady of hon. Member of Staffordshire Moorlands who I greatly respect and personally like.

I wish that there would be some understanding and cross conversation about that issue. I wish to also speak in support of government amendments 116 and 118. Again, these address health improvements and health inequality. Duties and health determinants. The government is right to add here environmental factors including air quality, access to green space and bodies of water. And I know from my own constituency on the boundaries, we've talked about boundaries. Mir Mir tunnel has high levels of poor air quality in an area where we have high levels of COPD, and with being on a boundary to the ongoing councils, fixing that issue is extremely difficult.

And I know the value of green space an issue close to my heart. The Meir Park and residents saw a much loved green space have all its trees out of the blue knocked down, and the genuine fear and upset and hurt that it caused some. And also we have Trenton and Gardens, which again is one of these border areas on Stafford Stafford Borough and Stoke on Trent City with ensuing traffic problems. But it has the most beautiful lake on which I one day hope to find the time to go paddle boarding on again.

Quality of our environment is vital to mental and physical health and I hope to the value of green space, good air quality and access to the advantage of bodies of water will always be central to any policy. In Stoke on Trent and Staffordshire, we are looking to achieve an enhanced North Staffordshire unitary authority under local government reorganisation, and I am particularly supportive of the broader one submitted by Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, sensibly outlining travel to work areas, economic functional areas and cultural links and transport links.

We sit at the beginning of a North Midlands growth corridor to Derby and to Nottingham that offers this country a huge opportunity to create a strategic centre for growth. Growth across the middle of England. I think it is, and I must add, whilst we have still to decide a devolution model for North Staffordshire and southern Staffordshire and Staffordshire as a whole, I do ask that we think radically and consider our East West links to the East Midlands and the potential of a North Midlands strategic authority and a big ask.

Whatever we end up with is we have that. We I ask the Minister, we have more details for Stoke and Staffordshire as to plans for devolution and the timelines thereof, and I think it is important to get to the heart of what devolution is all about, no matter what some people have said during the past ten months or so. It is not political. It is not about me or my colleagues or the local conservatives and reform parties that have opposed it for political brownie points, and who often use demeaning language and spread disinformation about their neighbours, especially Stoke.

No, it is about our children and our grandchildren, not the next electoral cycle. It's not about the next five years, but the next 50 years. It's about being able to plan for a sustainable and investable local public transport system. It's about properly planning for houses that we need, where we need and for the people that need it young couples, young families and older people needing more suitable options. We can bring council housing back to parts of North Staffordshire, where it has been absent for many years, and it's about community right to buy.

It's about seizing growth and economic potential and working with partners in a more collaborative and meaningful way across a bigger canvas, delivering the opportunities that our young people want and need. And it's about seizing a once in a generation opportunity to reform key public services and ensuring they remain or become fit for the 21st century. So to all in North Staffordshire and Staffordshire county, and no more with this no to Stoke. It's demeaning and unfair.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that point. Yes. I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I'm slightly disappointed with way. I'm slightly disappointed with the tone that she's taken in her speech, because if we're talking about a devolution debate in a about a devolution debate in a devolution debate, she should have the respect that an hon. Member who's been elected by her who's been elected by her constituents, as well as councillors elected by local people, have the right to say that they do have the right to say that they do not want to go into local government reorganisation.

Why is she supporting a gun to head force she supporting a gun to head force mentality, when local authority leaders do not want to go through with it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do reject the emotive use of terms like gun to the head, both the with regards to Stoke on Trent City Council and to Stoke on Trent City Council and also with Staffordshire District, Staffordshire Moorlands District Council. Those proposals have gone Council. Those proposals have gone through with LGR, have been approved by the councils. So and this they are the democratically this they are the democratically elected councils for those areas.

With regards to the wider Staffordshire County Council, Staffordshire County Council, particularly under the reform that we now have, we had one proposal that was just out of the blue and that was just out of the blue and now they don't want it either. And it's chaotic. We can't keep having this. This is something that is going to happen. And I argue to my, my constituents, this is going to happen. So we need to make it work for us. And I need people now really to start saying yes to the opportunity, yes to growth and yes to the future.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And before I call the next speaker, could. I just remind members that they are just reminded members that they are just reminded to address their comments to the business in front of the house, business in front of the house, which is English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill the Cocking?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cocking? Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I support several new Speaker, and I support several new clauses and amendments to this bill. But frankly, I'm fundamentally opposed to the changes it seeks to opposed to the changes it seeks to impose on our constituents. That's impose on our constituents. That's why amendments 104, 105 and 106 are so important, as well as new clause so important, as well as new clause one, which is due to be discussed tomorrow before strategic authorities or any other new body are created.

These amendments would are created. These amendments would ensure that local people would have the power to decide the future in the power to decide the future in their area. In committee, the Minister for devolution used some very creative language to insist very creative language to insist that councils weren't being forced into reorganisation. The Minister into reorganisation. The Minister spoke of inviting councils and having a conversation with
19:34
Lewis Cocking Portrait Lewis Cocking MP (Broxbourne, Conservative)
-
-
having a conversation with residents. But Madam Deputy Speaker, that is double speak. If the government really wanted to give councils and local people a proper say, they would pass these amendments in the in the bill, but I fear they will not. That refusal strikes at the heart of the contradiction of devolution. The government have had lots of warm words around giving people a stake in the place where they live their life, and transferring power out of Westminster. But this Bill, and what we are already seeing in the priority areas, keeps real decisions with Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall, in Surrey, which has already been mentioned by the hon.

Member for Guildford, we have seen the Secretary of State decreeing at the stroke of a pen that there will be two new unitary authorities, probably with a strategic authority on top of that, rather than free unitaries that most councils have supported. So for all the talk from this Labour government, from a bottom up process, it is clear no matter what existing councils decide, following extensive public consultations like we have just had in Hertfordshire, new local government structures will be whatever suits the Minister best.

And civil servants in Whitehall. I think.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend, for giving way, and he made a number of excellent contributions on the Bill. contributions on the Bill. Committee. Is he concerned, as I am, that the Minister consistently said, that there would be consultation that there would be consultation and that this would be up to local people and local councillors, but at every stage the backstop was at every stage the backstop was mentioned and the Minister said that this would go ahead anyway. There's no choice in this There's no choice in this reorganisation.

I ask my hon. Friend, and does he agree with me that the government really needs to that the government really needs to look at yet again, at listening to people who aren't agreeing what happens to their councils locally,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and they need to listen to local people who know their areas best. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I thank him for intervention, and I thank him for all of the work he's done on the floor of the House tonight, putting forward our case around where the forward our case around where the government has got it wrong and devolution. And he raised a very important point around the government having instructed local government having instructed local councils to come up with proposals for devolution and miniaturisation.

There has been no choice in that. I There has been no choice in that. I know from speaking to my fantastic councillors at Broxbourne Council, which is conservative, conservative led under councillor Carina Gandar, she does not want to reorganise, she does not want devolution and she does not want devolution and she does not want it forced on the areas that I represent and that she represents. So when I go out on the doorstep, no one has ever raised with me that the. Do you know what Lewes? This is what we need to do within our area.

We need to reorganise. We need to have a elected mayor. We need to have a strategic authority and we need to have a new massive unitary council representing up to half a million people. No one has ever raised that on the doorstep with me. And it just goes to show that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government is not listening to the priorities of the of the British people. I will. hon. Friend, for giving away

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hon. Friend, for giving away once more, and I hope he forgives me. The council leader that he mentioned, I just wondered whether mentioned, I just wondered whether he could elaborate, whether he's had conversations as to whether they have given that feedback back to government on the fact that they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to government on the fact that they do not want reorganisation and what answers were given to them. They have given that fed that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They have given that fed that back to government. And the answer has been tough. Get on with it. This is what we're doing and this This is what we're doing and this is what we propose to happen. You've got to come up with a proposal that you think works in your area, regardless of whether your area, regardless of whether you want to do it or not, and that has been replicated. I speak to many councils across the country, many councils across the country, many council leaders, and that is the message that they have given us loud and clear.

And I know it's the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's the message I've received locally from my local councillor leader. I will give way. I thank the hon. Member for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

giving way. He talks. About his people in his in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This bill. I don't know about his constituents, but my constituents quite often talk to me about the quite often talk to me about the fact that there are many shops abandoned on the high street. There are measures to tackle in this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that with the community Powers Right to buy and the. Rent review powers. They talk quite. Frustratingly about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The lack of economic growth over the last 14 years. The lack of. Housebuilding over a number of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Housebuilding over a number of years. Again, a number of measures in this bill to tackle it. So isn't it actually true that the issues that people care about are directly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that people care about are directly addressed by the additional powers bill? the Member for that intervention?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Member for that intervention? And I mean, I can take him to my constituency if he wants to see a pro growth local council that has delivered a local plan that's delivered a local plan that's delivered housing. And what's held us back is the fact that we haven't got the infrastructure to go in got the infrastructure to go in place. Because of that, we've been punished. We've been a good local council and built our housing targets. Yet this Labour government forces more housing upon us with no forces more housing upon us with no powers to get the infrastructure that they need.

And when this bill first came out, what was raised first came out, what was raised with me on the doorstep, I bought a London and my constituents thought, I do not want to be part of the I do not want to be part of the Greater London area, and I do not want to be under the mayor of London, because we've seen the disastrous effect that devolution has had on London. And my constituents definitely do not want to be a part of that. So I gently just push back to the hon.

Member. just push back to the hon. Member. I don't agree with his analogy of of the current state of play and what the government could be doing what the government could be doing if they really wanted to empower councils particularly. And I stray a tiny bit away from the topic to help them create their town centres help them create their town centres and improve town centres and economic growth is give power to the councils that we already have in place. They could get on and do that tomorrow, rather than waiting for this bill to go through this House and all of the amendments that the government has put down, because this bill is clearly not ready to receive Royal assent.

We had a number of amendments put forward at Committee stage on this bill, and it just shows the government have got this wrong and really need to go back to the drawing board to to. I will give way one more time, then I'll make some progress.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm happy to take him up on his offer of visiting his constituency and having. A. Drink, and discussing the local issues he faces. He's welcome to issues he faces. He's welcome to come to mine as well. I must say I listen a lot to the shadow spokespersons 20 minute speech and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spokespersons 20 minute speech and actually I didn't hear many proposals about functions of devolution. What powers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could be given, what extra devolution empowerment could take place? I heard a lot actually about the form of devolution, whether the form of devolution, whether this was the right structure, exactly the right county based situation or regional situation. I situation or regional situation. I must say, it's no wonder that under the last 14 years, we failed to grasp the issue of devolution and community empowerment. If the party opposite is still so obsessed by by the form of devolution and not by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the form of devolution and not by the function of giving away power and enabling communities, I. Think I thank the hon. Member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I don't think this bill does that. This bill enables Ministers to force councils enables Ministers to force councils to reorganise. It keeps power in Whitehall. It doesn't devolve devolve powers to councils. And devolve powers to councils. And I've raised a number of times in MHCLG questions that my council is MHCLG questions that my council is crying out for more powers over HMOs that are affecting our town centre. I spoke on the bill committee, where I do think there is a tiny good part within this bill about licensing for e-scooters.

We all know the scourge e-scooters have across our constituents, across our constituencies, right up and down the country. And that is a tiny good thing within this bill. The government don't need to bring forward this bill to be able to do that. They could legislate very quickly and give councils those powers right now to deal with that issue, rather than us having to wait for months on end to solve a small issue through this planning, through this community empowerment,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which is not, and devolution, devolution bill, I will. Give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give way. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he understand how my constituents on the Isle of Wight reject the idea of a new mayor being imposed upon them with the name Hampshire and Solent, therefore, the name Isle of Wight therefore, the name Isle of Wight disappearing? My constituents don't live in the Solent. Indeed, nobody

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lives in the Solent other than fish. I know my friend is a passionate advocate for his constituents, and advocate for his constituents, and we had a long discussion about the particular issue he's just raised in the Bill committee, and I completely agree with him that the Isle of Wight should be in the name of that mayoralty and that combined authority, the Isle of Wight has a has a good local identity. And I do think that's very important when think that's very important when we're creating these new strategic authorities.

We've got to take local people with us. And you won't local people with us. And you won't take the local people of the Isle of Wight with you if you do not include such a significant include such a significant community within the name of that combined authority. And now, because he's a Hampshire MP, I will give way to the shadow Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to the shadow Minister. Louie French, for giving away once again he, the hon. Gentleman for Isle of Wight East, will be pleased to know that we did move that, and really made a case that was resisted by government. But in relation to the comments that my hon. Friend made in response to the Member for Uxbridge who said that we were not we were not concerned about the form of devolution. Does he recall, as I do, that we pushed a number of amendments, including transport regulation powers being devolved, that were resisted by this government? Powers are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

were not being handed down to the mayors. So he's assertion is just not correct, is it? I agree with my hon. Friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with my hon. Friend. There are a number of amendments that we put down very constructively at the Committee constructively at the Committee stage, and we did work across the whole House with members of all different political stripes to try different political stripes to try and really improve the bill and try and get those powers where they can best be used out in the community. best be used out in the community. And as he quite rightly points out, there are a number of amendments where the government wouldn't even listen to logical arguments about listen to logical arguments about how it could really empower local communities.

And as I said, the communities. And as I said, the name Community Empowerment might be on the face of this bill, but just because it's written on the face of because it's written on the face of this bill does not mean that the bill itself contains community empowerment. Madam Deputy Speaker, just last week, councils in just last week, councils in Hertfordshire announced their preferred option for devolution and combined authorities and strategic combined authorities and strategic authorities, with the majority of the local councils within Hertfordshire Barking the four Hertfordshire Barking the four unitary model, with, I suspect, county combined authority with a mayor over the top of that.

I fully mayor over the top of that. I fully support this option too, as I believe that councils best operate as they are close when they are as as they are close when they are as close to the people that they serve as possible with their combined authority, slash strategic authority over the top of that. And it makes sense. The people living there, and as we've just spoken about, we've really got to create communities. And this is what some of these amendments do, really put power in the hands of the local communities to give them the final say, as we've just heard from our hon.

Friend, that the Isle of Wight must be included within that strategic authority if we're not taking communities with us when we set up these combined authorities, which a number of these amendments do by having referendums on them, then we're never going to take people with with that with us, and we're never going to be able to move this forward. But as we have seen, there is no guarantee to the that our local democratically elected councils, when they make their decision that the government is going to actually listen.

That is why we should be putting this into law and give our constituents a final say through a referendum. I also support new clause 33, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire. The impact of large scale developments does not end at the local authority boundary. The new town proposed that Cruz Hill is in the London Borough of Enfield, but it is closer to the village of Goffs Oak in my constituency of Broxbourne than it is to Enfield Town Hall.

The residents in Goffs Oak, who have already seen their lives transformed by development and have said to me they have had enough, have expressed huge concern about the impact of 21,000 new homes will have on local infrastructure. Chase Farm Hospital, used by many of my constituents, will be next door to this new town and is already under significant strain by junction 25 of the M25 is extremely busy and sadly prone to accidents on a regular basis, putting drivers in danger and causing gridlock in the towns of Cheshunt and Waltham Cross.

The government and Labour run Enfield councils backed these proposals and used the close proximity to these vital public services as a reason why development could proceed quickly. But there is absolutely no regard to the consequences of this new town on residents who live in adjacent areas such as Goffs Oak, Bury Green and Waltham Cross who who use the same services which will be put under immense pressure if this new town goes ahead. Which is why this new clause is so important, because it seeks to address this by giving a a statutory consultee.

Write to my Council Broxbourne so we can input into this new town and the negative effects it will have on the strategic infrastructure. When the Secretary of State came before the select committee earlier this month, I struggled to get any clear answers on whether his department's policy is for neighbouring local authorities to be consulted before new towns are built, even if the government won't support my hon. Friend's amendment, I would welcome particular clarity when the Minister does her summing up on that point.

The government, whether in local council reorganisation or in planning, should be put in the views of residents, our constituents first, but their approach has been to shut them out. I will be supporting these amendments to make it impossible for the government to ignore local views. But even as they vote them down, I urge Ministers to start to bring local people with them and make sure they have genuine community support before they make sweeping, long term changes to the nature of local government throughout our country.

And I just want to touch on the fact that we are now creating combined authorities within lots of rural county areas. And I pushed the Minister, who's no longer in our place at the committee, to say, one, we need community buy in for that. And two, please provide me with good examples of where we've created these county combined authorities with a number of towns that do not interlink and how they can be all taken forward. I completely understand how devolution works in this country when there is a strategic centre and everyone uses the same services, which is why these amendments are so important to have a local referendum, so we can make sure we take all of the communities within a county together in a in a second.

When I think of my constituency of Broxbourne in the county of Hertfordshire, there are a number of towns within that beautiful county and they don't all necessarily interlink, which is why it's vital that we must have a referendum on a combined authority, because if we don't get that right and don't take all of the communities with us, we're no longer going to get the buy in and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's not going to be a success. I will give way to the hon. Member. For member for Broxbourne. I think he's making some very think he's making some very interesting points, but I want to pick up on this issue of a referendum if it's villages versus a bigger conurbation, the just the a bigger conurbation, the just the balance of numbers means that there might well be an obvious outcome to the referendum. But where we've seen really good work in devolution, seen really good work in devolution, if you take Greater Manchester, for example, better transport, so that indeed, as he describes, there's disconnected towns and villages, disconnected towns and villages, which is terrible for young people trying to get to education or for other people trying to get to their other people trying to get to their jobs, could be improved because of a desire to see that as part of an overall whole, without damaging the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

overall whole, without damaging the character of some of the villages he describes. Chris Coghlan. She does make an interesting point, and one that I have great point, and one that I have great sympathy with, where we've got to try and take different communities together. But to compare the rural together. But to compare the rural county of Hertfordshire with a significant number of large towns which do not have the interlink in which do not have the interlink in their natural form, as in the roads that are there in the railway that's there in where people have that's there in where people have their jobs.

Lots of my constituents, for example, work in London. Lots of my constituents would never or hardly ever make the journey about hardly ever make the journey about an hour along the a404 to places like Hemel Hempstead or Watford. It is very different and I can understand how devolution works when we've got a single single city centre. I can understand why in some respects it works in our towns and our city regions when you've got a single space. But I do not understand how it's going to work in practice when there are a number

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of towns all of the same size, I will give way. The hon. Member giving way within Staffordshire, which is within Staffordshire, which is quite rural and I have Stoke on Trent city centre. We do have that shared interlinking and this is a very important to the development of North Staffordshire. If you go to Staffordshire Moorlands Council, they have shared services with High Peak in Derbyshire. If you have a look at Stoke on Trent City Council, look at Stoke on Trent City Council, a lot of their service provision is to Newcastle-under-Lyme the neighbouring town.

Likewise with Stafford Borough, they use Cannock Stafford Borough, they use Cannock Chase services, the interlinking of shared services and shared links do shared services and shared links do exist in rural areas and can work together.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention and I was talking about the physical aspects of what transport that we've got in place transport that we've got in place currently. Now the transport we have in Hertfordshire makes it very difficult for those interlinking services to happen. But she does services to happen. But she does make an interesting point around the shared services of councils. And the government has said on a number of occasions the reason why we're doing this Community we're doing this Community Empowerment Bill, the reason why we're doing devolution, is to make councils more efficient and it's councils more efficient and it's going to save loads of money.

Well, I don't believe it is going to save lots of money for the reasons that she's quite rightly pointed out. She has said lots of councils already have those shared services. There are lots of councils with shared planning departments. There are lots of councils with shared audit. There are lots of councils with shared planning and indeed where we have combined authorities, combined authorities have shared back office. We'll take the last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

intervention. Then I'll come to you. Thank I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. One of the other things that were we were very concerned that were we were very concerned about on the bill committee was the fact that the government has not given any indication on what will given any indication on what will be happening with debt in terms of local government reform. Doesn't that just add to the uncertainty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that just add to the uncertainty with the progress of this bill and not give any certainty to local government leaders? I completely agree with my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The government has got to come forward, and we're yet to hear solutions to councils with large solutions to councils with large amount of debt and forcing them into reorganisation and forcing them to have conversations about who they want to join with. And who they want to join with. And some of them have no choice because it is a matter of geography, who it is a matter of geography, who you join and who you don't join.

And sometimes you might not be able to join with the partners that you have strategic services with that have strategic services with that you have shared services with. So in summary, Madam Deputy Speaker, we know I won't take I won't take any more intervention, I won't take any more interventions. And I've been more than generous with with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been more than generous with with my. Oh, go on then, one more, one more intervention. I will. Say my my hon. Friend is very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Say my my hon. Friend is very kind. Perhaps with a little pressure from more senior members sitting just in front of him, he sitting just in front of him, he talks about he poses the question, is there a combined area where all the unified communities link well together? I can certainly give an example of a forthcoming one where they don't. Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The only way the Isle of Wight is linked to Hampshire is through ferry companies that are entirely privatised, unregulated and controlled by private equity groups.

This was the perfect opportunity for the government to ensure that fair regulation was given to the mayor. So the mayor had that strategic transport authority across the whole area, but the government has so far failed to do that. And that's why I brought forward an amendment, which I'll speak to you later. Do you have a view on this missed opportunity to bring ferry companies within the regulatory framework of, say, rail and buses,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

perfectly consensual among parties in this country? I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I signed his intervention. I signed his amendment. I do believe that's important. And it goes back to what I said at the beginning of this debate, the fact that this bill is not ready to go any further, the government should have thought about this is a very logical amendment, and it seeks to achieve what the government wants to achieve. So, for example, on buses, it seeks to achieve lots of the it seeks to achieve lots of the same things around other strategic transport and other active travel routes.

So it should be in the Bill. routes. So it should be in the Bill. It had cross-party support from both of the members representing the Isle of Wight, and it is a the Isle of Wight, and it is a logical amendment. It goes back to that cross-party working on the Bill committee, where we put forward logical amendments that forward logical amendments that seek to benefit the strategic authority that the government wants authority that the government wants to create in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

And the new mayor that gets elected for that authority is going to have one hand tied behind going to have one hand tied behind its back, because those communities, he or she will not have the powers to join those communities together and really create the economic growth. But look, I'm against the principle of what the government is trying to do within this bill just because they have community empowerment written on the top of the bill does not mean that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill does not mean that this bill will empower local communities. again. Yeah. Danny Beales.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that the House is considering again this evening. I must make a confession. evening. I must make a confession. Initially, I was not on the bill committee. It sounds like I missed out. According to some of the out. According to some of the descriptions this evening of the fund that the Bill committee had. It's. It's not the first time I've heard that a bill committee was heard that a bill committee was such an enjoyable cross-party affair.

But many of us across all affair. But many of us across all sides of this House have extensive experience prior to this place in local government. And I had ten local government. And I had ten years experience of local government in a London borough, and we'd have all seen during that we'd have all seen during that experience the fantastic role that local government can play,
19:55
Danny Beales Portrait Danny Beales MP (Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Labour)
-
-
connecting communities, responding to concerns, understanding often before national government, emerging economic and social issues that require action and a response. But those of us who served in local government, as well as seeing that potential, will have often seen it held back. We'd have seen the frustration of communities that lack powers and often lack funding to respond to those social and economic challenges, and our country is very different local areas, local communities are not all the same and they face different challenges.

The constituency of Mine Uxbridge and South Ruislip in Hillingdon in west London is very different. I'm sure to many hon. Members, constituencies and the challenge they face. And it's right that cities, areas, regions of our country have the ability, the powers and the funding when necessary, to respond to those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issues. Very happily. Madam speaker, I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and he Friend for giving way, and he highlights the challenge. London is often described as a series of villages, yet we have one Mayor of London elected, set up 25 years ago with the London Assembly. Wouldn't he agree that the that if being strategic, the mayor can serve both strategic, the mayor can serve both an inner city London borough like mine in Hackney, as well as one mine in Hackney, as well as one such as his in outer London, things like the Superloop.

And I'm sure there are other examples he's got for how a mayor being strategic,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for how a mayor being strategic, can serve all communities, while having a strategic view of the whole. I thank my hon. Friend for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and wholeheartedly agree. I think the principle of subsidiarity should be the one that we're guided by. Power should be we're guided by. Power should be given and exercised as locally as possible, and it's quite clear that some things have to be exercised in this place, a national level, and also at regional level. It makes also at regional level. It makes sense to act. And the mayor rightly has the ability to coordinate our transport system in London.

We don't want multiple bus decisions. don't want multiple bus decisions. We don't want multiple decisions about transport infrastructure like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our tube network. It's very happily people in that. Point. Giving away. And that raises. I wanted to go and respond to the wanted to go and respond to the hon. Member across the way, but he'd been stood on his feet for over 20 minutes and I decided to give him a break. But I want to raise the issue. Much has been made about the conflict of planning, local planning, going right to the boundaries, and that creating issues with regards to infrastructure planning, which often sit at the wider unitary level.

And it is, it seems to me that devolution and having that wider strategic authority which can have oversight and greater planning oversight as well, would help address some of those those challenges and stresses that we can have. Is this something that you see within the London boroughs?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for that. I. Thank you,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for that. I. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for that contribution. I think that's almost certainly true. I think there are these strategic issues there are these strategic issues that need to be considered, and whether it's planning or we're discussing licensing, strategic powers. And in some of the powers. And in some of the amendments tonight, I think there is the need for a greater role for regional mayors and authorities in regional mayors and authorities in providing that strategic oversight.

It's right that local communities can respond to local issues. But can respond to local issues. But there are there are the need for guiding infrastructure decisions about things like heating networks, things like energy networks, data centre networks, and coordinating them at a regional level makes a them at a regional level makes a great deal of sense. And despite the need for greater decision making at a local and regional level, we still live in one of the level, we still live in one of the most centralised political systems in the Western world.

Our communities must be able to meet communities must be able to meet the challenges they face, and that is why I welcome today the raft of new powers in this bill and the government amendments before us this evening. They will drive growth. They'll provide growth. They'll provide opportunities to respond to new local challenges now and in future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'd like to I would happily give way. I'm very grateful for the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Isn't the Gentleman for giving way. Isn't the real problem here is that we all, or many of us agree with the concept of devolution, genuine devolution, bringing powers down to communities. But aren't we seeing this bill actually a power grab away from communities and a away from communities and a direction by Whitehall to local government? There's that basic contradiction at the heart of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contradiction at the heart of this bill, which causes so much trouble. Danny Beales. Thank you for that. I respectfully disagree, and I think respectfully disagree, and I think that's one of the challenges when you've got one of the most centralised decision making systems centralised decision making systems in the world, you by nature have to give power away. It has to be decided here. How we devolve power. decided here. How we devolve power. And to be, to be frank, whilst hopefully being respectful.

We hear hopefully being respectful. We hear a lot about the desire to empower communities from the party opposite, but the records speak for themselves. The last Labour themselves. The last Labour government set up the first mayoral authorities, the Mayor of London, for instance, and the London for instance, and the London Assembly set up devolution to our nations, which have been built on over the years. And tonight, again, over the years. And tonight, again, we're taking another step forward on devolution. So while the party opposite talk a good game about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposite talk a good game about this issue, they did have 14 years to act. I will happily give around that point. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. The last Labour government that was elected in 1997 had the principle of establishing devolution and giving powers away from Westminster under the premise of a referendum result that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour government is choosing not to do. Which does he support. The contribution? He didn't actually respond to my offer to come to his constituency for a drink, but he'd be welcome to come to Uxbridge and South Ruislip at to Uxbridge and South Ruislip at any time. It's a lovely place with many fantastic options for drinks. many fantastic options for drinks. I've just say I don't agree with the party opposite, that every structural change to local government requires a full referendum of current or future potential constituents.

And I just potential constituents. And I just say, as far as I'm aware, no one voted for the establishment of the current London borough arrangement. The current county council The current county council arrangement. I don't remember many referendums, apart from perhaps referendums, apart from perhaps some less positive ones and national level in terms of bringing people together under the party people together under the party opposite, but I don't remember many referendums that the party opposite proposed for, for for devolution or proposed for, for for devolution or for structural changes to our political system.

So I don't agree. I think there's different ways of I think there's different ways of consulting with residents, of engaging with communities. And I think that on happily give away

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think that on happily give away another time for. Giving way. He talks about this party on this side of the House, not having referendums. When we're not having referendums. When we're talking about structural political changes. We did have a referendum to choose to change the voting system, which I voted against. So there is a prime example of where we've tried to do political change in this country, where we've sought

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the consent of the British people. Yeah. Thank you. And unites us both this evening because I also both this evening because I also voted against the referendum. So we found a sense of agreement, at least on that. So we just give way least on that. So we just give way on that point. Thank you for giving way. I think it's just worth reiterating that I'm a member of a reiterating that I'm a member of a new combined authority in the East Midlands.

There was not a referendum on that. I also don't believe there was a referendum on the North Yorkshire Combined Authority either. So does he agree with me that there are very with me that there are very different ways of engaging on this issue and actually putting councils with local representatives. At the with local representatives. At the heart of that process is a good thing. I wholeheartedly agree, and yeah, I think that comment speaks yeah, I think that comment speaks for itself about the record of the party opposite and what they now party opposite and what they now preach in opposition.

I'd just like to turn my attention now to a number of the amendments tabled to number of the amendments tabled to today for consideration. Just very happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happy to give way. Very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. He was referring earlier to. The powers which are being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The powers which are being devolved to a to a mayor. But does he not accept that as different from the London mayor? Looks at at from the London mayor? Looks at at clause 38 and schedule 19 that in effect, those mayors are becoming puppets of central government because their local growth plans have to be signed off by the Secretary of State. And the way that the London mayor is not answerable to the to the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is that surely must be a matter of great concern to him. But I thank my friend from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I thank my friend from the Health Select Committee, which we have many good and fruitful discussions on together, but I'll discussions on together, but I'll disagree with him on this point. And I just say that I think in this And I just say that I think in this bill there are significant steps forward in devolving powers to communities at different levels, at communities at different levels, at a very individual and community based level, and also a regional and mayoral level. I'd also say and mayoral level.

I'd also say that at our challenge back and say the mayor of London's powers probably haven't kept up enough probably haven't kept up enough compared to some of the other devolved regional arrangements, and arguably greater progress been made arguably greater progress been made by the the mayor of Greater Manchester, for instance, in the range of powers in a number of range of powers in a number of different areas compared to the Mayor of London. So I think there are slightly different arrangements in different parts of the country.

in different parts of the country. I wouldn't agree with that characterisation. Again, just turning to some of the amendments before us this evening. I'd like to speak in support of a number of them that will give local government, particularly in London government, particularly in London and my constituency, new tools to improve the lives of residents in Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Firstly, the amendment tabled by the Member for Liverpool Wavertree. I also co-signed new clause 31 to allow mayors to implement a tourist levy on overnight stays.

Many councils for many years have been calling for this change. I remember my own time in local government calling for such an overnight stay levy. I think there are a range of reasons why one might want this, and I note the welcome support from Labour mayors including Sadiq, Sadiq Khan and Steve Rotherham on this issue. Tourism clearly has huge benefits for our communities, whether jobs, the cultural enrichment of having visitors come to our cities, the support for existing and new businesses being established and also the revenue that the tourism industry brings to our country.

I'm very happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. In terms of the tourism levy, I. I wholeheartedly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wholeheartedly. Agree with. Him on the overnight stay. Actually. I would like to see.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to see. It go further in places like Cornwall. We we rely a lot on our Cornwall. We we rely a lot on our tourism trade, but it brings with it a whole series of costs that are it a whole series of costs that are not recognised in any local government settlement. Currently. The issue we have is that Cornwall The issue we have is that Cornwall is a very long and thin area. In fact, it is the geography by fact, it is the geography by geography, the largest unitary in the country, a very stable unitary the country, a very stable unitary unitary of 15 years or so.

So a lot of people do not come just overnight. They come for a few days. And the issue that I have with just restricting it to an overnight stay restricting it to an overnight stay is that we would lose the opportunity to build revenue from opportunity to build revenue from those tourists who are coming for longer. Does he agree with me?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

longer. Does he agree with me? I'd like to thank him for that contribution. And I think communities in the south, in Cornwall, Dorset, Devon, like actually many of London, have had this experience of the overnight stay economy, the tourist economy, some of the impacts that that can bring to local communities and the ability of councils and mayors to respond to those issues with the powers and the budgets and fiscal freedoms that they have. I agree with him. You know, personally, I agree that such a levy should be stayed per per night, per day of, of travel.

I think one of the often challenges that I heard previously to such a levy was also, if it was just to apply to the hotel sector, the formal visitor stay sector and not the informal sector, the short term let sector that that might both disadvantage those important businesses and jobs and institutions, but also not tackle that more informal visitor economy that can pose challenges in London and in places like his. But I'll give way to my colleague.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaking of the informal economy, Airbnb is obviously a big issue in London and the old style where you just stayed with somebody has kind of been overtaken very often, where people have been purchasing flats just to Airbnb them. I believe that Airbnb is in the scope of this, but has he got any thoughts about how that should be captured? Because that should be captured? Because this is in some cases, there are whole developments in some parts of my constituency that have been my constituency that have been taken over and bought to be just let as Airbnb, and we desperately need the housing.

So we want we want the levy, you know, to potentially to increase income for councils. We also need the homes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

councils. We also need the homes. And I wonder if he has any thoughts on that. Thank you for that contribution and I wholeheartedly agree. I think and I wholeheartedly agree. I think as as you rightly pointed out, as my hon. Friend has rightly pointed my hon. Friend has rightly pointed out, that that addition of the short term Let sector is in the amendment to deal with that point amendment to deal with that point about. I don't think this will be enough to regulate the short term let sector.

I think that's a slightly separate matter. More generally licensing, for instance, the previous government's deregulations there in the 90 day rule has not worked in practice. We rule has not worked in practice. We all know it and it has impacted our communities. And lots of data and evidence now has been gathered by evidence now has been gathered by councils to show the loss of thousands of homes in our country, which were used by families and now used in professional tourism accommodation, which is good for that part of the economy but bad for our local housing systems.

And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

away. In my constituency we're seeing schools closed. Same in Camden, schools closed. Same in Camden, same in Islington, same in Southwark and other inner London boroughs in particular. Part of the boroughs in particular. Part of the reason for this in some areas, not so much in my constituency, but is is apparently because of the short is apparently because of the short term lets people the homes are there, but people are not living there either full time and sometimes not living in them at all sometimes not living in them at all so that families don't stay there.

And that is having a detrimental impact on our schools ability to stay open.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stay open. I think she describes perfectly some of the impacts that we are seeing, even in places now to London now, and in Hillingdon, we London now, and in Hillingdon, we see the short term let let sectors impact, particularly with Heathrow being very proximate to my being very proximate to my constituency. And I think this amendment would enable the differential charging. It doesn't differential charging. It doesn't mandate what charges would be or that one charge would apply to all sectors. So there'd be potential to charge the informal short term let sector potentially more per night or day than the formal sector.

Very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or day than the formal sector. Very happy to Allison Gardner. I'm quite interested in what he says about this differential says about this differential approach. I know as a councillor, Stoke on Trent is not necessarily known for its tourism industry, although that is absolutely a failure on the country's part and everybody's part because we do have great tourism attractions within Stoke. But what I have seen is when we have had these Airbnbs within estates, family estates that come and people, different people come and go, it creates an awful lot of unrest, anti-social behaviour and real concern with this revolving door of different people that upsets local residents.

My apologies. Does he agree to me that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that would benefit that? Danny Beales. Thank you. I certainly do agree.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I certainly do agree. And and those costs which are borne And and those costs which are borne by the by the visitor economy are not adequately met by the revenue kept at the moment through the tax kept at the moment through the tax system, by local authorities or mayoral authorities. I'd be very happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

happy to give way. I thank the hon. Member for giving way. My constituency is a giving way. My constituency is a area popular with tourists, and in the spirit of his conversation with the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I invite him to also come and visit my constituency because I think he missed our Health committee visit missed our Health committee visit last year. What I would say is that those Airbnbs are a big challenge, indeed detrimental to some small hoteliers who are really struggling hoteliers who are really struggling to keep their businesses going.

I wonder whether he could offer a small thought on that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

small thought on that. Thank you. My other colleague from the Health Select Committee, I thank you for your contribution and the offer to come to the Isle of Wight. Very happy to potential. I can experience the ferry issue, which I'm sure you're going to talk which I'm sure you're going to talk with. The hon. Member is going to talk about a bit later on. And I agree with the comments that he's made this evening, that the current revenue derived from tourism often goes directly to the Treasury, rather than fund local services needed to create and respond to the tourism economy.

A tourism levy levy, as such as proposed tonight in this amendment, would be a relatively small charge on visitors to our cities to create a new source of revenue for local growth initiatives. A new tourist levy in London would not be unique. British tourists ourselves often regularly pay this already when we visit other high profile cities across the world, including Paris, Rome, Berlin, just to name a few. Many won't even have noticed the couple couple of euro a night charge on their bill, but this funding source makes a positive difference to those cities, so why not our cities here in the UK to the creation of a tourism levy in those places has had no significant impact on visitor numbers to those cities, and none of us would have been put off from our trip to Paris, Barcelona or Rome because of it.

A tourist levy would also be fairer to to residents of London. We all know that mass tourism brings disadvantage and pressures, as well as the many benefits and advantages. A tourism levy would make sure that visitors pay their fair share for the upkeep of our city, just as British tourists do when travelling abroad. With 38 million visitors to the UK every year, of which half of to London, there is a clear opportunity to raise a substantial part of revenue to improve the experience of visitors and visitors alike in London, whether it's funding and supporting cultural activities, the Christmas and other light displays that we often want to see around our city that have become more difficult to afford, whether paying for additional security costs for our major town centres and high streets, whether Oxford Street or our major town centres in our borough, all the much better public realm investment that we often clearly need, but has not been delivered for many years through this measure, which has been long discussed but failed to deliver time and time again to grasps, we could give powers to areas to decide whether to levy such a measure and enjoy the proceeds of those of that revenue going forward.

I do very happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give order, order! The hon. Member cannot speak from where she is at Danny Beales.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is at Danny Beales. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do hope that the Minister, if they feel that the Minister, if they feel unable to accept this amendment, can provide a route to consider it more generally via the bill process. more generally via the bill process. As the bill progresses or through broader measures the government may take, whether at the budget or in future through other legislation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very happy to. She's spoken very eloquently. About how long people. Have been. Lobbying for this. Power specifically. And I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Power specifically. And I. Felt that when I was. A councillor. As well. Does he agree with me that. The right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The right. To request in. This bill will. Really. Support mayors in. Being. Able to. Sort. Of identify these issues.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of identify these issues. And provide. A pathway for them. To request powers like this. When other issues come up from. Government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government. Much more quickly. In the future. Danny Beales. Thank you. I think that's an excellent point and well put. And excellent point and well put. And far too often at a local level, you'll see these trends emerging. You'll see this new industry using new technology, and you'll be new technology, and you'll be tearing your hair out, trying to respond with the very limited powers and very restrictive powers you already have, trying to come up with creative ways around the system to do that, and bang in the door of government traditionally to try and make changes to legislation which can be, as we all know, take a long time to come through while communities are struggling with those impacts.

So I think I think that is a excellent provision in the bill that would enable government to work smarter and quicker and more collaboratively with local communities. Turning to the issue of licensing reform, also proposed through amendments before us this evening, London's hospitality and cultural life is at the very heart of our economy. It's a huge industry. It's driven a great deal of creativity and growth throughout our history, our hospitality, culture and nightlife. Nightlife sectors are critical to the capital success and national economic growth.

With London's hospitality industry alone generating £46 billion annually and accounting for 1 in 10 jobs in the city. And these are jobs right across all of our constituencies in London, and I'm sure right across the UK, two great pubs that have been offered to visit in the Isle of Wight in in other places, which I look forward to doing so. But these vital industries are under increasing pressure from rising costs, outdated systems, including our licensing system, which can be inconsistent.

It can lack transparency and can be overly weighted towards objections. This is why I welcome amendments 44 and NS2, which would allow the Mayor of London to set strategic licensing policy that local licensing authorities must take into account when making licensing decisions and setting their own policies. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would help unlock very happy to give way. The hon. Member for giving way does he support my proposal that councils, and particularly local district councils that have planning powers, currently need more powers over licensing of HMOs which caused terrible anti-social behaviour issues, parking issues right across the country. We need right across the country. We need more powers to stop HMOs where they're not wanted. What's his views on giving local powers to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

views on giving local powers to councils to stop HMOs? I'd like to thank him for that contribution. HMOs, I think, are contribution. HMOs, I think, are increasingly a challenge in all of our constituencies. I'm certainly hearing that and seeing that in my own constituency of Uxbridge and own constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip. I think firstly, it South Ruislip. I think firstly, it is a symptom of the broken housing market. The fact that people can make so much money from subdividing, make so much money from subdividing, subdividing family homes, selling rooms out, even subdividing rooms and making thousands of pounds, and making thousands of pounds, that is a symptom of 14 years of failure to deliver the homes that we need.

And I welcome the we need. And I welcome the government's measures to address that root cause of the problem. But immediately, in responding to those immediately, in responding to those concerns, I do agree with him that we must take more steps to regulate the HMO sector. Councils do have the HMO sector. Councils do have some powers and own my own council is reluctantly, eventually getting around to consulting after many, many months on those proposals. But I think we need to enable councils to go further and faster, to perhaps act and not have to consult as quickly, or at least put in shadow licensing conditions before, before consulting or while to.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I but not note that earlier the hon. Member for Broxbourne was concerned about 21,000 new homes concerned about 21,000 new homes being built in Enfield, not in his constituency, but on the edge of it. He made some sensible points about infrastructure, but would my hon. Friend not agree that you need you need the new homes in order to make sure that there aren't the HMOs sure that there aren't the HMOs that he described, because those individuals in houses in multiple occupation need their own homes.

So there may be a contradiction. When

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there may be a contradiction. When my friend agreed with what the hon. Member Broxbourne just said. I'd like to thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I don't want to get in the middle of a disagreement across the chamber here, but I think she's made the here, but I think she's made the point expertly this evening. So I think it's vital that we have a greater strategic oversight of the greater strategic oversight of the licensing system, and that authorities must take into account these strategic policies when these strategic policies when making their own decisions.

This doesn't get rid of licensing decisions and powers at local level, but provides a better strategic framework for them. This policy would help unlock the full would help unlock the full potential of London's hospitality, nightlife, culture and events economy, helping them to stay open longer, expand, succeed where they're well managed, which is often the case, but they're held often the case, but they're held back through restrictive policies or outdated policies that haven't kept up to date. That's good for business, it's good for the taxpayer, and it's good for Londoners helping to maintain London's global reputation as a leading city for arts and culture.

And we also have to recognise that certain areas, certain sectors are often of a strategic and cultural importance for our city or our nation, whether it's the music scene in certain parts of our cities, the live performance areas which have developed over many years, or areas like Soho, which are particularly important to the LGBTQ population. And it's right that those areas have strategic oversight, have strategic protection, and are strategic policies to guide their futures. I'd also like to speak in support of the reforms on lane rental schemes.

I thank my hon. Friend who's now not in this place for Northampton South, for his contribution in the Bill committee to this issue. Londoners, my constituents, I'm sure many of us often hear the frustration of the seemingly endless roadworks time after time, the digging up of roads, the the leaving of of unfinished roadworks while teams move on to the next place down the road and dig up another road before finishing that series, a set of roadworks. It often feels that there's a real lack of coordination, there's a real lack of incentives in the system to work together to move quickly and resolve these issues, and I think lane rental schemes are a proven way to reduce such inconveniences to the absolute bare minimum.

Lane rental schemes allow a highway authority to charge utility companies per day for the works on the busiest roads at the busiest times, and they work because these schemes reduce the time roadworks occupy the network and encourage companies to carry works out collaboratively. Minimising disruption to road users. Often my constituents will tell me are very happy to give way. On that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member speaks on an important issue in terms of utility companies seemingly closing roads companies seemingly closing roads without due consideration. Indeed, Southern Water tried to close the main road into Banbridge in my constituency from the 1st to the 21st of December and didn't consult 21st of December and didn't consult with the local community and only backed down after me and my role as a member on these benches intervened. And it's the same for Ventnor on the Isle of Wight too.

So he speaks on a very important So he speaks on a very important issue that I think affects probably every, if not every nearly every constituency.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituency. But before I can, I just remind members again to keep within the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

members again to keep within the scope of the bill and the amendments as on the Order Paper Danny Beales. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree with the examples that he has put forward this evening. I hear many similar comments, my own constituency. So I'd like to welcome government amendment NC 43 welcome government amendment NC 43 government NS1, which seeks to devolve the powers to approve lane rental schemes to mayors of rental schemes to mayors of strategic authorities. We've got far too many examples locally of endless delays of works like endless delays of works like recently, like the major road closure scheme on Cowley Road in my own constituency, caused by Cadent gas works, which caused chaos for weeks and weeks on end at work site.

Left with no work taking place on evenings weekends but a crucial part of the network left closed, causing huge disruptions. Companies must be held to account and they must be encouraged to carry out works as quickly as possible, and this would make it economically essential for them to conduct out-of-hours works and reduce those delays. Armed with new powers, mayors will also be able to incentivise higher authorities to bring additional lane rental schemes targeting high priority areas and, crucially, revenue from lane rental schemes can then be reinvested to benefit local road users, for instance in improving and tackling road conditions and pavements much needed after more than a decade of decline of our roads and pavements under the Conservatives.

Lastly, you'll be pleased to hear, speaking in support of the new powers to issue Mayoral Development Orders to boost house building. Again, I think these measures are another step forward in enabling areas to get on and block house building and block sites, taking a more strategic approach to fast track development. In my own constituency, there's a number of key potential growth areas stalled over recent years, whether in Uxbridge town centre, near Hillingdon Station or West Drayton. Hundreds if not thousands of homes stalled at various stages of development and a more strategic approach to development enabled Maryland regional level is vital.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome this bill and I hope that we can agree these amendments tonight to begin giving powers back to communities, to empower them to act

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and to tackle the challenges we all face now and in the future. Thank you. Ian Sollom. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm sure that my hon. Friends will be relieved to hear I will be will be relieved to hear I will be making a very focussed speech. New clauses seven, eight and nine in my name. Address, missed opportunities name. Address, missed opportunities in the skills devolution elements of this Bill. Skills are the foundation of economic growth. foundation of economic growth. Supposedly this government's overriding mission. We have a million young people not in million young people not in education, employment or training, too many others trapped in poverty.

And we face a future that will require training and retraining throughout working life. Critically throughout working life. Critically for this bill, local areas understand their skills needs better than Whitehall and that's better than Whitehall and that's why skills devolution matters and why these amendments are essential to making it work. Now at committee, the Minister gave assurances that the government remains completely
20:25
Ian Sollom Portrait Ian Sollom MP (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
committed to strengthening strategic authorities role in Local Skills Improvement Plans. The White Paper, after all, promised joint ownership. But it's not in this bill. Not to worry, the Minister said new statutory guidance would deliver it. Well, that guidance was published last Tuesday. I've read it carefully, as has the Local Government Association. And guess what? It does not deliver joint ownership. Here's what the guidance actually says. Employer representative bodies retain overall responsibility. And I quote that strategic authorities merely set out sector skill priorities at the outset.

That's not joint ownership. It's just a consultation. New clause nine, endorsed by the LGA, fixes this. It requires both the strategic authority and the employer representative body to agree before the Secretary of State can approve a Local Skills Improvement Plan. Elected mayors are accountable to constituents and responsible for delivering adult skills fund spending, Democratic accountability surely shouldn't be controversial when developing devolving substantial public funding. Yeah, moving on. New clause seven requires strategic authorities to consider existing 16 to 19 and higher education provision when exercising adult skills functions.

Again, the Bill committee, the Minister said. Schedule ten already allows this, but allowing isn't requiring. Without a statutory duty, we risk exactly the same fragmentation that this bill should prevent. Three parts of the education pipeline potentially working to three different plans with no coordination mechanism. Employers need coherent pathways. Young people need clear progression routes from school through work, college to work. Making that happen shouldn't be controversial either. Finally, new clause eight requires strategic authorities to publish annual reports on their adult education functions, how funding is deployed, coordination with providers, and outcomes for learners and employers.

Again, I emphasise we're talking about substantial public funding with a significant local impact. Without reporting requirements, how will we know if skills devolution is working? How will we know if employer needs are being met? How will we identify problems before they become failures? Now, unfortunately, at committee, the Minister offered zero response to this amendment. So I remain somewhat in the dark about why the government thinks basic transparency and accountability is unnecessary. Madam Deputy Speaker, these three amendments are precision fixes.

They don't reorganise institutions, create bureaucracy or move funding. They just ensure that elected officials have genuine joint leadership and not simply consultation rights. That the skills pipeline is coordinated, not fragmented, and that public funding is transparently accounted for. If we believe in effective devolution, we must give devolved institutions frameworks to succeed. Warm words and non-statutory guidance aren't sufficient when devolving substantial powers and and public funding. These new clauses deliver on key parts of what the government promised in the White Paper.

They provide an accountability framework that any effective public policy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

requires, and I urge the government to accept them. Thank you. Perran Moon mirrors.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Perran Moon mirrors. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak to new clause 70 in my own name. Madam Deputy Speaker, my own name. Madam Deputy Speaker, the case for this new clause is quite clear because Cornish quite clear because Cornish national minority status must be respected and upheld. Article 16 of respected and upheld. Article 16 of the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities States, and I quote. The parties shall refrain from measures which alter the from measures which alter the proportions of the population in areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities, belonging to national minorities, and are aimed at restricting the rights and freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the the principles enshrined in the present Framework Convention.

It is perfectly evident from this that
20:30
Perran Moon Portrait Perran Moon MP (Camborne and Redruth, Labour)
-
-
perfectly evident from this that unless this new clause is accepted, the the English Devolution Bill is in direct contravention of the convention. This is a very difficult speech for me to have to make because of our national minority status. Cornwall will never. Cornwall cannot ever join a mayoral combined authority, no matter what ministerial pressure is applied, whether through the withdrawal of economic development funding or the prevention of access to social housing funding. None of this will.

None of this will make us compromise our national minority status, because, frankly, it is discriminatory to do so. Yes, I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member for giving way. I tabled a new clause 28 which would make provision for a new form of regional governance. In the regional governance. In the explanatory notes, it specifically mentions it would make provision for a Cornish Assembly. I understand when he was on the bill understand when he was on the bill committee that he might have abstained on. I wonder if he might be able to elaborate on what his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thoughts, what he would like to see at a Cornish level. I'm quite. I thank the the the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm quite. I thank the the the hon. Gentleman for his point. What we're looking for is not necessarily the creation of a Cornish assembly, but to ensure and Cornish assembly, but to ensure and I'll come on to it a little bit later in my speech to ensure that the established local authority, a very mature unitary authority, has the powers of a mayoral combined authority. Because if you look at what we've done at Cornwall Council over the last few years, we have managed tens of millions of pounds of economic development funding of economic development funding incredibly effectively, first through Objective One and then through Shared Prosperity funding, we've managed and created our own housing development company that manages and and and creates housing across Cornwall and actually in Cornwall.

We've been very successful over recent years in in creating housing across Cornwall, and it manages the cultural identity, the language promotion of, of of the Cornish language across Cornwall. So I'm not necessarily looking for assembly. Frankly, I don't care what the name of of the body is called. I'm looking for the powers to come back to our our primary body, which is Cornwall Council and Cornwall, as I've mentioned today, is a very large and stable unitary authority, the largest, in fact, in terms of geography, as I as I mentioned to to my right hon.

Friend and the third largest by population, Cornwall must be treated as a strategic, a single strategic authority with the powers of a mayor, mayoral combined authority. In 2022, the Advisory Committee of the Council of Europe called on the government to, and I quote again, devolve the appropriate powers to Cornwall Council to to ensure effective implementation of the Framework Convention at local level. It also called on the government of the time to work with Cornwall Council to address the housing crisis affecting persons belonging to the national Cornish national minority, and to collaborate with devolved administrations to tackle this problem in areas of concern.

The government, our government support for Cornish national minority status was made very clear by the Prime Minister at that Dispatch Box on the 5th of March, when he said we do recognise Cornish national minority status, not just the proud language, the history and the culture of Cornwall, but also its bright future. And then again on the 19th of November, when he said we will ensure that Cornwall's national minority status is safeguarded in any future devolution arrangements. This bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does the opposite and I have to say yes, I will. Thank you gentlemen. For giving way. He is giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. He is giving what I think is a an excellent speech on behalf of his constituents. He will remember on constituents. He will remember on the Bill committee that my party tabled some amendments to try and protect the integrity of Cornwall. protect the integrity of Cornwall. I would just wondered on the Bill committee, he said, that the Minister or a Minister in his Minister or a Minister in his department had given him assurances on the place of Cornwall. He's tone has distinctly changed.

So can he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has distinctly changed. So can he tell us whether he was satisfied with those assurances or whether he received them at all? I was given assurances that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was given assurances that I thank the my the hon. Member for for for his intervention. I was for for his intervention. I was given assurances that conversations would continue with, with Ministers and they have continued. And I'll and they have continued. And I'll come on to that a little bit later. But I have to say that it is disappointing to me that a party I disappointing to me that a party I love could bring forward a bill that ignores the wishes of Cornwall that ignores the wishes of Cornwall and what national minority status actually means to those who mock actually means to those who mock and disparage and denigrate Cornwall's constitutional position Cornwall's constitutional position on this island? I say this to you if you try to ensnare us in an unholy alliance with a part of England, it will rebound negatively.

The impact and consequences of an unamended bill will be felt across Cornwall for decades. As my hon. Friend from from Stoke on Trent South suggested when, in her speech for 50 years, the relationship with Westminster would decline and the current simmering resentment and disillusion would be baked in. Regrettably, it does not. It would not surprise me if the calls for full Fifth Nation status for Cornwall will simply grow. If this bill passes unamended, I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. I thank the hon. Member for giving way and he speaks very eloquently, and many of the issues eloquently, and many of the issues he is raising now resonate with me and my constituents on the Isle of and my constituents on the Isle of Wight, in that we are being forced into a union with Hampshire, where 93% of the new electorate for the new combined authority will live, and where powers some powers currently exercised by our unitary council, the Isle of Wight Council, will be instead exercised by will be instead exercised by someone whose largest responsibility rests with 93% of the population who live off the island.

If he can't achieve what he's seeking to achieve on the government benches, I do worry for government benches, I do worry for what I might be able to achieve, but it's good to hear another voice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

speaking on those same issues. Well, I thank. The hon. Member for his intervention. There is a intervention. There is a fundamental difference between the situation between the Isle of Wight and the mainland and that of Cornwall, and it's the difference between identity and and legally between identity and and legally binding national minority status. One can identify with a football One can identify with a football team, with a pop band or a place, but it doesn't give it legally binding provision, as does national minority status.

And that's the basis of my argument. I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way to always to my Cornish friend. I'm grateful to to to to my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to to to to my hon. Friend Camborne and Redruth for giving way. I just wanted to giving way. I just wanted to address the the tone of of his of his contribution. Because because his contribution. Because because all six Cornish MPs are very clear that that for us it's it's not about cutting ourselves off. It's about cutting ourselves off. It's about putting ourselves into the celebration of diversity. It's a positive. It's a forward looking proposal. On behalf of Cornwall.

Yes. Based on our rather unique, I Yes. Based on our rather unique, I have to say, unique cultural and historic past. But but that's very, very important. It's not born out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very important. It's not born out of anger and resentment. Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I entirely agree with you. I believe that I agree with you. I believe that I agree with him. Sorry, madam. I don't think as a chamber we do don't think as a chamber we do enough to celebrate the diversity of the islands on which we live. We don't do enough to celebrate the don't do enough to celebrate the different nations within the islands and which we live. In fact, islands and which we live.

In fact, it's wonderful to share our cultural identity, our language, our national minority status with people who move to Cornwall and who embed themselves in our culture and language. And I would encourage them to, when they're given, hopefully the opportunity in 20 2031, if we get that magical tick box on the census, be able to tick Cornish as, as, as as who they are. But it doesn't have to be this way, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you just have to consider the consequences of a mayoral combined authority between God forbid, although I love them dearly, Devon and Cornwall, how will the taxpayers of Devon feel about funding Cornish language lessons in Cornish schools, or Cornish language road signs or Cornish cultural events? I doubt they'll be doing cartwheels.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we stand at a crossroads. I urge Ministers to be bold, be flexible and empower our communities. Do not impose their ideological governance template on us. If an amended. The impact of this Bill is that Cornwall would be the only part of the United Kingdom locked out of access to the highest levels of devolution based solely on who we are. That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is rank blatant discrimination and I cannot and I will not accept it.

But Ministers know all this because we have had several discussions and meetings to to look at the risks and to that end, with a heavy heart, I have to say to Ministers that in its current unamended state, I will not be supporting the English devolution Bill. This should, and I believe, still could be an historic moment for the relationship between Westminster and Cornwall. I urge Ministers to listen to us and let's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make this a historically positive arrangement. Vikki Slade.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Vikki Slade. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. I was fortunate to be part of the Bill Committee for the English the Bill Committee for the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. So my summer was spent digesting each and every clause of this monstrous bill, clause of this monstrous bill, monstrous in size. I'll just clarify and seeking to understand whether it did in fact fulfil the whether it did in fact fulfil the ambitious title, whether it did in fact move powers closer to fact move powers closer to communities must be clear that the last government started the process of creating regional mayors and limiting the ability to access limiting the ability to access funding through this mechanism.

And I recall visiting the former Secretary of State in his office in Secretary of State in his office in Marsham Street, alongside my then council chief executive, Graham Farrant, and the former member for Bournemouth West, seeking the zoning of Bournemouth town centre as the first retail led investment as the first retail led investment zone, only to be told that I could only have this if I presented it as
20:42
Vikki Slade Portrait Vikki Slade MP (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
only have this if I presented it as a devolution programme or there would be no money. So we've been here before. Devolution was expected in this Parliament, though perhaps not in this form, and it does have the potential to improve lives. Problem arises with this bill because for many people in England, the bill gives with one hand and takes with the other. Yes, it shifts some power and money from Westminster to the regions, but it abolishes the very councils that deliver vital services and completely ignores the hyper local councils that residents know best.

Their towns and parishes, especially for the hon. Member from Hamble Valley I know, loves hearing my references to town parishes. This bill could and should be so much stronger. The Committee, as already noted by the Shadow Minister, made many sensible suggestions and amendments and it is disappointing that so few have been accepted. So let me highlight just a few that sit in today's pack. I welcome new clause 29, in the name of the hon. Member from Brighton Pavilion, which requires mayors and strategic authorities to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

act in accordance with the Climate Change Act and other environmental laws. But of course. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Invite the honourable. Member to propose clause new, clause 29. I don't know if that's possible at this stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What was. Promote to move it? Vikki Slade I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. I. I am very happy to move clause 29 should you not have the opportunity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunity. To if Miss Berry, if you need some information how to process some information how to process procedure, please ask the clerks or the chair. And we're speaking to the chair. And we're speaking to all the amendments. Not now. You can come to me in a minute. Continue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair. My concern without this new clause My concern without this new clause is that a mayor that perhaps does not honour the net zero commitments not honour the net zero commitments of the councils that sit within their area may undermine the principles and the hard work of councils that will have been done over so many years. Next. New clause four in the name of the clause four in the name of the Shadow Minister and new clause 25 in the name of my hon.

Friend from Newbury relating to community Newbury relating to community infrastructure Levy, CIL is an important measure that councils rightly need to mitigate the impact of new homes. And when residents come to me worried about development, they're always asking about what happens with new roads, schools and services. That's why CIL matters so much. But in Dorset and elsewhere, homeowners have been wrongly charged CIL for extensions and self-build, with £1.6 million taken in error. Now, Ministers say that the system works and if so, what do they say to those homeowners out of pocket by tens of thousands of pounds, excepting these two simple amendments, or introducing clear and robust regulation would reassure those homeowners that they will not be facing unfair bills.

Next, I met my husband, Paul, while on the Isle of Wild Living on the Isle of Wight, so I have huge sympathy with and support for both the new clause 39 and new clause 48. In fact, the failure of that ferry service is most likely responsible for us going from a date night to a long more.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The cost. Of ferries across what is, I understand, to be the most expensive stretch of water is eye watering and really impacts on people who have to leave for the most basic of services. And whilst most basic of services. And whilst the Sandbanks Ferry in Dorset is not the only option to cross our water, the alternative route 20 water, the alternative route 20 miles around Poole Harbour, creates massive congestion and contributes massive congestion and contributes to pollution. Yet the high charges made by the ferry is forcing people to drive rather than take the short to drive rather than take the short hop across the mouth of the ferry.

So I absolutely welcome the two new amendments on that matter. Now, amendments on that matter. Now, I've spoken many times on the Bill committee and in this chamber about committee and in this chamber about the plight of Wessex, overlooked by the Devolution Priority Programme, the councils that make up Wessex. That's Bournemouth, Christchurch That's Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, Dorset, Wiltshire and Somerset have calculated that the opportunity lost to the region by opportunity lost to the region by their exclusion is more than £300 million. In this year alone.

That's million. In this year alone. That's £160 per resident of Wessex, which means missed business opportunities, means missed business opportunities, stalled education investment and a go slow on much needed transport improvements. Now I am reliably improvements. Now I am reliably informed that a foundation arrangement may be just around the corner for us, but there's no solid commitment on Deveaux round two. So New clause 24 simply seeks the publication of a strategy and a clear timeline for future devolution. But let me turn, Madam Deputy Speaker, to those hyper local councils, particularly for the benefit of the bill Committee members who will be missing these comments.

Town and parish councils create community identity and get things done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. In my area where I'm town council is currently busy buying a vacated bank to create an amazing vacated bank to create an amazing museum of Purbeck, including a special section on Lawrence of Arabia in Bere Regis. The parish council operates the village bus, ensuring that the villagers can get to the town at least once a week. to the town at least once a week. The town and parish councils of Wimborne, Colehill, Upton, Lytchett, Corfe Mullen and Pamphill are Corfe Mullen and Pamphill are working together to find a solution to the dangers of Julians Bridge, and Holt Parish Council is and Holt Parish Council is supporting those homes around the heath to recover and secure their homes from the recent wildfires.

homes from the recent wildfires. And yet this bill completely ignores their importance. Amendments 50, 53, 54, 55 and 56 would ensure there's an obligation to consult with them prior to their to consult with them prior to their area being pulled into a foundation authority or being added to a new or existing combined authority. or existing combined authority. Ministers have suggested that this would create too much bureaucracy, but I disagree and so do my town but I disagree and so do my town and parish councils.

These amendments simply seek to enshrine the value of these statutory bodies the value of these statutory bodies into the devolution process. Now, finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to talk to a new amendment in want to talk to a new amendment in my name, new clause 74, that goes to the heart of one of the government's missions, a fairer Britain, where everyone lives well for longer, the places where people live and work shape the decisions they are able to make. In places where unhealthy food is readily available and highly promoted, it is harder for people to make healthy choices.

Many councils are working to ensure that healthy choices are easy and affordable. Choice and the extension of free school meals and the introduction of breakfast clubs shows the government's priority around this. I also welcome the recent announcements on funding for play as championed by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East and the All Party Parliamentary Group, for which I'm vice chair, which complements a local investment by BCP Council of £3.9 million. But obesity costs the NHS and the economy £98 billion a year.

Councils are supporting the health of their communities by adopting advertising policies that reduce adverts for refuse adverts for unhealthy foods on the outdoor hoardings that they own. But they are unable to use the planning system to reject applications for privately owned sites because of out of date regulations that restrict refusal to limited grounds of safety and amenity, such as whether a sign is illuminated. These hoardings are most often situated in the most deprived areas, where access to fresh food is not as easily available now.

Jamie Oliver played a significant part in the last Labour government through his TV show Jamie's School Dinners, and his Feed Me Better campaign that outlawed turkey Twizzlers from our children's lunches. So with the government showing such commitment to healthy childhood, I hope the government will agree to work with Jamie Oliver again by accepting my new clause 74, which is also championed by the Town and County Planning Association. This new clause simply notes that councils should be able to control what sits on the hoardings of private land, enabling them to regulate advertising and include duties on them to use that power in relation to health inequalities.

Madam Deputy Speaker, devolution should truly empower local authorities and local communities and I hope that the government will accept this and the other amendments I have raised as the Bill passes through its remaining stages.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sian Berry. Very thanks, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was also pleased to sit Speaker, I was also pleased to sit on the Bill committee, but sadly I cannot spare the time to review everyone's performance. So I will everyone's performance. So I will get straight to the point. My amendments for new combined authorities in parts one and two of authorities in parts one and two of the bill today include amendments 91 to 93, which add action on poverty and socioeconomic poverty and socioeconomic inequality to the areas of competence of new mayors.

In clause two, the government has promised two, the government has promised again and again to enact part one of the Equality Act 2010, in of the Equality Act 2010, in respect of a socio economic duty for England. If this was done, then these duties would need to be these duties would need to be created in this bill. To leave them out like this for brand new authorities is such a gap, and I find it hard to understand why the find it hard to understand why the government is resisting.

I hope that either this will be taken up in the other place and debated
20:51
Siân Berry Portrait Siân Berry MP (Brighton Pavilion, Green Party)
-
-
in the other place and debated again, or that the section will be enacted for England imminently, such that it has to be done through government amendments there. And I would like to hear this promised by Ministers today. I want to focus and propose Madam Deputy Speaker my new clause 29 mainly today, though this would help every new mayor. I support the principles in the Climate Change Act in a fair way. The Climate Change Committee has noted the yawning gap between national ambition and local action, and the Local Government Association has called for this gap to be closed.

Through this bill, we need every mayor agreeing on the action. They will take their fair contribution to national targets and being empowered to deliver for our crucial carbon budgets and life saving climate resilience. My new clause would also help every new mayor support the principles in the Environment Act for nature protection and restoration, action on pollution, wildlife and the ecosystem that is our only home. And my new clause would also help every new mayor support the principles in Ella's law, the Clean Air Human Rights Bill.

This awaits a Second Reading now and comes from cross-party work with campaigners from the Healthy Air Coalition and Rosamund Kissi-debrah, the mother of Ella, whose death from asthma was the first to be recorded as due to air pollution. Madam Deputy Speaker, New Clause 29 is supported by the UK 100 Group of Local authorities. The Climate Emergency Campaign, the Better Planning Coalition, Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Healthy Air Coalition, friends of the Earth and a host of others. An open letter has signed has been signed by over 450 local councillors from all parties and by council leaders.

Hundreds of businesses have written in more than once to Ministers asking for this, and many of our constituents have been contacting MPs too. And I'm very grateful to every hon. Member, cross-party, who has signed the amendment before us today. The case is clear. I intend to push new clause 29 so we can, on all sides, vote for these climate, nature and clean air duties that are so vital or I hope the government will pledge clearly today to introduce them all as full duties at the next stage in the other place in committee.

I also worked with campaigners to fill a big gap in the health determinants set out in the bill, to which new mayors would have to plan action under clause 43, the Health Improvement and health inequalities duty. The government left out any environmental impacts on health from the face of the bill, and I argued strongly for this in committee and have again tabled my amendments 87 to 90 to fix this. I am pleased and grateful to see Ministers have listened to the evidence and added their own amendments one one 6 to 1 one eight naming environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water as the health determinants they are.

However, my original amendments have not been withdrawn as they spelled out that environmental factors should also specifically include water pollution and land pollution. This would have brought the goals of Zane's law into the work done by new mayors to document and plan strategically to avoid horrific problems with contaminated land, of the kind that led to the sudden death of Zane Bamgbola. When floods brought poison gas from contaminated landfill into his home in Chertsey and Surrey. I would like to hear explicitly from Ministers today that the phrase environmental factors in their new amendments does include this kind of contamination, and that their amendments therefore bring parts of Zane's law into this bill.

Finally, I also want Ministers today and Lords in the other place to look seriously at the need for my amendments 159 and 160, which aim to make sure the local growth plans for new mayors will help protect culture in a strategic way. On this, I have been working with the Music Venues Trust, whose annual report each year makes all full reading. As our grassroots music venues suffer and close due to business pressures and fair business rates, valuations, unfair business rates, valuations and planning and licensing issues that could be tackled effectively using the new strategies and powers of combined authorities and mayors.

The amendments cover not just music, but cultural and creative community spaces of all kinds, including theatres and other performance venues. And I believe that all areas of the country will benefit from this amendment being added at a future stage of the bill. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. Joe Robertson. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to draw attention to my register of interests in that I'm a serving Isle of Wight councillor. I serving Isle of Wight councillor. I wish to speak on new clause 48, which is bought in my name, but which is bought in my name, but also new clause 39 bought in the name of the hon. Member for Gosport the two amendments, those two new the two amendments, those two new clauses seek to do similar things clauses seek to do similar things on my amendment.

I wish to thank members across this House who members across this House who supported it, not only from these benches, but from MPs on the government benches and also from government benches and also from the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. It's my position that shows Greens. It's my position that shows that it's a objectively reasonable amendment to seek, and that is the
20:56
Joe Robertson Portrait Joe Robertson MP (Isle of Wight East, Conservative)
-
-
amendment to seek, and that is the principle of fairness, to ensure that ferry services, which connect communities all over this country, which is a country of islands, connect those islands and indeed, indeed connect communities that live close to bodies of water, including rivers, under a fair framework that trains and buses operate under the context in which this amendment sits. Is this for generations, decades, there has been a political consensus that train operators, whether they be state providers or private businesses, operate under a framework of regulation and licensing.

That government has a say in how train fares are structured, in how train timetables are structured. And the same two goes for bus services. And indeed, even with trains in the private sector and buses in the private sector, both have to a greater or lesser extent been subsidised by the public purse. Very providers in this country sit outside that consensus of regulation and licensing in public transport, so that there is no comprehensive regulation in place.

That sets down how ferry operators may work. And it has led to the situation for my constituents on the Isle of Wight, relying on privatised, unregulated, unlicensed, foreign owned, debt laden companies for essential travel. Those companies are so profitable they have been exchanged and indeed are regularly exchanged, from private equity group to private equity group, including the Canadian pension fund, because private equity understands that this is a predictable form of income generation, because the service users, Isle of Wight residents have no alternative but to use the ferry companies they control.

There is no effective market. The private sector only operates properly when there is competition, but the bar to entry for running ferry services and I use my own constituency as an example. The bar to entry in that market is so high in that a company would need to buy land, it would need to buy ferries, it would need to ensure all the compliance with maritime law, that it means there is no alternative but the existing providers. Indeed, one of those providers now called Wightlink, used to be part of British Rail when British Rail was a public service, but it was unfortunately sold off without any obligation on it and it is now private equity investment that has benefited from it.

The government has engaged with me and my neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West, who of course sits on the government benches, and I'm pleased that the Maritime Minister has met with both of us separately and now intends to meet with us both together. What there is here is an opportunity for government. I understand why government of any political colour does not want to step in and create regulation. If it can avoid it, mainly because it would then have to administer it.

It would then have an obligation through, for example, the Department for transport of managing the regulation it creates. There is a golden opportunity here to create the regulation and hand it over to devolve mayoral authorities, to manage in the interests of the communities they represent. So in my own example, the government has a golden opportunity here to create regulation on ferry operators and then devolve that regulation, devolve that power downwards to local areas.

So, for example, ferry operators that operate across the Solent, they will have to account for themselves to the mayor for Hampshire and the Solent and ferry operators that operate elsewhere in the United Kingdom will have to account for their locally democratically elected mayors. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my friend for giving way. He's giving a characteristically modest and speech for how much he has campaigned on this for his constituents, and being very moderate towards the aims and moderate towards the aims and ambitions of the government, too. It's a clear stated aim in from the Minister in this government that local people should be able to demand local regulation and services and powers and mayors should be able to. And he will know that the local conservative candidate, Donna Donna Jones, has actually asked to have these powers actually asked to have these powers so that if she is elected as mayor, she would like to use them.

Doesn't that give a greater incentive to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work together to make sure that the government can give those powers down to the new mayoralty? I thank the shadow Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention. Absolutely does give an incentive, and I thank him for remarking on my tone. My tone for remarking on my tone. My tone here has always been one of trying to work with the government on this. And indeed, I will acknowledge And indeed, I will acknowledge again, it's a campaign. It's more than a campaign. It's a, a a core than a campaign. It's a, a a core issue running through my constituents, but also the constituents on the other side of, constituents on the other side of, of the island.

I share with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West, and indeed we are working jointly and indeed we are working jointly on it, and what this would achieve is unity around the idea of a mayor having responsibility for integrated transport locally. After all, local transport powers is a key plank of the government's plans for devolution. But when the government consulted my constituents or the wider residents of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight on transport, the consultation document that it put out to spark debate and consultation returns devoted a thousand words to transport for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

It talked about trains, it talked about buses, it talked about taxis, it talked about pavements, it talked about cycling, it talked about walking, but didn't mention the words ferries or mention crossing the Solent, which every single one of my constituents need to do at some point, including for things like accessing health services that are not provided on the island, including educational opportunities that are not provided on the island, and for accessing employment and seeing friends and families, like everyone else on the UK mainland would expect.

And I just remind the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, in order to do those routine daily things, my constituents are reliant on private equity groups who own and control ferry companies without any obligation whatsoever to the residents of the Isle of Wight, without any democratic accountability at all, and without any responsibility whatsoever to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government, I will give way. I'm very grateful. To. My hon. Friend for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend for giving way. He's making a very powerful speech about the needs of his constituents. about the needs of his constituents. Having joined up transport, and he's articulating about the ferries, but he's talking also about buses but he's talking also about buses and trains. Not only is there an economic argument, but he's talked about the importance of people about the importance of people being able to move and to connect with each other, and that has huge impacts for their mental health.

So impacts for their mental health. So I urge him to carry on and talk about the the importance of democratic accountability, of democratic accountability, of getting strategic transport plans for his constituents and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituents across the country. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. And he he he mentioned his key words, democratic his key words, democratic accountability. I mean, that's fundamentally what underpins this, and it's a principle we expect in and it's a principle we expect in all forms of public transport except ferries. So I urge the except ferries. So I urge the government to use this opportunity that's been presented to create that regulation, to devolve it down. That way. They don't have ongoing responsibility to administer it.

responsibility to administer it. And indeed, the decision making is will be made as close to the individuals it affects as possible. And again, speaking for my constituents, but I could be speaking for constituents elsewhere in the country. It's also about the economic well-being of the local area as well. My constituents are heavily reliant on tourism. Indeed, tourism. The benefits of tourism is felt by 38% of our economy. But of course, in order to for tourists to visit the Isle of Wight, they have to pay ferry prices on top of anything else that they might want to spend when they're on the island.

Let us remember, the money they pay to the ferry companies goes off to private equity investors, many of which are abroad and some of which are foreign pension funds. That means not only less money to spend in my local area on businesses who employ local people, but indeed it will put some people off travelling to the Isle of Wight at all. The Minister might want to see it in a way of a very substantial and large tax that people can avoid by simply visiting other places for their holidays.

That is the tragedy of it, and indeed the footfall for tourists has fallen. For those visiting the Isle of Wight more than it has for anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and I will before I end, madam Deputy Speaker, just articulate my argument with some facts. Earlier this year, the highest price somebody paid for bringing a car back and forth to the Isle of Wight was £400. That is, for a sea crossing that is five miles. The timetables have diminished since private private equity took control, so that once, when there were half hourly services, those services are now more than an hour.

Now, ordinarily, a company wouldn't get away with doing this because the consumer, the passenger, would go elsewhere. The only elsewhere option is another ferry company, also controlled and owned by private equity. And it's no wonder that one of those companies was sold last month. From private equity to private equity. And the website of that new controlling group doesn't talk about the uncompromising pursuit of passenger experience. No, they boast about the uncompromising pursuit of capital investment. That's capital investment for people who want to invest in that holding company.

So I thank again all those who've supported it, and it is a particularly significant moment that the shadow Minister has confirmed that His Majesty's Official Opposition backs the regulation of ferry companies

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through my amendment to this bill. We have more than one more speaker bobbing, I hope. Marvellous, marvellous. So it's just because I'm trying to calculate the time I'm trying to calculate the time because we have four more speakers and we have to definitely finish business by ten. Backbenchers are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on a speed limit of ten minutes and I call Andrew George. Mr. speaker, and it's it's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, and it's it's interesting to follow the hon. Member. I mean, as I have ferries in my constituency as well, and I haven't brought forward amendments haven't brought forward amendments to deal with them in a bill which is about devolution. So I if I, if is about devolution. So I if I, if I may, on on this issue, I, I would like to come back to the to the Cornish question which has been raised by my hon. Friend for for Redruth and Camborne and to and to really concentrate on on whether it's appropriate, as my hon.

Friend it's appropriate, as my hon. Friend for for Harrogate has done with his with his new clause 28 proposed to deal with the idiosyncrasies around around this this this country through through a matter of through through a matter of principle which is which is the manner in which he proposes it in his new clause 28, or indeed, the his new clause 28, or indeed, the way that that my old friend has through his new clause 70 and indeed my amendments, the
21:10
Andrew George Portrait Andrew George MP (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
amendments I brought forward amendments 175 and 176, which, amendments 175 and 176, which, which, which deal with it through through exception, the exception of of Cornwall and why Cornwall's case of Cornwall and why Cornwall's case is exceptional in relation to other to other areas. I mean, I do accept that everywhere is special, everywhere is is unique. And the everywhere is is unique. And the question obviously is, is very often asked, well, why is Cornwall often asked, well, why is Cornwall asking for for additional consideration on top of other, on top of other places? And the answer top of other places? And the answer to that is is partly the answer which which my old friend gave, which which my old friend gave, which is that we have special, you know, legislation, regulations which apply to us with regard to which apply to us with regard to the national minority status, the recognition of the of the of the Cornish language, the existence of the Duchy and its and its separate constitutional relationship with the Crown.

And of course, all the Crown. And of course, all places are the result of of the accident of both history and geography. And indeed Cornwall is geography. And indeed Cornwall is indeed the confluence of that. And if we're not to go in the direction if we're not to go in the direction of wanting to to to break down all barriers and to have one world government and to not to have any distinction between one place and another, we have to recognise what is the tipping point between between the recognition of, of English counties and that of, in the case of Cornwall, a rather unique place which needs to be given the special consideration which both he and I believe that it should.

I mean, it's not just that I like he, you know, recognised myself as or describe myself as Cornish and not English. That's not to be anti English. I'm very proud of my relationship with with England, as indeed all Cornish people are. But it's the fact that that, that that we as, as a people do have rather separate history. We, we introduce ourselves in these debates by saying Mr. or Ms. and to say that we are we we introduce at least the Cornish language.

And although not many people in Cornwall speak the Cornish language, not many people speak Scottish Gaelic. It doesn't mean to say that the Scots are less Scottish because of that, and neither are the Cornish because in their case, they they there are not many speakers of it now. I mean, the fact is that the last person that couldn't speak English died some nearly 200 years ago. And the the fact that during the the recent times, obviously there's been a great deal of kind of coming together and recognition of the importance of, of of of of identity our Celtic past.

And indeed when I've compared speaking, speaking Cornish to Breton friends, there's actually a a stronger association between Cornwall and Brittany and than there is between, between Cornwall and Wales, where we were separated, as it were, from by the Saxons back some 1500 years ago. And indeed Athelstan drew the line between Cornwall and England in 936. I think it was because he felt that the Cornish weren't worth the effort of inevitable annihilation at the time. And, and I mean, the fact is that all of that history is, is interesting and relevant.

But of course, I'm, as I've said in my intervention with the hon. Gentleman, I'm not interested in being backward looking or being insular in this regard, that that's part of the thing that kind of feeds one's understanding of who one is. But what we need to do is cut ourselves into the celebration of diversity, rather than cut ourselves off, and to look forward and to and to use our identity as part of the strength with actually helps us to, to go forward.

And indeed, we we had a debate earlier on the government's very welcome statement with regard to critical minerals. And indeed Cornwall is is indeed I will in just a second. Cornwall is indeed a place where where we can and should be looking forward with all of our strength in the space sector and in critical minerals and green energy, etc. and we have a lot to look forward to, but we need to have a basis of confidence on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which to do that. I will give way very briefly. For. For, for. For giving way. I think I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. I think I totally agree with exactly what he's saying. The challenge that I have is, as he may have had when he have is, as he may have had when he first came to this place, is that coming onto the bench? These coming onto the bench? These benches? I'm staggered at how few people here understand Cornish people here understand Cornish national minority status, and how important it is to those of us in important it is to those of us in Cornwall.

And so I make these references, not for for him and for people in Cornwall who who know people in Cornwall who who know this stuff, but more to ensure that the people who are here get a the people who are here get a better understanding of who we are, better understanding of who we are, why we have this separate culture and language, and why we're very keen for people to come and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

keen for people to come and celebrate it. Does he agree with that approach, Andrew? I do, I do indeed, and indeed. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do, I do indeed, and indeed. I mean, the fact is that it is the desire of a centralised state to render its dominion homogeneous. render its dominion homogeneous. And one can understand that in order to to devolve in a in a order to to devolve in a in a nation like, like the UK, where the culture has been so, so centralised for centuries, it's very difficult to kind of understand that the process of devolution is about letting go, not by holding on to power, my intervention, hon.

Member for Uxbridge would kind of was the purpose of that was to point out that within the bill itself, there are there is still that that desire to hold on. So, in other words, directly elected mayors could become under the powers of the, of the of, of the bill, in fact, puppets of central government. And that's something which I, I fear may be the case if you look at clause, clause, clause 38, there is there is a weakness, I think there and, and a possibility of the government still holding on and actually controlling the way things go.

So I support the the amendments brought forward by my, my hon. Friends from these benches and indeed the hon. Member for, for Brighton Pavilion and I, I hope that the Minister will listen even if she doesn't accept these amendments, now that the government will be listening to the case of Cornwall as it proceeds through the other place. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's been a long afternoon. I've put.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've put. Some I'd like to thank. My Lib Dem colleagues on the. Bill committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill committee. Who. Have bravely stood up for towns and parishes and would like. To continue. Along the role of towns and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Along the role of towns and parishes. I would. Like to draw the. House's attention to my register of interest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Being still a. Sitting district councillor. Now, district councils play an interesting role when you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have towns and parishes. Because they form. The connection. Between the. Towns and parishes and. you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. Have. That three. Layer that sort of. Works together. And they pull in. A similar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A similar. Direction when it's working. Well. I could regale you upon. The achievements. Of.
21:18
Martin Wrigley Portrait Martin Wrigley MP (Newton Abbot, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of. Dawlish Town Council, on. Newton Abbot Town Council. Or Teignmouth Town Council. Or the various. Parish councils.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Or the various. Parish councils. They've done fantastic things for their communities, but they can only do it when they're part of the process and they can actually. Talk process and they can actually. Talk with and act with the higher councils as well. What we are. Missing in this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is anything like. A duty. To. Cooperate between. The unitary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Cooperate between. The unitary and the town and parish councils. Were that in place, there would be a really much better conversation. So we have. No set idea in Devon So we have. No set idea in Devon what the best layout of unitary councils would look like. I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there's. Six or possibly ten. Options coming up to to the government for consideration, which government for consideration, which is clearly entirely unreasonable. One of the options is a single One of the options is a single large unitary, replacing the same footprint as Devon County Council.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

footprint as Devon County Council. Now, something like that would take. A localised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A localised. Idea of what's going on in the district councils where you have, for example, five district councillors within Dawlish, councillors within Dawlish, representing the people into that area, to a far distant control, area, to a far distant control, where you have possibly two unitary councillors trying to deal with those issues. It would be very, those issues. It would be very, very difficult to persuade residents that that that unitary council is working with their best interests at heart, so that duty to cooperate is really, really important.

Now, we went through all the process, and the former Secretary of State, Under Secretary of State, I apologise. I'm not sure the best best form of address, the previous Minister. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Deputy speaker, it has been a long day. Was talking about neighbourhood area committees, and yet I was surprised when I looked at the bill. There is nothing in there about neighbourhood area committees not actually mentioned in any way, shape or form. Now Devon is very big, saying we're going to make these area neighbourhood committees and it's going to really work for you, but it's not.

This is why I've put forward amendments 164, 160, 166, 167. Those. Oh no, no, I got myself confused here. This is new, new clause 71, which actually sets forth the need and the requirement to make neighbourhood area committees and makes them a statutory consultee within the unitary council, because they currently are not. I will. way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I used to be a councillor on an. Authority that had area. Committees, and we ended up. Scrapping them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because they weren't really doing a very good job. Does he not agree that kind of mandating. Particular governance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arrangements of that sort and at that level within councils in legislation really undermines the principle of devolution? Actually, we need to let councils do what's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we need to let councils do what's best for their areas. I thank I thank the Member for his intervention, and I agree that his intervention, and I agree that we shouldn't be mandating those details. However. We were promised that these committees would perform that these committees would perform this function. And I say again that a simple duty to cooperate with towns and councils would actually towns and councils would actually take the place far better. So the new clause 71 sets up neighbourhood

**** Possible New Speaker ****

new clause 71 sets up neighbourhood area committees. The other issue that is in the. Bill. Again, is relating to the larger

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Again, is relating to the larger unitaries not having that localism built in, should we end up with, built in, should we end up with, say, a single large unitary within Devon, we will end up with Dartmoor Devon, we will end up with Dartmoor National Park, entirely surrounded by a single unitary council. So by a single unitary council. So what I might hear people saying now, at the moment, the local local, the at the moment, the local local, the local authority, the local authorities surrounding Dartmoor National Park appoint ten people to the authority board, central government appoints nine.

Consequently, if you are surrounded by a single unitary council, you present you. You appoint a majority to that board so you lose the distinct identity of that agency for managing the national parks, with the danger of finding the unitary desires overturn those of the national park with nothing to stop them. So amendments 164165166167 address that and require attention to the national park governance. In the process of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

creating the new unitaries, I will give way. To him that governance arrangement sounds. I mean, I'm arrangement sounds. I mean, I'm glad it works. It sounds like a nightmare from having just been been sort of given that information, would he not agree again, that under one unitary council that you can have a much more strategic oversight over that situation? And oversight over that situation? And if local residents aren't happy with the way that they managed, they can elect different councillors. It should be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

simplification, not causing problems there. Yeah. Martin Wrigley I thank the Member for his intervention, but no, Member for his intervention, but no, the issue is here. You have a local, you have a local authority looking at an authority, the park authority at an authority, the park authority looking after the park with the park's interests at heart. And you're not tied to any other you're not tied to any other overriding interests such as the new unitary needs. Another road. Oh, the easiest thing is to just go the easiest thing is to just go through an edge of the park.

We need some more housing. We'll just put it in the park. At the moment, put it in the park. At the moment, the park is responsible for its own planning. It's responsible for its own destiny. And that identity is so important. And that was supposed so important. And that was supposed to be maintained in this local devolution bill. I would love to devolution bill. I would love to have seen a duty for the new unitary to have a statutory duty to provide adequate public toilets, provide adequate public toilets, but that one was just too far out of the way to even try to get in.

And I think at that point, having taken up enough of your time, having sat through a lot of very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, let's leave it at that. Interesting conversations. I will call it a day. Tom Gordon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tom Gordon. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I'd like to thank my Liberal Democrat colleagues who pushed a similar version of this amendment at the bill committee. When I'm speaking to new clause 28, effectively, the provisions of clause 28 would allow a new form of regional governance. At the moment, regional governance. At the moment, one of the things that really frustrates me and is really quite bonkers when you think about it bonkers when you think about it from a perspective of fairness, is that Yorkshire has almost a population of Scotland, the economy of Wales, a strong sense of identity.

But unlike those aforementioned countries, we don't have anywhere near the level of powers that they do to have. For too long, Westminster has handed too long, Westminster has handed Yorkshire crumbs and called it a settlement. There's been lots of talk this evening about regional mayors and regional powers, but mayors and regional powers, but Yorkshire was technically chopped into four different constituent
21:25
Tom Gordon Portrait Tom Gordon MP (Harrogate and Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
components. Westminster has taken the ability for us to build across that region and be the real powerhouse we could be. So my amendment would allow the creation of a Yorkshire regional body on par with Scotland and Wales, and empower it with provisions over health, education and transport. It would stop holding Yorkshire back and give us as Yorkshire folk, the tools to do what we know we need to do for our areas. Simply put, it would give Yorkshire solutions to Yorkshire problems.

Currently, the mayoral arrangements we see across the area are quite disparate and vary wildly. We've had a Labour mayor in West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, who has been elected twice on the promise of delivering a franchising of buses, which still is yet to happen. We've recently got a new mayor for York and North Yorkshire as well, which is, you know, yet to see any sort of real, meaningful investment down on the ground for local people. What I don't want to see is mayors who are empowered to be glorified lobbyists in this place or in Westminster, in Whitehall, I want to see a real regional form of governance that empowers people on the ground.

We have a democratic deficit. When you look across Europe and compares to other countries where they have real, meaningful forms of devolution and regional governance, so why not think big? If you look at transport, we need to integrate across the entirety of Yorkshire, a transport for Yorkshire that doesn't simply stop at the borders of West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire. When we talk about investment into things like mass transit for Leeds, that talks about a West Yorkshire area and people who live in my constituency, Harrogate and Knaresborough, commute and work and live and educate in there.

So giving a new regional body that function over transport would make clear sense common sense. If Yorkshire had its powers and funding already, then a Leeds mass transit system, instead of being endlessly promised and kiboshed, knocked on the head and promised again, might actually have happened if people on the ground with a stake in it were the ones in the driving seat. And when it comes to health, having health powers devolved to a local region like Yorkshire makes massive sense. We've got Yorkshire Cancer Research and you're based in my constituency who talk endlessly about the the poor life outcomes that we as a region see compared to places in the south of England.

So why not have people who know best about what health interventions would make sense for us in our area, making those key decisions? All of those points that I've just made around transport and health are trying to fix something that is has gone wrong, that's gone wrong in our system, that we in this place, that Whitehall that government brings us here to discuss issues when we would be better empowering people in our communities to take them for us. Now, I know the naysayers will go, oh, it's a new form.

There'll be more elections, there'll be more people involved. Well, we've seen that with the with the creation of combined authorities and these mayoral authorities. And what really worries me is the fact that we've ended up with endless strategic directors, chief executives of these new organisations who are often kowtowing to the line and diktat from Whitehall anyway. So where's the real devolution in that? I say, so I want to see, in conclusion, Yorkshire's answers to Yorkshire's problems and I hope other people would support that too.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Oh Sarah Madam Deputy Speaker, I. Would like. To focus.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To focus. My attention on amendment 174 tabled in my name. This amendment. Would look to ensure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would look to ensure. Rural, remote and coastal areas are properly considered when preparing a local growth plan. As preparing a local growth plan. As it stands, rural is not mentioned once within the bill, and the once within the bill, and the concerns that I raised at Second Reading remain this bill's overly centralised approach to devolution centralised approach to devolution will once again neglect rural communities. It remains unclear how the specific needs of rural communities will be highlighted and addressed.

Madam Deputy Speaker, addressed. Madam Deputy Speaker, 85% of England's land area is classified as rural, but only 17% classified as rural, but only 17% of the country's population lives in these areas, and unfortunately, this often means rural areas can this often means rural areas can sometimes be ignored and left behind. But these areas have specific needs and challenges, and
21:29
Sarah Dyke Portrait Sarah Dyke MP (Glastonbury and Somerton, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
specific needs and challenges, and they require strategic support and investment to ensure that they thrive. Rural areas are the grassroots drivers of economic growth, the home of farming, food and drink production and tourism. And my constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton is home to over 800 family farms, and much of the wider local industry is intertwined with food production. Therefore, there needs to be a strategic focus on rural growth to identify what enabling infrastructure is needed to support rural communities.

With the recent and incoming planning reform. But Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill will fail to capture the huge growth opportunity these areas offer unless the government changes track and pays them due regard. Schedule 19 requires Merrill, CA and CCA to produce a local growth plan and allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance for said growth plans. Historically, efforts have focussed investment on urban areas and left behind the potential rural areas have to contribute to the local and national economy.

My amendment would would ensure rural, remote and coastal areas would get significant attention within these plans by ensuring local growth plans, consider how rural, remote and coastal communities can thrive. They can spot infrastructure gaps such as lack of broadband, poor public transport and declining services. A census wide survey of 250 farmers highlighted that almost two thirds believe internet connectivity is critical for day to day farming. Yet nearly 10% of farms still have no internet connectivity.

15% of premises in Butleigh receive less than ten megabytes per second, putting them in the lowest 10% in the country. So it's no surprise that these premises are often the most rural and digitally isolated. The same areas that are home to the majority of British farms all. Madam Deputy Speaker, we could consider how poor public transport, hold back, hold back growth 57% of the working age population in England lives in areas with low public transport access to jobs, while rural bus services in England and Wales have declined by 52% since 2008, the National Infrastructure Commission has argued that unlocking regional economic growth requires mass transit investment.

Public transport in Glastonbury and Somerton is fragmented at best and simply non-existent in some areas. People who wish to travel from Wincanton or Glastonbury to Castle Cary in order to catch a train eastwards to London or Bristol, or westwards to Taunton or Plymouth, are forced to drive miles because there are few bus routes servicing towns to the train station and where there is a bus service, they rarely integrate with the train timetable, so any potential users have very little confidence in public transport and certainly no incentive to use it.

My amendment would force local growth plans to take into consideration the deficiencies in infrastructure that can hold back economic growth in rural areas. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government envisage strategic authorities to produce local growth plans, but given the geographical spread of some of the new rural authorities, I worry these areas could still be unfairly impacted. So I ask the Minister to explain how they believe this bill, as it stands, will give rural communities the service services that they should expect without even mentioning them.

So I urge the Minister not to miss this opportunity to realise rural economic growth and ensure due regard is taken to empower rural, remote and coastal communities to play their part. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would also like to share my concerns on how this bill fails to deal with the financial crisis councils face across the country. Liberal Democrats are disappointed that no sections of this bill have been dedicated to providing safeguards to ensure responsible use of public funds and maintain public trust.

Amendment 84. In the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that mayoral combined authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the preparation, publication and delivery of local growth plans. As the Bill stands, it offers no financial clarity to councils, yet it would allow the Secretary of State to respond to proposals from mayors of essays and provide them with greater powers to deliver their areas of competence, including changes to law or funding.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, Somerset has been dealing with a financial emergency over the last few years, in large part due to the mess left by the previous conservative led county councils. Financial neglect, rising costs and demand for essential services have put budgets further under severe pressure. Despite, yes, of course, I'll give way to my hon. Friend. Thank you. I would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just want to accentuate. The fact that in. Somerset we suffered six.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Years of council tax freeze during the early part of the 2010 during the early part of the 2010 decade, which has set Somerset back decade, which has set Somerset back enormously. And that was under a conservative rule coalition. And conservative rule coalition. And forgive me, it the council finances. The council tax was frozen for six The council tax was frozen for six years, which was way in excess of what the government had anticipated. And that was one of the things that And that was one of the things that has left the council in Somerset in such dire straits.

I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend for her intervention. She'll also know that the Somerset County Council was the Somerset County Council was near bankrupt in 2018, and indeed, near bankrupt in 2018, and indeed, we have suffered a lot under the previous conservative led county councils financial neglect during their tenure. But rising costs and demand for essential services have demand for essential services have put budgets under severe pressure, despite significant transformation and savings. By being delivered by the Liberal Democrat led unitary council.

Now, the lack of funding for local government is not unique to Somerset. Of course, it's a national problem that requires a national solution, with councils still waiting for the delayed details of the local government finance settlement. The current funding model is broken and it needs fundamental change. This has not been achieved in this bill, but amendment 61 and 62, in my hon. Friend's name would ensure councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receive appropriate funding to facilitate their transition, and combined authorities receive adequate funding to facilitate their establishment.

I therefore, urge all honourable and right hon. Members to support such amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to this Bill. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Minister to wind up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to wind up. Madam Deputy Speaker with leave of the House, I will respond to the of the House, I will respond to the debate. And may I start by thanking members from across the House for their thoughtful, robust and at times rather lengthy contributions to this debate. Let me start with the Member for Hamble Valley. The member asked the question, is the member asked the question, is the bill ready? Absolutely. The bill is ready. But what we are doing is ready.

But what we are doing is exactly what the member accuses us of not doing, which is listening, responding to scrutiny that we've responding to scrutiny that we've got through the Committee stage and interventions from our my hon. Friends and taking amendments where Friends and taking amendments where we think it makes sense. That is the way that we think we should drive through legislation. But the drive through legislation. But the core premise of the bill, we are absolutely clear about. Now, the Member for Hamble Valley, the
21:38
Miatta Fahnbulleh Portrait Miatta Fahnbulleh MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Peckham, Labour )
-
-
Member for Hamble Valley, the Member for Box Broxbourne and the Member for Guildford all played around a theme, which is that this is a centralising bill that is looking to impose on places. And I categorically reject this. This is the biggest transfer of power that we have seen for a generation. This is something that the party opposite did not do in 14 years. And if we take let's take the example of local government reorganisation, which was raised by members across the House.

This is a bottom local led process where places where places have come up with proposals. The proposals have come from places consulting their constituent authorities, consulting people locally. And they are then submitting proposals which we are judging against clear, transparent criteria that we have published. Now, candidly, members opposite have some cheek asking us to retain the status quo. Given given. Well, well, it is quite serious. But the member opposite mentioned that he had two cheeks but no look given, given, quite frankly, that we are not doing reorganisation for fun.

We're doing reorganisation because the party opposite failed to grip this for 14 years. The party opposite underinvested in local government stripped out capacity. So we now need to do the job of making sure we reform local government to reform local government so it is fit for purpose so that it can deliver the local services that people across our country want to see. And I know I'll make a little bit more progress. And look, we are clear that this has to be done with consultation.

This has to be done with engagement, and that is what we're doing. And so to the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire on proposed referendum, we think that is disproportionate. We think the approach that we're taking to consultation and engagement is the right one. And on the point about referendum, let me take a new clause two on referendum on moral precepts. At the same time. Look, we are really clear. The democratic lock sits at the heart of this.

Mayors who are democratically elected by their people are no more immune to the impacts of raising taxes than we are as national politicians. So the democratic process is the thing that will ensure that mayors are balancing the needs to raise a precept to invest in their community against the need to protect their people from tax rises. Look where I do where I do completely agree with the member opposite is that devolution works best when it's predicated on strong local partnerships.

And the strongest mayoral combined authorities are ones where the constituent authorities work in lockstep with the mayor. That's the model we've seen in Greater Manchester. And so we are very, very clear that partnership must sit at the heart of this. And that is the approach

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that we are looking to support and enable. Through this. I will give way. Madam Deputy Speaker really, honestly feels like Groundhog Day because once again, the Minister has come here and said that this is being a ground up amount of local being a ground up amount of local government reform and devolution. Can she therefore answer the question once again? She's heard question once again? She's heard many members tonight say that local authorities do not want to reorganise. If they do not want to go ahead with it, will this government force them to do it? The answer is yes, isn't it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, the clear things that authorities across the country is that they recognise that country is that they recognise that the status quo isn't working. The members opposite are criticising. Yes, they have no alternative. The status quo is not sustainable because we have had 14 years where the party opposite stripped local the party opposite stripped local authorities of investment. 14 years in which they denuded their capacity. So local authorities across the piece recognise that across the piece recognise that reform is necessary.

And I come back to the fact we are reforming back to the fact we are reforming for a purpose. We are reforming to deliver stronger services at the level that works at the appropriate level that works at the appropriate level, so local authorities can deliver the outcomes that the people their people want. Look, let people their people want. Look, let me take the point around devolution and resources, which the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, the Member for Guildford, also raised. Look, we recognise that devolution is going to be successful, that absolutely, our mayors and strategic authorities need the resources to do this.

Well. This is why a new burdens assessment will always come in place where there are new responsibilities placed on devolved authorities and critically, where we are devolving power, for example, to our priority areas. We're providing capacity funding. That principle that we will always ensure that places have the resources they need to do the job is absolutely right, because we care as much as our mayors, care as much as the parties opposite care that we get devolution right and that is delivering for people across the piece.

I'll make progress. The Member for Guildford also pushed back on commissioners, and I have to say, I have to say I disagree with this amendment and I agree with the member of Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard that mayors need to be able to bring in additional expertise to do the very, very hard job that we and their voters are asking them to do. Commissioners will be appointed by mayors. They'll be accountable to mayors, they will be subject to scrutiny, and they are there to bolster the capacity and the expertise of the mayor.

All we are doing through the bill is allowing the flexibility for the mayor to build the right team, with the right skills, with the right expertise, in order to deliver the priorities for local people. Let me turn to the Member for Vauxhall and Campbell's Green, and the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Strong advocacy of the tourism levy. This is something that our mayors are advocating strongly for and have made a very impassioned and effective case. But as I said in my opening remarks, I won't pre-empt the Chancellor.

Tax decisions are for the Chancellor, and we will have a budget in 48 hours. But let me pick up the point that also, the Member for Vauxhall spoke very powerfully about, and other members did as well around the issue. Whistle and let me just put on record that we recognise that there is an issue here. We are clear that this issue needs to be addressed. We are committed to finding a solution and moving quickly to do that, and we will be setting this out in due course on the GLA powers, where we had a number of members that discussed this, the GLA already.

Just to reassure the Member for Camberwell and Vauxhall, the GLA already has an explicit power to acquire land for housing and regeneration. Existing safeguards remain in place and this does not change the current framework. To the mayor, to the member of Hackney South and Shoreditch. And just to say, I completely agree that licensing powers should be exercised in partnership with local authorities. And let me reassure her that local authorities will remain the key licensing authority. Licensing fees, for example, will remain within the remit of the local authority and will flow to the local authority.

We understand that there are issues with the setting of fee rates. This is something that is fed into the Licensing Reform Task Force, and we will be reflecting on this. On the specifics of pavement licensing that are not currently. Just to reiterate that these are not currently within the scope of the policy within this bill. Any further changes to pavement licensing will be done in the context of the National Licensing Task Force and taken through that process. And just to finish the sort of final question that was made, and then I will give way that the pilot we allowing for five years to review and revoke the provisions within this bill, if the government doesn't revoke the provision, they will retain, and this is to test it in London.

But obviously, the way that we are approaching devolution is that there is a clear right to request. So in time, as we learn the lessons from London, other mayors will have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the right to request. I will give. The Minister for giving way again. She's given an example of again. She's given an example of where the mayor of London's powers are expanding, and the point I tried to make earlier in an objective, non-political way that objective, non-political way that has the powers of the mayor, expands the power of the scrutiny body, needs to expand to match that. Can she reassure me that she heard what I suggested earlier and that she will take that forward?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she will take that forward? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So I heard both the point that's been made now, but also that the been made now, but also that the point that the member made through the course of the debate. And look, the course of the debate. And look, the model that we have in London has been a successful model for 25 years. It has been a successful. years. It has been a successful. Now we will continue to work with the mayor and with the constituent councils to build that partnership.

And we will continue to look at ways in which we can strengthen both the powers, the responsibility, both the powers, the responsibility, but also the accountability of the but also the accountability of the mayor. Moving beyond London. Can I thank the Member for Northampton thank the Member for Northampton South, the Member for Stoke on Trent and the Member for Uxbridge Trent and the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip for highlighting the opportunities of devolution. It was great to hear from this side of the House.

It was pretty disappointing to hear from that side of the House, because we recognise the need to create strong institutions at the functional geography, we understand the the opportunities around South Midlands, around Staffordshire and we want to see devolution across the country, whether through foundational strategic authorities or through mayors. And let me speak directly to the point that was made by the Member for Stafford upon Avon, who has been a consistent and powerful champion of town and parish councils. We are very clear in this Bill that the objective is to take power out of Whitehall and Westminster and push it to the appropriate level, and there is absolutely a role for town and parish councils.

I said that in Committee stage and I'll say that again, and we are clear that there are certain powers that must sit at the functional geography layer, where the mayor or the strategic authority is the right level. There are also powers that absolutely must sit with our local authorities, and there are powers that will sit with our neighbourhoods. Members in the House mentioned that the neighbourhood governance provision were unspecified, and that is deliberate because we think that neighbourhood governance should be driven locally.

And so we will set a series of principles in statutory guidance. But ultimately we want places to come up with the neighbourhood governance structure that works for their place, and in some places will be building on the strength of town and parish councils. In other places will be building on neighbourhood committees and neighbourhood forums. And it is right that we allow this to be led locally. Let me pick up on new clause 33, which was raised by the Member for Mid Leicestershire.

And this point on joint planning committees, we do not think that this new clause is necessary because there are already provisions that exist to ensure joint working across authorities, including the creation of joint committees for the purpose of planning. And then finally, let me sort of pick on the point that was made by the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and the importance of skills. We absolutely think that as driving. I will give way shortly in driving. Economic development skills has an absolutely critical role, and our strategic authorities and our mayors should grip that.

We want to make sure that they are planning adult education provision, where they are already working with employers and others to develop skills improvement plans. And we will look to build on this. And I come back to the fact that we're creating provision for a right to request. And I already know from conversations with our mayors that they are absolutely clear that they want more purchase and agency over adult skills. So I anticipate this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be an area that we will build on and I will give way. I'm grateful. Thanksgiving break I heard the word finally, and that's what moved me to intervene. Can I can I offer my support and thank the government for the thank the government for the amendments? 116117118 on air pollution, which which render redundant tomorrow's government announcement on the expansion of Heathrow. But could I ask you, before we move on, what the before we move on, what the government's attitude is to new clause 29, because the new clause clause 29, because the new clause 29 seems to embody many of the government's policies, and whether she'll be, if not accepting the new she'll be, if not accepting the new clause tonight, will she be working on some of the issues within it for the next stage of the consideration of this bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of this bill? Thank you to my hon. Friend, for raising new clause 29, which I was raising new clause 29, which I was just coming to, and also to the Member for Stroud and my other hon. Member for Stroud and my other hon. Friends for championing this. Look, we are really clear that mayors and strategic authorities have an strategic authorities have an important role to play in the fight against climate and ecological crisis. This is why climate and crisis.

This is why climate and environment is included in the competences that are on the face of the Bill, that will sit with strategic authorities, and we already have strategic authorities who are subject to the biodiversity duty. They are required to work with their constituent authorities to deliver air quality action plans. And we are already seeing on the ground that our mayors and our strategic authorities are at the very vanguard of this and are pushing at this, and this is an area where I imagine they will continue to build as they accumulate their powers and accumulate more levers over this area.

And then let me pick up on this point that was raised by the Member for on on poverty and inequality duty. Look, we absolutely support the intention. I said this in Committee stage of this bill. We think that this is a thread that runs throughout this. Any mayor, any strategic authority will fundamentally care about poverty and will fundamentally care about reducing inequality. And the functions across the bill are the enablers of that. And then finally, and I will I won't give way because I think members are getting rather irate and everyone wants to go home.

So let me just finish off. Let me just finish up, if I may, on Cornwall and the and the point that was made and the point that was made by the member of Camborne and Redruth, Luke, who has been a passionate and consistent advocate for Cornwall. And let me just say, we absolutely recognise Cornwall's minority status and we will continue to safeguard this. We cannot accept the amendment because it cuts across the powers that we want to put within mayors. But let me reassure him and let me reassure other members from Cornwall that we are committed to working to strengthen the devolution deal that we have already done with Cornwall, to make sure that we are unlocking the opportunity in the area.

And look, let me, I will, I will just look, let me, I will, I will just conclude look. Look, the we are really clear, despite the naysayers opposite, that this is a fundamental step forward. It is the biggest transfer of power to our mayors, to our local authorities, to our communities. And that principle that if we push power out and we locate it in local people, we can drive. Change that people want is a thing that is driving behind this bill.

And let me end by saying this. This is a flaw. This bill is a flaw. It is not the ceiling. We are determined to continue building on the devolution journey that we have started putting power, putting agency, putting resources in the hands of local leaders and communities because this is the way in which we drive local change that can drive national change. And I urge the House to support the amendments to this bill from the government that has been appointed to ensure that we can unlock the potential of devolution.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause 43 be read a second time. As many 43 be read a second time. As many as are of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The question is that new clause 43 be added to the bill. As many as are added to the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it.

The ayes have it. We now come to government new clause 44 I call the Minister to move new clause 44

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formally. Formally licensing functions of the Mayor.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of London. The question is that new clause 44 be read a second time. aye.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

aye. I. Of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. The ayes have it, the ayes have it. The question is that new clause 44 be added to the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have contrary, no I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. New clause two has been selected for separate two has been selected for separate decision.

I call the opposition spokesperson to move new clause to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

formally call Council Tax CA. And CCA. To be subject to the same increase as most counties and unitary councils. The question is that new clause two be read a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

second time. As many as are of that opinion, say aye. I. Of the contrary, no no.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the contrary, no no. The The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say aye of the contrary. No, no. Tell aye of the contrary. No, no. Tell us for the I's Andrew Snowden David Reed tellers for the noes Gregor
21:56
22:11
22:23
None Portrait Division: English Devolution And Community Empowerment Bill, Report, Page 11 Amdt. 85
-

As As on the Order Paper. As many as are of the opinion, say I to the contrary. No, no. Tell us for the eyes Tessa Munt Clive Jones tellers for the The The order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 57. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 57. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 309. The ayes to the right were 57.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 57. The noes to the left were 309. So the noes have it, the noes have it unlock. We now come to government unlock. We now come to government amendments 116 to 118. I call the amendments 116 to 118. I call the Minister to move amendment 116 to 118, formerly move formally. The question is that Government Amendment 116 to 118 be made. As many as are of that opinion, say aye.

I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I call the Minister to move government new schedules one and government new schedules one and two. Formally. Formally, the question is that government's new schedules one and two be added to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

schedules one and two be added to the bill, As many as are of that opinion, say aye. I. Of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to government amendments 122 to 134 and 137 to 144. I call the Minister to move amendments 122 to 134 and 137 to 144, formally. Formally, the question is that government amendments 122 to 134 and 137 to 144 be made, As many as are of that opinion, say aye.

I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Amendment 25 has been selected for separate decision. I call the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposition spokesperson to move the amendment formally. Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment five be made. As many as are of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary, no. No. The question is, as on the Order Paper, question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say aye of the contrary. No, no. Tell aye of the contrary. No, no. Tell us for the I's Andrew Snowden David Reed tellers for the noes Gregor Poynton Imogen Walker.
22:37
None Portrait Division: English Devolution And Community Empowerment Bill, Report, Page 174 Amdt. 25
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the right. 99. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 367. The ayes to the right for 99.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right for 99. The noes to the left were 367. So the nose habit. The noes have it the nose habit. The noes have it unlocked. We now come to Government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 145 to 149. I call the Minister to move amendment 145 to 149 formally. Move. Formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move. Formally. The question is that government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that government Amendment 145 to 149 be made. As many as are of that opinion, say aye. I to the country say no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Bill to be further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. Bill to be further considered. What day. Tomorrow. Tomorrow?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tomorrow? Yes. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motions number three on mental health. Motion number four on move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of the Paper, as many as are of the opinion, say I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to motion number five relating to the Environmental Audit Committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jessica Morden. Okay, move. The question is as on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as on the Order Paper As many as are of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary, no I think the ayes have contrary, no I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Petition Vikki Slade.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Vikki Slade. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to present a petition about the sale of disposable barbecues. The petitioners and I asked government to note that 2025 has been the worst year on record for UK wildfires, with Dorset seeing UK wildfires, with Dorset seeing over 900. Disposable barbecues have been the initial cause of many, so we are calling for a ban on their sale to protect our precious landscape and protect people and wildlife. The petitioners request that the House of Commons urge the government to introduce legislation to ban the sale of disposable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

barbecues. Petition sale.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition sale.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of disposable barbecues.
22:49
22:50
22:51
Rebecca Paul Portrait Adjournment: Safety and wellbeing of female prisoners at HMP Downview Rebecca Paul MP (Reigate, Conservative)
-
-
support they they need. Just take the situation back home with and Hydebank Wood in Northern Ireland. Listen to this. Prison staff are not trained mental health professionals, so the necessary healthcare support isn't there. It does generally agree with me that provision must be there to properly train prison staff to support them, and supporting prisoners who are faced with long delays and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deteriorating mental health. I thank. My hon. Friend for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend for that intervention. He's absolutely right. It's a great source of concern to me, that situation in HMP Downview me, that situation in HMP Downview and is something that I am raising with the Minister. I want to move with the Minister. I want to move on to another issue though, which is that once again, we have mixed sex prisons, inclusion trumping safety, ideology, winning out over reality, the feelings of a man holding more weight than the fears of many women.

HMP Downview is a of many women. HMP Downview is a women's prison in Banstead, near the Sutton border. It includes a wing. E wing specifically for wing. E wing specifically for biological males who identify as women. E wing local policy sets out women. E wing local policy sets out that it is for transgender women, with or without a Gender Recognition certificate, where risk indicates they cannot be safely held in the general women's estate. Over the course of the last year, Over the course of the last year, there have been between 5 and 7 males housed in this wing.

The Minister in the other place has said that these males are said that these males are vulnerable. Let's look at the facts. But before I do a warning, some may But before I do a warning, some may find the data difficult. It yields an uncomfortable truth, but one that it is incumbent upon this House not to ignore. In 2024 of the 245 transgender males in prison, i.e. biological males with a trans identity. 151 were convicted of a sexual offence.

62%. This is a far, far higher rate than that for the overall male prison population, which is only around 17%, and it's not a one off either. Similar can be seen for 2023, a rate of 56%, so sexual offences are massively

**** Possible New Speaker ****

overrepresented in this specific cohort of biological males. The hon. Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Lady. I will of course give way. Thank you. Can she clarify again, just for viewers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And for anyone watching this debate, that what she's saying is that those biological males, fully that those biological males, fully intact biological males housed on the women's estate, are overwhelmingly convicted of violent overwhelmingly convicted of violent sexual offences against.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sexual offences against. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. This is the reality of the data. We must not reality of the data. We must not ignore what the data tells us. I did warn it makes for an uncomfortable truth, but I but it uncomfortable truth, but I but it is. I can verify all of this and provide you with the data. I wouldn't come to this house and wouldn't come to this house and give you data that wasn't correct.

Accordingly, we can conclude that the male transgender prison the male transgender prison population poses a much higher risk to women and girls. When people parrot the line that trans women parrot the line that trans women are not a threat to women, in the case of the prison population, I'm afraid that statement doesn't hold afraid that statement doesn't hold up. Zoe, what's a biological male that identifies as a woman was jailed for eight years and six jailed for eight years and six months after trying to make a gun with a 3D printer that had the capacity to cause mass casualties.

He was arrested by armed officers, and a stockpile of weapons and materials was found at his home. There is a disturbing video on social media of him smashing a watermelon with women's faces on it, using a glass shard encrusted baseball bat. He was put in HMP Downview. And then there's Joanne Rowland Stuart, a biological male that identifies as a woman who stabbed his partner to death with a samurai sword. He was put in HMP Downview, too. And then there's John Dixon, known as Sally.

Now he is a paedophile that was found guilty of 30 sexual assault charges involving seven children, some as young as six. He may have been held in HMP Downview to. There's also the more well-known trans women prisoners that hit the headlines, such as Isla Bryson and Karen White, both incarcerated with women. Isla Bryson, from Scotland, was jailed for raping two women. Only after being charged did he come out as transgender. This dangerous rapist was remanded in a women's prison. Holyrood, it seems, is even worse than Westminster for drinking the gender Kool-Aid.

The case of Karen White is even more appalling. A trans woman convicted of rape and a knife attack. He was remanded in HMP New Hall, a women's and young offenders prison, where he sexually assaulted two inmates. Thankfully, this dangerous predator is no longer in the women's prison estate. I hope hon. Members today understand why I have grave concerns about such violent males continuing to be incarcerated with women. Not only is it against the law, the Supreme Court clarified back in April that single sex provision must be based on biological sex alone, not anything else, but it is irresponsible and dangerous.

Women prisoners deserve better than this. They should feel and be safe. I now want to get into a bit more detail on E wing itself within HMP Downview. Ministers have said many times in response to written questions that E wing is not part of the general women's estate, and odd statement for them to make. E wing is a wing within HMP Downview, and HMP Downview is a women's prison. Ergo E wing is part of the women's prison estate. I have visited it and seen it with my own eyes.

So why might Ministers be at pains to say it's not part of the general women's estate? I believe they are using a play on words to obscure the fact that the single sex provisions of the Equality Act are being breached. The current policy for managing transgender prisoners, introduced by the former right hon. Member for Esher and Walton when he was Justice Secretary, prohibits male prisoners who retain their birth genitalia or have any history of sexual or violent offences, from being held in the general women's estate, unless an exemption is granted by a Minister.

So this ministerial characterisation of E wing has not been part of the general women's estate, appears to be a tenuous effort to argue that they have complied with the policy and the Equality Act, after all, E wing is physically located within a women's prison. It is subject to the same policies and procedures as the rest of HMP Downview. It has the same governor. It's funding comes out of the same pot. Its inmates are supported by the same health service. It beggars belief that Ministers think we will believe that this wing isn't part of the women's estate.

So putting to one side for now, this blatant breach of the Equality Act, let's consider whether the males held in E wing are truly segregated from the rest of the female population. Again, Ministers keep saying they are, but E wing is like any other wing, I will not. It has sleeping quarters and bathrooms along with some living room space. Everything else that these prisoners need, like work, education and health services are only available in the main estate. They therefore spend their days mixing with the women.

So what are the supervision arrangements in place to protect the women from these dangerous males? In September of this year, I will not. The Independent Monitoring Board published their report on HMP Downview and shed some light on this. The report makes it clear that there had previously been a requirement for constant sight and sound supervision of E wing prisoners by a dedicated prisoner officer on a 1 to 1 basis whilst in activities alongside prisoners in the general population. However, the report notes that this was changed earlier in the reporting period.

It says the previous one on one supervision arrangement was replaced by staff having general oversight of the E wing residents off the wing, as they do for all other prisoners. Prisoners, in other words, nothing An An issue An issue raised An issue raised in An issue raised in the An issue raised in the report. An issue raised in the report. Are they horrified? Have they committed to look into this? No, of course not. But what they did do is remove the chair of the Independent Monitoring board.

The day after publication of the report, highlighting the safeguarding failure. Before I bring my speech to a close, I want to comment on assertions that these males have not caused any issues for female prisoners. In reality, I really don't know if that's the case, because my question on how many of the prisoner on prisoner assaults on HMP Downview were committed by males hasn't elicited a response. Ministers simply say that the information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Why isn't this information being provided? Failure to respond to this straightforward question does not fill me with confidence. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'd be grateful if the Minister could answer the following. When are the biological males being moved out of HMP Downview and all other women's prisons to in accordance with the Equality Act? What immediate action is being taken about the inadequate supervision of these males in HMP Downview and any other women's prison where it is relevant? How comfortable is the Minister with the removal of the chair of the Independent Monitoring Board? The day after the publication of the IMB September 2025 report, highlighting the changes to supervision of E-wing inmates and how many assaults are female prisoners and prison officers by biological males in the women's prison estate have taken place since the inclusion of males in women's prisons, and what percentage of total assaults do they make up? I thank all members for their participation in this debate this evening, and for those who notified me in advance that they would like to make an intervention and they were granted said intervention.

Courtesy needs to be paid to these things and the Minister, too, for listening to what I know is probably a difficult speech to listen to. I hope the issue at hand is now clear. I urge the Minister to finally grasp the nettle on this shocking scandal, and ensure women's prisons become single sex once again. We managed to get this right over 200 years ago. Please restore our faith that this country is not going backwards on basic safeguards and rights for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

women. Thank you. Yes, Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate for securing this debate this evening. This is an important issue that inspires much emotion from both sides of the debate, and from both sides of the debate, and it is vital that we handle this sensitively and with care. Women sensitively and with care. Women make up only a very small proportion of those in custody, yet they often have, as the hon. Member they often have, as the hon.

Member said, some more complex needs than men. 68% of women in custody have reported experience of domestic reported experience of domestic abuse, and more than half have suffered abuse as a child. As the Minister for Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls, I am very aware of these issues. It is for these reasons that I was delighted that the government has created the Women's Justice Board, which will help reduce the number of women in help reduce the number of women in prison, and why I was proud that the Labour manifesto committed to continuing the support the single
23:04
Alex Davies-Jones Portrait Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
-
sex exemptions available in the Equality Act. Minister. Give way. I will happily give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I ask the Minister whether the violence that is experienced by women, those who are in prison or not in prison, is generally committed by cis men and not by transgender women? And does she agree with me that this is simply a agree with me that this is simply a way of fuelling culture wars that isn't helpful in protecting women, isn't helpful in protecting women, or protecting any of the LGBT people who are who are experiencing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an increase in violent hate crime. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It's important to put intervention. It's important to put on the record the nuance here. It's also important to recognise that the levels of violence in prison are untenable, and they need are untenable, and they need addressing. Whoever they are is committing this violence. It's also important to recognise the levels of violence in the male estate as well. Is is incredibly high and needs addressing, and my priority is the Minister for victims and is the Minister for victims and tackling violence against women and girls is getting on top of all of this, because anyone who feels unsafe in prison needs our support,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unsafe in prison needs our support, and that is exactly what we're trying to do. I will. Thank the Minister for giving way, and I listened to the hon. Member's speech and I was. Is tackling violence against women in tackling violence against women in women's prisons is on all of us. But there is a huge part of this debate that is missing, and it is the self-harm that is being inflicted by women on themselves. 20,000 incidents of self-harm in women's prisons alone.

How much of that is attributed to overcrowding in prisons, past experience of trauma and abuse, and a lack of training and resources of prison staff. And if we're looking at tackling violence against women and girls, shouldn't those incidents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

where we see more numbers of it be the biggest priority. Here? Here. Women and Equalities Select

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Women and Equalities Select Committee is absolutely right. It is why this government is committed to the work of the Women's Justice Board, as I've already outlined, in terms of looking at how we can get women who shouldn't necessarily be in prison, that isn't the right in prison, that isn't the right place for them out of prison, particularly mothers, because that is not the right place for them. And that is exactly what that And that is exactly what that Women's Justice Board, led by my hon.

Friend in the other place, the Minister for prisons, is looking at and working with the Lord and working with the Lord Chancellor. However, the reason that this debate is this evening is complex is that transgender women, complex is that transgender women, as we have heard, can have similar vulnerabilities. This does not mean that they need necessarily be that they need necessarily be granted the access to the space for biological women, but it does mean that these are matters which require thought and tact in order require thought and tact in order to resolve in a fair and balanced way.

Hmps approach to allocating transgender women has been through several iterations in the past decade. It balances the risk that transgender prisoners may pose to transgender prisoners may pose to others if placed in line with their gender identity, and with the risk posed to and from them. If placed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

posed to and from them. If placed in line with their biological sex. The hon. Member. Give way. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give way. I will give way. Does the Minister think it's really important to understand both the context? And we've just talked about how many women are in prison because of the abuse they suffer, but also how many trans women are also being put into those vulnerable positions and are actually more likely, even more likely than cis women to be victims of crime? And does she not think that it would be useful for us to use the facts so she could she explain exactly what the position is at HMP? Because actually some clarity on that rather than what is just reiterating rumours that are being written about in newspapers is probably a better way to deal with quite a sensitive issue where people can be both perpetrators of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

crime and victims as well. I love intervention from my hon. Friend. She's right, and I hope to put on record some clarity and put on record some clarity and facts this evening rather than just fuelling misinformation. As I say, the current policy, which is the current policy, which is brought in by the previous government, is that no transgender woman charged with or convicted of woman charged with or convicted of either sexual or violent offence, or who retains both genitalia, can or who retains both genitalia, can be held in the general women's estate unless an exemption is granted by a Minister.

I would like granted by a Minister. I would like to state this evening that no such exemptions have been granted under this government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this government. Points of order. Rebecca Paul. I thank Madam Deputy Speaker for that. I just want to put I've just that. I just want to put I've just been accused of misinformation. I just want to make the point that just want to make the point that the information and the data I cited was information that was obtained through written parliamentary questions, so I can parliamentary questions, so I can provide that. So it's not misinformation, it's information that has come from the Ministry of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that has come from the Ministry of Justice Department. Thank you Minister. You maybe want to just clarify

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that remark. Happily clarify that I wasn't accusing the hon. Lady of misinformation. I was saying there is a lot of misinformation out is a lot of misinformation out there regarding this, and it's important that I put on record the facts of the case, which is what I'm doing. So I just wanted to reassert that that final point at the Dispatch Box that no exemptions have been granted under this government exemptions to house transgender women in the general women's estate are only recommended where there is a compelling reason, such as a suicide or self-harm risk, or a risk to the prisoner from others, and where a specially trained multidisciplinary panel has carried out a comprehensive risk assessment, which concludes that they have a high level of confidence that the prisoner poses confidence that the prisoner poses a low risk to other prisoners.

Again, I reiterate, no such exemption has been made under this exemption has been made under this government. I will.
23:09
23:09
Alex Davies-Jones Portrait Alex Davies-Jones MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Pontypridd, Labour)
-
-
I will ensure that the Minister responsible will write to the hon. Lady to inform her of that. In terms of managing the risk posed to biological women, these policies have been a success. There have been zero assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the women's estate since 2019. So to answer the hon. Lady's point, there have been zero zero

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assaults over 95%. I will give way. Thank you. I thank. The Minister for taking my intervention and congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate for securing this important debate. The Minister may be aware that there is the position of Scottish Ministers the position of Scottish Ministers that they are waiting to see the Ehrc guidance following the Supreme Court ruling. Does the Minister believe that is tenable for Scottish Ministers to not implement the law as it is written, while waiting on the guidance? And can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

waiting on the guidance? And can she give any advice about when it will be published? It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the devolved me to comment on the devolved competences of another legislature. That is for the Scottish Government to determine. However, I can to determine. However, I can outline what we will be doing as the UK government responsible for England and Wales in my in my speech. Over 95% of transgender speech. Over 95% of transgender women are held in male in men's prisons.

Of the small number held in women's prisons, the significant in women's prisons, the significant majority are held on E Wing at HMP Downview, a women's prison in the hon. Member's constituency. As she hon. Member's constituency. As she has stated, this is a standalone 16 bed unit where the prisoners are accommodated completely separately to biological women in a discreet building behind a gated fence like building behind a gated fence like the hon. Member. I'll make some progress if I will, but I will give way in a moment.

Like the hon. way in a moment. Like the hon. Member. I have visited HMP Downview and E wing. I have spoken to the prisoners and the staff there. E wing was also introduced by the previous government in 2019. The reason it was created, and the function that it serves, links directly to the vulnerable vulnerabilities of many transgender women. Those held in men's prisons are disproportionately likely to self-harm, as we've already heard, and they face bullying and harassment. They are also disproportionately likely to be victims of sexual assault.

Between 2016 and 2021, transgender women were victims in 3.4% of all sexual assaults reported in men's prisons, despite never making up more than 0.3% of the population there. Does the hon. Member want to give way? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister, and I know she's a reasonable person, and I'm trying to find some common ground here. I to find some common ground here. I could understand it if the transgender males held in this transgender males held in this particular unit were ones who had at least undergone reassignment surgery. They would definitely be vulnerable in a male prison. So the vulnerable in a male prison. So the argument providing it is truly separate for them to be held in a separate for them to be held in a separate unit is a strong one.

But it seems from what we heard from my hon. Friend, that the people who hon. Friend, that the people who are causing concern are people who are biologically intact. In other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are biologically intact. In other words, there any male who chooses to identify as a female. I welcome intervention by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome intervention by the hon. Gentleman. He always tries to be helpful in debates, and I welcome that. Some of the prisoners held on E wing at HMP Downview have had full gender reassignment surgery. Some haven't. However, surgery. Some haven't. However, full risk assessments are carried out before anyone is placed there at HMP Downview. And like I stated, at HMP Downview. And like I stated, no prisoner has been placed there under this government. No exemptions have been made under this government.

The allocation criteria rightly sets a high bar for transgender women to be held in the general women's estate. However, failing to meet this high bar does not mean that a transgender prisoner can necessarily be managed safely in a men's prison. For those who are particularly vulnerable, such as those who have undergone gender affirming surgery, E wing can, where appropriate, provide an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important option. I will. I thank my hon. Friend, and she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend, and she may or may not be aware that prior to coming into this place, I ran a homelessness and support charity for a general population, including young women, and it was always possible in that context, even as a possible in that context, even as a charity, to find support and housing for transgender women, but also to incorporate sex segregated also to incorporate sex segregated spaces for the women who had often gone through very difficult experiences at the hands of biological males.

Would she agree biological males. Would she agree with me that it should always be possible? However, it is done to create in the prison estate both

**** Possible New Speaker ****

create in the prison estate both provision for transgender women and sex segregated spaces. I fully agree with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I fully agree with. That friend and I thank him for his work, both outside of this house and inside it, to to help you house and inside it, to to help you and to help and support women who are in incredibly vulnerable positions. He's correct. And we feel that HMP Downview when the feel that HMP Downview when the separate e wing that is on the estate, but is not part of the general women's estate is that solution. It does work and it is working as as is shown in the data, there has been no change to the requirement that E wing prisoners requirement that E wing prisoners must remain under constant supervision at all times, but a change to who provides that supervision.

Following that change, supervision. Following that change, a dedicated prison officer escorts the E wing prisoner on and off the wing, and the member of staff running the activities that they participate in. If the risk assessment deems it appropriate, must supervise them for the length of that activity. The prison implemented this change based on a stringent local assessment of the risks to prisoners, and there have been no risk concerns raised about the regime access of any E wing prisoners since the supervision policy changed.

The prison will keep this arrangement under strict review, and we will take an operational decision to revoke this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

access if it is deemed necessary. I will, if briefly, because I'm conscious of time. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for the hon. Member for securing this debate. I mentioned at the start of her mentioned at the start of her speech that there are many vulnerable women in prisons, and vulnerable women in prisons, and over half have experienced domestic violence, and many have experienced emotional, physical or sexual abuse. That being the case, does she appreciate that having anyone other appreciate that having anyone other than biological females in the female estate risks retraumatising

**** Possible New Speaker ****

female estate risks retraumatising already vulnerable women? My priority is that we ensure the safety of all prisoners in our the safety of all prisoners in our estate, and that that ensures that we have strict regimes, strict policy in place to make sure that policy in place to make sure that all prisoners are kept safe. I have met far too many female prisoners who are victims of crime themselves, who are victims of crime themselves, as the hon. Member quite points out, and who have been through the most horrific circumstances and have ended up in prison when actually ended up in prison when actually they shouldn't be there.

They should be in women's centres or having work done in the community having work done in the community to prevent them from reoffending. Prison isn't the right place for the vast majority of women, and the vast majority of women, and that is why the work of the Women's Justice Board is so crucial here. I welcome all of the hon. Member's interest in this area, and I recognise the importance of ensuring that prisons are operating safely and effectively. We will absolutely continue to keep the policy under review to ensure all of its ongoing effectiveness.

And as the hon. Member for Reigate would expect, we are reviewing all aspects of transgender prisoner policy following the For Women Scotland Supreme Court ruling handed down earlier this year. We need to ensure that our approach remains lawful, effective and fair. The ruling confirmed that references to sex in the Equality Act 2010 relate to biological sex, while making clear that protections for transgender people do remain. This landmark judgement brought much needed clarity, but the hon. Member will understand that it is imperative for everyone that we get this right.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission have submitted their draft updated code on single sex spaces to the government for approval. The government is closely considering the draft updated code and if the decision is taken to approve it. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities will lay it before Parliament. Whilst I appreciate that there is a desire to expedite this process and I appreciate the frustration, we must bring clarity to service providers. The proposed code of practice is over 300 pages long, and it is important that the correct process is followed.

The hon. Member will recognise that getting decisions in this space wrong could carry potentially grave consequences, either through endangering the safety of biological women or endangering the safety of transgender women. The Ministry of Justice is working closely with the office for Equality and Opportunity to understand the implications of the Supreme Court ruling, and we look forward to seeing more in due course. I would again like to thank all hon. Members for taking part in this debate this evening, but particular thank you to the hon.

Member for Reigate. This is an important subject, Madam Deputy Speaker, and whilst I recognise how emotive this topic can be, it is my hope that by setting out the facts and assuring hon. Members this evening of the policy directions in place and the fact that there have been zero assaults or sexual assaults on any female prisoner since 2019 by a transgender prisoner, that we seek to strike, how we allocate transgender prisoners, and we also help to add some balance into this debate as we continue with our review of transgender prisoner policies, I can assure the hon.

Member that our approach will always seek to ensure the safety of all prisoners, and I seek to work with her and anyone else on this important topic. We will provide an update as a government on this once the review

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concludes. The question is that this House do now adjourn as many as are of do now adjourn as many as are of that opinion, say aye the ayes have
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page