English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)

Kevin McKenna Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from Andrew Goodacre, chief executive officer of the British Independent Retailers Association, and Allen Simpson, deputy chief executive of UKHospitality. For this panel we have until 3.10 pm.

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for coming. I am very interested in the provisions around local growth plans and particularly how they affect your sectors. In the area I represent, Sittingbourne and Sheppey, there has been a feeling that we have been lacking, from the existing local authorities at both tiers, a real focus on growth locally. For instance, on the Isle of Sheppey, they are pulling together a local growth group and a local growth board. That is really important for the sense of place for areas that feel that they have already been overlooked. I am concerned that, in a big devolved settlement, that may still be a problem. I am also curious how that affects areas like the retail and hospitality sectors. Again, they may not be seen as major strategic-level elements of a growth plan, but actually they are fundamental, particularly for local communities. What are your takes on that?

Andrew Goodacre: Looking at it from a wider view, we are largely supportive of devolution and what is in the White Paper. If I put the retail lens on it, though, especially independent retail, which are the businesses that we represent, they will always ask, “What is in it for us?” There is a fear among those businesses that if you look at the national growth strategy, neither retail nor hospitality really feature in there as one of the eight key areas for investment and growth. I have not seen all the local growth plans. I have looked at the north-east and the west midlands one—that is where we are based—and largely those growth plans are aligned to the national growth areas. I understand that: the mayors, the areas and the regions want to create jobs that are skilled and well paid, and that grow the local economy by focusing on industries of growth.

You could argue that retail, and high street retail especially, has seen itself decline over the years as customer behaviour has changed, so I understand where the direction is, but there has to be a fear. If I was a shop owner now looking out, I would be saying, “Okay, I hear where you’re going to spend money. How does that work for me? How does that make a difference for me in my high street in Coleshill in the west midlands, near where I live?”—or in Solihull, or anywhere else in the UK that they might be?

If you look at the north-east plan, I do not see high streets mentioned once—I have only scan read it; someone may be able to point me in the right direction—and in the west midlands plan, I see priority high streets mentioned. Priority high streets are where they are planning to invest and create jobs, so they recognise the need to invest in high streets in the areas where they are creating jobs. I am not sure where that leaves the others. If you look at it purely from a retail point of view, there has to be a fear that the focus on high-tech, highly skilled jobs and on creating in the local economy will create pockets of success, but it will also create pockets of neglect as well, if we are not careful.

Allen Simpson: I agree with that. The element of a local growth plan that I think is really positive is the word “growth”. Quite often, when we ask local communities what they want, we are talking to them about whether they do or do not want housing, but encouraging local communities to think about what sort of growth they want is really valuable.

I think you are right about the tendency that exists. Often, if you ask local political leaders what sort of growth they want, they will start talking about wanting to be a fintech hub. In an old life, when I was at a devolved organisation that used London mayoral money to drive economic development, I quite often used to get asked by people around the country how they could create a fintech hub in Devon, Dorset or wherever. I used to say, “You’re probably not going to. You’re likely not going to succeed, but there are industries that you can develop.” That might have been agritech, agricultural tourism or food supply chains, depending on where they were in the country.

Your point about encouraging local communities to think about the role of hospitality and retail in driving quite visible growth is really powerful. There is something about the distribution of the value of growth that we would encourage local communities to consider. I happen to know your patch quite well—I am from Maidstone, so it is a world I know. If you look at the areas around the Kent coast, for example, which have done well over the last few years, the characteristic of the growth strategy has been to use hospitality, leisure and experience as a way of driving other forms of growth. Take Folkestone, for example, and the work around the Harbour Arm there, or Margate, or 20 years ago, Whitstable. With growth strategies that, first, ask how you make a place liveable and attractive, you find that you crowd in other forms of growth, which may be within the eight industrial sectors.

I am very in favour of local growth plans, because they help to encourage local communities to ask what sort of growth they want and to be pro it. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and if you ask people what sort of growth they want, you get an answer about what growth they want. If you ask people what other sorts of development they want, often you get an anti-development answer.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Q Meur ras—thank you—Ms Vaz. Dohajydh da—good afternoon. I will declare straightaway that I am Cornish and my question is about Cornwall.

In order for Cornwall to access the highest level of devolution, as the Bill is drafted, it requires the Government to breach article 16 of the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. The Cornish are the only people in the UK that have national minority status but do not have access to the highest level of devolution. How flexible should the Government be when determining what powers different types of strategic authorities can exercise? Is there a case for exceptions in places such as Cornwall? I ask that you try to avoid the temptation to talk about identity—we can identify with lots of parts of the country and with football teams and pop bands—and talk more about national minority status.

Professor Denham: I confess that I am not an expert on the framework convention, so I am not sure I will address that from a satisfactory legal point of view. In terms of the devolution policy, it was always my view that whether to have a mayor should have been a local choice and not a national prescription. That boat may have sailed, but that was my view. Clearly, there are cases where mayoral leadership is seen by everybody as an advantage, but I think there was a case for having some flexibility over that.

The other thing that I think is worth exploring is that one size fits all is not always going to be the right arrangement. I would imagine that, in the case of Cornwall, there are some functions on which it is in Cornwall’s interest to collaborate very closely with Devon, and maybe the new Wessex strategic authority around strategic transport, and other areas on which you would not want to. There should be a way in the Bill—we have talked about the pooling of regional powers—to enable strategic authorities to build larger bodies with neighbouring strategic authorities when it is in their interest to do so, without requiring the agreement of central Government.

I suppose my in-principle answer to your question, which is very unhelpful to the Minister, is that maybe the choice whether to have a mayor should have been given more local discretion. As we are where we are, certainly I would like to see a system where Cornwall can build the sort of strategic authority it wants but also have the benefits of collaboration across the south-west peninsula, or whatever, on areas of common interest and where everybody might benefit from having a regional rather than a county-based approach.

Zoë Billingham: I speak only from the experience of pan-northern collaboration, which has changed and been flexible, and has taken the form of transport co-ordination. Its latest guise is the Great North, which is a great innovation and a great step forward for northern leadership. I think that is an example of how flexibility should be offered to all parts of the country where they see benefits beyond devolution just in their patch, so to speak.

I think you speak to a larger point about inconsistency in devolution. As many have said, it is very much building the plane while it is flying, and I think we need to be comfortable with that. We are far behind many of our OECD counterparts in terms of decentralising power. We are yet to settle on a model, and we should not settle on a very rigid model at this stage; we should be open to it being flexible in the future. I am sure that the Bill will be a very important first step in this Parliament, but it should by no means be the last word; the question of how devolution is taken forward in this country will need to be revisited on an ongoing basis.

Professor Denham: It might be worth exploring in Committee whether the right to request powers is sufficiently broad. For somewhere like Cornwall, even if you are currently on the lowest tier, you could none the less have the right to request powers specific to Cornwall, for the reasons that you want. There may be scope in the Bill to create something that does not necessarily guarantee you what you want, but gives you a route towards it.

[Kevin McKenna]

Q My question is in a similar vein, building on a lot of the conversation so far. My constituency is an outlier in the south-east of England and in the county of Kent, which is likely to become a devolved authority. Sittingbourne and Sheerness are two properly industrial towns. They really stand out for the amount of manufacturing and manual jobs in the area, compared with the service industries that predominate in the rest of the county and the south-east, and that has a lot of effects. Over the years, a misunderstanding, or ignoring, within the county of Kent of the industrial nature of my towns has strengthened the inequality and the depth of deprivation in certain parts of my constituency.

One of the concerns that has been raised locally is that, by replicating the electoral and political structure of Kent and having Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone, which are very different types of towns, predominate the political nature of the mayoralty, we will just replicate the same problem and our needs in terms of economic development, and therefore social support and social economics, will be overridden. Effectively, we can be categorised as a little bit of the red wall in the south-east of England. One of the dangers to me is that we—

[The Chair]

Order. Is there a question?

[Kevin McKenna]

Sorry, Ms Vaz—there is. What do you think we can do when setting up mayoral authorities to prevent aberrant areas—I say that in a very positive way—within a broader, more homogenous mayoral district from being neglected?

Zoë Billingham: We have some similar dynamics in the north, where certain combined authorities comprise some areas of low and modest incomes and some areas of great wealth, so some parallels can be drawn. Setting and influencing early mayoral priorities is really key. While in the north-east there are some areas of great wealth, Kim McGuinness’s priority is child poverty, and she has made that very clear. Obviously, that speaks directly to the areas of the north-east that suffer most from high levels of deprivation and child poverty. The initial setting of the mayoral agenda is absolutely essential in that.

Professor Denham: I recognise a lot of what you say, because I live in Hampshire. We have Southampton, Portsmouth and the island, which was mentioned earlier and is completely different.

There are two things that are crucially important. First, the unitarisation approach must be sensitive to those local geographies. Simply forcing people into a 500,000 unit because, mathematically, that is what came out of a PwC report two years ago would be counterproductive if that meant you lost the focus on those areas. That is a part of it: we need sufficient flexibility in the unitarisation approach.

The second thing is to try to build in from the beginning the idea that not every combined authority needs to replicate the structures that evolved initially in Manchester and the west midlands around a centralised authority. There are different ways of structuring a combined authority, its functions and its leadership that recognise the different constituent elements in an area. If I have one concern at the moment, it is that because we are asking people to reorganise their district councils and create a combined authority at the same time, it is very hard to find the headroom for that creative thinking about, “How are the internal dynamics of this going to work in the future?”

That is two things. First, we need flexibility on unitarisation, so that you do not disappear into an area that does not understand your needs. That is replicated in cathedral cities and all sorts of places right across the country. Secondly, we need to look at structuring a combined authority that builds in an understanding of those different geographies from the outset, and does not necessarily create a superior tier of authority.

Zoë Billingham: May I add one more point? It is about interventions at the neighbourhood level. A welcome focus of the Bill is that, as you raised, there can be as much inequality within combined authorities as between combined authorities. Sometimes the intervention needs to be at the neighbourhood level, so that should also be introduced as a focus of the combined authority. The basis on which they intervene and where is also a useful way to address disparities within regions.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Q I want talk about district councils. Lots of councils have gone through unitarisation, and when they come out the other side, lots of them set up area planning committees and delivery teams based on the old district boundaries. What is your view on the savings that might come through that process? I think there are hardly any.

On the democratic deficit, we are talking about getting rid of elected authorities. The response from you, Zoë, was, “Well, we can do some more consultation. We can have online meetings and votes at 16,” but how can any of that replicate a free and fair democratic election to a local council?

Professor Denham: I made my position clear: I think you might have needed to reorganise in future; I did not think it was the priority. But we are where we are. Personally, I am sceptical about savings materialising at the scale that has been said, because costs are always higher. If you followed what I suggested about having some flexibility in the size of the new unitaries, that undermines what was in the original proposal, but I think it is necessary for democratic reasons.

I would say, though, that we have never really taken a strategic approach to what happens below unitary and strategic authorities, even in areas that have only unitaries and strategic authorities. Everything I said about community empowerment plans, I would apply to met boroughs and to Greater Manchester and all the rest of it. It probably sounds particularly relevant because we have this process of local government reorganisation, but it should apply equally strongly to the duties that exist on current unitary authorities and strategic authorities. It is a national policy, rather than purely a local one.

Zoë Billingham: I would only add that, as John said, I am not sure there were many external voices calling for the abolition of district councils. It was seen as a quid pro quo, as I understand it, for the mayoral tier. As I stated previously, I am sceptical about the backroom savings that are considered to come with reducing headcount, office space and so on, but I will leave others to speak to that. As John said, unitarisation is not new, so there are examples of places that have tackled it well. We should look to those before thinking it is a foregone conclusion that it is not the right thing to do.

On democratic innovations, although the Bill challenges the current model, I think we should use this moment to consider what they are. Looking at voting levels at the last election, we just about got 50% of the country voting for MPs. At some of the local and regional elections, we mostly have less than the majority of the population coming out to vote. We can improve on the current system, and I hope this is a real opportunity to do that. That is why thinking about how people engage with democracy, why they come out to vote, and who comes out to vote is really important at this stage—especially with such a difficult political atmosphere in this country.

Coastal Communities

Kevin McKenna Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this debate, which is timely and overdue. I am glad to hear from Members who live in coastal communities all round this great country about the places they represent, many of which—this is where I am grateful to my parents—I visited on caravan trips around the country when I was younger. The tourism industry in this country will be pleased about this debate, but I am also grateful to hear about the challenges and inequalities that many of our communities face.

The report by Professor Chris Whitty was important for me when I was working at the NHS; it fleshed out some of the unique challenges that many coastal communities share, including inequalities in access to healthcare, and in health and employment outcomes, as well as transport difficulties—the list goes on. The coasts of this country are not only the interface between land and sea, but the interface between many of the greatest challenges that we face as a country. I am pretty certain that every Member in this debate will be able to give examples from their constituency of high levels of inequality, of social deprivation, or of challenge, often against a backdrop of beautiful, stunning landscapes, access to nature, and places where people want to live, and where many—not just those on holiday in a caravan—want to visit on a daytrip, or retire to.

It seems a terrible shame that somehow we have got ourselves locked into a system in which places that should be among the most desirable in the country face some of the biggest and most entrenched challenges. Some of those challenges are intrinsic to being by the water. For example, damage to buildings and the maintenance cost of housing and infrastructure is higher at the coast, yet that is not accommodated for in a lot of our public spending decisions, when we think about our infrastructure and how we support people in maintaining their houses. If anyone goes to Sheerness in my constituency and looks around, they will see that much of the social housing in that coastal town is damaged and degraded, largely because of the impact of the sea. It also faces the financial challenges that the rest of the country faces.

Sittingbourne and Sheppey has some unique features. It is a rural community, but there are two industrial towns in my constituency. There is a coastal community with nature reserves and wildlife, but there is also big industry, big power stations, and massive paper mills. There are real opportunities that I think we can capture and build on. The reason I have twin towns in my constituency is because of the sea and access to water, yet we are not taking advantage of that in transport terms. I very much endorse the call for a Minister for coastal communities, but the one thing I would really like the Government to commit to is developing a cross-cutting coastal strategy that addresses all those needs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin McKenna Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

10. What steps she is taking to help ensure that levels of funding to local government are sufficient to fund public services.

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

22. What steps her Department is taking to ensure areas with higher levels of deprivation receive adequate funding.

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

We of course recognise the challenges that local authorities face, as demand increases for critical services. That is why the final settlement for 2025-26 made available over £69 billion for local government in England—a cash increase of 6.8% in core spending power on 2024-25. The most relatively deprived areas of England will receive 23% more per dwelling than the least deprived. Of course, spending decisions beyond this year are a matter for the upcoming spending review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

The hon. Gentleman and all Members of the House have our absolute commitment that when we revise the funding formula, we will ensure that it takes into account all the matters he mentions. The multi-year settlement is intended to give stability. We have to make sure that councils are on their feet at the end of that. We recognise entirely that deprivation is a driver of cost, but so is the cost of rural service delivery.

[Kevin McKenna]

The 48th most deprived locality in England and five of the 10 most deprived localities under Kent county council are in my constituency, yet the council struggles to understand the levels of deprivation and to adequately resource those localities. Can the Minister assure my constituents that devolution and reorganisation of local government in Kent will ensure that their needs are not ignored like this in the future?

[Jim McMahon]

I will not comment on individual councils, other than to say that this is why local government reorganisation is so important. In too many parts of England, the two-tier system is not working for local people. The two-tier premium means that a two-tier system is a more expensive way of delivering public services, and most members of the public have no idea which council is responsible for delivering which service. It is therefore right that we go through this reform. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, in the end, things have to work for local people. All the matters that he covered are on our mind.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Kevin McKenna Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for introducing the Bill. I will try not to cloud the Chamber too much with puns; I will leave it to other hon. Members to shower the room with them. [Laughter.] It’s so painful.

I am glad that the Bill has been brought forward. There are so many good things in it, and I want to ensure that the country as a whole can embrace the future of solar power generation where people live, right in the heart of communities and on their homes. I have moved in the past year or so to ground level, as many people in my constituency know and frequently comment about on Facebook. I have lived most of my adult life in tower blocks, and one of the great things about 1960s council tower blocks is that there are fantastic views over everybody’s roofs. In all the decades I lived in those tower blocks, it was apparent that we are missing out in this country. So much acreage on rooftops is empty and devoid of power generation, while other countries have leapt ahead and taken advantage.

At the same time, I have seen where this has not quite worked. I watched a new council housing block being built right next to the previous place I lived in. Over its rooftops, I saw the solar panels go in and then saw what the problems were, where the management company and the local council were not quite able to make it work and to generate power for people there. The solar panels were for a long time unused and not functioning. That is the sign of a technology that was not quite mature, and it is only in the past five years that that has happened.

When, like me, Members go around their constituencies, they will see lots of solar panels on houses and have lots of conversations with people in pubs who have installed them on their houses. Some people will have had a great experience and will talk at length about how it has reduced their bills, and unfortunately others tell of the problems and challenges of getting connected to the grid and making it work. That is not a reason not to do it, but it is a reason to have a clear eye as we go forward on this change. Hopefully, the Minister will talk about how we can ensure that this policy is successful in future.

There are loads of opportunities, but we should not lose sight of other opportunities as well. One of the most impressive things I have seen in my constituency from an industrial side is the cluster of factories around Kemsley paper mill from DS Smith. A third of the cardboard produced in the UK is recycled in that one location. It is part of a set of factories that use their waste products and heat to generate power themselves in a circular carbon economy. A key part is more traditional forms of power production. For instance, all the cardboard that is not used in those factories and that cannot be recycled is turned into electricity, and carbon capture is used. The carbon capture process is then used to support work in other factories, such as the production of plasterboard, and the waste heat is used.

The factories are already doing great work, and they want to expand further with solar power, particularly on an old landfill site, which is perfectly placed. That is a great opportunity, but there are also the factory roofs. Not all the buildings are suitable, but as we build on that cluster and can generate power locally, and as we build more homes around them and in that area to provide power, solar power has an important part to play. I very much want to see that we are able to change our building regulations and to ensure they meet the needs and opportunities from factories, but, at the same time, we must not close our eyes to the fact that there are many other ways of ensuring that we reach a zero-carbon future.

Fixing the housing crisis is absolutely not mutually exclusive with fixing the climate crisis. The hon. Member rightly identified the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis. I would add in the housing crisis as a third part of that, and I can see he does not disagree.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

This point has been made a few times, but it is almost as if there is a tension between protecting our natural environment and making progress on renewable energy sources. It is not a choice between the two; one is central to the other. As a former councillor, I know that it is vital that community voices are heard in this. If there is one thing that upsets local communities, it is when they are not involved in conversations on matters that directly impact them and the areas they live in. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Kevin McKenna]

I wholeheartedly agree. I gave the example of a power generator on a roof not working, and that came down to the fact that the local community was not involved. The residents on the block saw no benefit from it, but it was causing them problems, including leaks in the roof and all sorts of other stuff. It is vital that we have not just a circular energy economy but a circular economic and monetary economy so that people see the benefits in their pockets as well as in the lights and heating in their homes.

I am keen to hear from the Minister what the Government plan to do to change the building regulations, meet the aspirations in the Bill and ensure that we have a comprehensive strategy to progress towards a zero-carbon, net zero future, while ensuring that that does not get in the way of tackling local environmental problems—biodiversity and so on—or the housing and cost of living crises. Those things are all joined up. That is how developers will work and deliver, and how we can ensure that that happens.

We all know that implementation is the tricky part of policy. The intention is very straightforward—and this Bill is full of great intentions—but getting the implementation right will be the challenge. We have had 14 years of hot and cold climate policy. Sometimes the previous Government went hell for leather on tackling climate change; at other points, they did not seem so certain. As well as developers, businesses and households have struggled with that, because they have not been sure of the direction of travel. I am hopeful that our new Government will now focus on stability as a key plank of our growth agenda, giving developers, communities and households the certainty they need to plan together. Everyone is looking for that framework.

Some areas and towns face greater challenges on housing and housing need. In Sheerness in my constituency, for example, the housing stock is of deteriorating quality. Much of it is post-war council housing, which, unsurprisingly in a coastal area, is not lasting and has high maintenance costs. We need a comprehensive renewal that brings in not just better housing, but the opportunity to leapfrog several stages in environmental learning and energy production, and ensures that energy production is brought into the heart of towns in my constituency and those of other hon. Members.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is speaking with great passion about his constituents—that is always great to hear. When it comes to new homes, we must consider their efficiency from top to bottom. The Bill will add solar panels to new homes—we all welcome that, and I am happy to support it—but we must go further by ensuring that our homes are as efficient, warm and cheap to heat as possible. In Scotland, the private Member’s Bill introduced by Alex Rowley MSP could mean that all homes in Scotland are built to the Passivhaus standard, which I think is the gold standard right now. Does my hon. Friend think that we should aspire to that?

[Kevin McKenna]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for coming in on that point, and I very much agree. Although my constituency is generally not quite as cold and damp as parts of Scotland, it is pretty cold and damp, and when the wind comes along the Swale it can get quite cold, as people who live in north Kent will know. The quality of housing stock, including insulation, needs attention. That is what I mean by a comprehensive picture; it is about not just power generation, but ensuring that we do not waste power and that the effect is ultimately felt in people’s pockets.

I know that other Members will talk with greater expertise and in greater depth about things happening in their constituencies and the opportunities that they see, and I look forward to listening to them. As we move forward, we must learn from past mistakes and from current great practice, and ensure that these policies actually work, unlike in the false starts of the past.

Responsibilities of Housing Developers

Kevin McKenna Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for raising this important issue. I will try not to be too party political, but that is maybe working against instinct. I will do my best, anyway.

The key point is that it is very obvious that the planning system is broken from top to bottom. It is not delivering for anybody, and a lot of the anger that the hon. Member brought to this Chamber is reflected by my constituents. There is a particular focus on frustration with the developers and their contributions and a lack of trust. Trust has broken down, and a lot of residents doubt whether any of these contributions will ever be delivered. It is eroding faith across the board.

One of the things that is missing in planning is planning. We seem to have lost the grip of strategic planning being able to look at whole neighbourhoods, networks and regions to see what is needed. When the modern planning system was started in the 1940s, one of its central aims was to look at places and ask whether they could be structured so that all the required services were included. That was part of health delivery as much as anything else. I was pleased at one point in my career with the NHS to work with the healthy new towns programme, which brought a lot of testing and research to what is really needed in new developments, and what can enhance the health and wellbeing of residents.

Sometimes that works. In some areas of my constituency, planners and developers have come together to deliver things, such as a new ground for Sittingbourne rugby club. Demelza children’s hospice has used its developer contributions to extend its site. These are way beyond things that just local people need as a local resource. However, far too often, as was the case with the proposed Bell Road development, the option for a new health centre or new GP surgery is gradually whittled away by the developer to the point where the NHS no longer needs it. That has eroded faith and that is what needs to change.

I welcome a concerted effort from the Government to look at planning, particularly at whether we can improve training for planning officers, but we also need to bring the responsibilities of central planning in Whitehall closer to the ground. Hopefully the devolution settlement will help with that, but I look forward to seeing the actual detail. I genuinely think that that is a massive opportunity that we should all get involved in to ensure that devolution meets our needs.

Beyond that, I want to hear from the Minister how we will guarantee that the things that developers promise are actually delivered. I want it in writing—in blood—from those developers. If the Minister can help with that, it will be really appreciated.