English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Andrew George and Perran Moon

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 5 March this year, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said these words:

“We do recognise Cornish national minority status—not just the proud language, history and culture of Cornwall, but its bright future.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 278.]

Since arriving in this place on the back of a pledge to ensure Cornwall is given the devolved powers and funding that we have been craving for centuries, and in line with our manifesto commitment to deliver on the greatest ever devolution powers out of Westminster, today is a significant milestone. With the Prime Minister’s commitment to Cornish national minority status clearly reaffirmed, I support a Bill that delivers tangible devolution to Cornwall. However, I would like to explore clarifications on the implications of the Bill for the people of Cornwall.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the land that you call Cornwall we know as Kernow, a term believed to have been in use for over 2,000 years that means “people of the promontory”. However, the English word Cornwall has a different meaning: it means “peninsula of foreigners”. For centuries, the English have recognised the people of the land at the end of the peninsula as different from them. Right up to modern times, the UK Government have continued to honour the distinct territorial integrity of Cornwall, treating us in unique and exceptional ways.

Our constitutional status was perhaps most clearly outlined in a newspaper article in 2013 by the House of Lords researcher Kevin Cahill, who stated that

“the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire county of Cornwall is vested in the Duke of Cornwall…So Cornwall is a separate kingdom.”

He continued:

“I know the Cornish have been shouting about this for a long time, but they turn out to be right.”

The creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1337 recognised the distinct history, identity and territory of Cornwall, a unique and exceptional constitutional settlement that we enjoy to the present day. In recent times, Cornwall has been the first rural area outside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to gain a devolution settlement over aspects of transport, education and renewable energy. More recently it has done so over adult education, Cornish distinctiveness and the Cornish language. Indeed, Cornwall already enjoys some of the benefits offered by the Bill for mayoral combined authorities.

I am often asked—even by colleagues in this place—whether as a Cornishman I consider myself English. Along with hundreds of thousands of Cornishmen and women, I am often sadly mocked for my reply. Let me be absolutely clear today: I am Cornish, not English, although I freely admit that some of my very best friends are English. To those at home, particularly young people, who have been equally ridiculed, I say, “Be loud and proud. It is okay to consider yourself Cornish and British.”

Let me deal with the issue of identity versus status. Cornish national minority status and Cornish identity are sometimes conflated, but when discussing the former, references to identity can sometimes be considered belittling. It is not about identity; it is about a legally binding national minority status. Our status, formally agreed by the Council of Europe 10 years ago, must be respected, upheld and celebrated.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Meur ras—I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. He will be aware that in previous Parliaments I led campaigns to secure the recognition of the Cornish language and the Cornish people. Does he agree that this is not an issue of isolationism? It is not about cutting ourselves off, but about cutting ourselves into the celebration of diversity and having the identity of a place properly recognised and respected so that it can grow rather than be supressed. Surely devolution is about enabling places rather than controlling them, which is what I fear this Bill will do.

[Perran Moon]

As a result of our geographical location, for centuries we have been a safe harbour—a port in the storm—for peoples from all over the world. We are an inclusive society.

Let me get straight to the nub of the issue. The Council of Europe framework convention for the protection of national minorities makes it very clear. Article 16 says:

“The Parties shall refrain from measures which alter the proportions of the population in areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities and are aimed at restricting the rights and freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the present framework Convention.”

In 2016, when passing comment on the then Government’s plans for redrawing boundaries, the Council of Europe advisory committee on the framework convention highlighted

“that Article 16 prohibits restricting the enjoyment of the rights of the Framework Convention in connection with the redrawing of borders.”

In the Bill as drafted, Cornwall is prevented from accessing the highest level of devolution, because to do so would require us to compromise our national minority status. During the passage of the Bill, I will work with the Government to ensure that the Bill as passed respects Cornish national minority status and delivers an historic devolution arrangement that fulfils our manifesto commitment; provides for the economic development support that we need to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger; gives us the funding and resources to deal with our crippling housing crisis; and celebrates Cornish national minority status.

This responsibility weighs not just on the mind. For us, this is not just about functional local government; it goes way deeper into our souls, to a centuries-old desire for increased autonomy and self-governance in our place on this multinational island. I urge Ministers: together, let us grasp this once-in-a-generation opportunity.

Trail Hunting

Debate between Andrew George and Perran Moon

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Perran Moon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I do agree, and I will be coming on to that later.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I am sorry to make another intervention on the hon. Gentleman—my neighbour in Cornwall. He is probably aware that I spent hundreds of hours in this House on this matter before the 2004 Act; I was pleased that in spite of all the intimidation and threats that I received at the time, the Act still went through. The point was made earlier that the voices of those who get their kicks out of chasing wild animals for sport need to be heard, and indeed they have been: we have already heard that the leaders of trail hunts admit that they are, indeed, a smokescreen. They have used that word themselves to describe what goes on with trail hunts.

[Perran Moon]

I agree with the hon. Member, and thank him not just for his intervention but for all his work to raise awareness.

The Hunting Act did not go far enough. It left certain loopholes, particularly the allowance for trail hunting, which has meant that the law is often undermined according to the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports. Despite the requirement for hunts to obtain landowner permission and follow strict regulations, there is significant evidence that trail hunts often lead to the unlawful hunting of foxes and other wild animals.

According to sources in Cornwall, there are five foxhound packs. Alongside trail hunts, some of those packs have continued to hunt foxes illegally and have been filmed sending hounds to dig out foxes hiding in holes, woodland and hedges. Many landowners continue to suffer horse and hound trespass, and uncontrolled hounds regularly end up spilling out on to roads, causing a danger to road users, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell).

English Rugby Union: Governance

Debate between Andrew George and Perran Moon

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Perran Moon]

Yes, I do, and I thank the hon. Member for that point. It is absolutely the case that the rules and laws of rugby are constantly being reviewed. I can understand to a certain extent that the game is trying to find a formula that is as attractive as possible to ensure that more and more people come to watch, but it makes it very hard for players, administrators and coaches to manage when there is a constant change in the rules. He makes a very good point—I should say the laws, not the rules.

Anecdotally, some clubs are experiencing an increase in concussions. Worse still, the concussions are more severe than previously, because players are now required to put their heads against knees and hip bones, and the tackle area has been much reduced. Two-player tackles mean head-on-head collisions appear to be increasing. As I say, because we are not routinely collecting data, this is anecdotal, so we must start routinely collecting that data. The situation would be significantly mitigated through competent and sympathetic implementation and governance from people with experience of the grassroots game.

On funding, I was pretty shocked to learn that our grassroots rugby clubs are largely left to fend for themselves while funding is held at the very top of the game. There is a massive financial premium placed on the success of the England rugby team. This is a high risk strategy over which the grassroots game has no control. If the last 14 years taught us anything at all, it is that the theory of trickle-down economics has been debunked. Poorer organisations that are required to value every single pound are far more likely to spend wisely than bloated and complacent functions at the top of the game. The crumbs from the captain’s table approach of providing tickets to England matches as a means of raising revenue is simply not one that provides the financial security that grassroots clubs need.

The only point I will raise about championship clubs is the deeply concerning issue of the covid loans. Over the last five years, championship teams had funding unilaterally cut from £625,000 per championship club, to the current level of £103,000. In plans introduced in the weeks before the first lockdown, a reduction to £288,000 by the beginning of the 2022-23 season was imposed, but a one-year emergency cut to £150,000 was imposed later in 2020 because of the impact of covid.

Championship clubs fully expected and were promised a reinstatement of the pre-covid phased reduction, but that funding has failed to materialise, with authorities claiming a lack of available cash. Championship clubs were not consulted on those changes, despite the severe impact on the chances of survival for many. Having spoken with several championship clubs, there is now a clear and present danger that several of them will not survive.

Competent governance is essential to the safeguarding of the game that we all love. That includes proper consultation and communication; relevant experience at the top of the game; a coherent and transparent funding model; and sympathetic implementation of law changes, which consider the practicalities of the amateur game and the safeguarding of players.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Member makes a powerful point about the impact of the way in which the covid loans were provided to championship clubs. He will be aware that many of those clubs are calling on Ministers to intervene on Sport England to ensure that the repayment schedule for the loans is rescheduled to enable those clubs to achieve viability in the years ahead. Without that, many of them are on the precipice of bankruptcy.

[Perran Moon]

It is a delicate one, because the governance of English rugby sits largely with the RFU, outside of the Premiership. I am not sure that it is the role of national Government to intervene in areas such as this, if we have competent governance at the top of the RFU. I completely accept the hon. Member’s point—it is a delicate one, but it is a problem that was created at the top of the English game, and it is there that it should be fixed.

I ask the Minister if she agrees with me on three separate areas. First, does she agree that the RFU board should have increased representation from the grassroots game, and that changes to that should be made as soon as possible so that it more closely represents its core membership? Secondly, there is an entry on regular match cards for concussion data to be collected: it should be mandatory for three seasons for it to be completed, so that we can gather the information we need to make a reasoned judgment on whether we have a tackle-height problem. Until we do that, it is my view that we are failing in our duty of care to players, as revisions to the tackle-height law may be required.

Thirdly, an immediate review should be undertaken of the implementation and impact of the covid loan fiasco, with a view to an emergency package of support being made available to championship clubs. Additionally, a multi-year funding pot should be made available to RFU-registered clubs below the top two tiers of English rugby. That should be reviewed annually, and its objective should be to support grassroots clubs in planning and developing their clubs for the long term, rather than the current crumbs from the captain’s table approach with ad-hoc funding plans.

Those of us who love the game across the political spectrum cannot hope to protect our game for the long term, ensure that our grassroots clubs remain at the heart of our communities, and support youngsters coming into the game, without profound and urgent change. I look forward to hearing the views and experiences of other Members here today.

Holiday and Second Homes Regulation: Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

Debate between Andrew George and Perran Moon

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

In the hon. Member’s discussions with the public, private and voluntary sectors, is there any higher imperative across the whole of Cornwall than dealing with the issue of holiday and second homes? In my experience, there is no higher priority than grasping the challenges we are facing, which impact not just coastal areas, but towns in the middle of Cornwall, because people move from the coast to inland towns.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. On the one hand, we are trying to address the desperate housing needs of local families. We have in excess of 20,000 families on the local housing register, and we know that is merely the tip of the iceberg—the need is a great deal more. On the other, a lot of local families are being evicted from their private rented accommodation to make way for yet more holiday lets. If we do not recognise that, we are failing to grasp the full picture, so he makes a strong point.

I acknowledge that this is an important part of the Cornish economy, but it is worth noting that when one looks for accommodation in places such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, the hotel and guesthouse sector is just as—if not more—important, in the sense that it competes with the holiday letting sector without many of the incentives and benefits that the self-catering sector enjoys. For example, many operate above the VAT threshold, whereas those in the holiday letting sector, if they take it down to a single property, do not. Of course, they face many other regulations as well.