debates/debates2025-09-02e conversation_19
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-09-02)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-09-02e conversation_19

Kim Johnson:Given that the UK is the penholder for Yemen, will the Minister explain why the Government continue to support Israel when it has admitted to the killing of Yemen’s Prime Minister and other Ministers and is causing widespread devastation? What steps have the Government taken to support Yemen in achieving peace, reconstruction and development, and in ending the humanitarian crisis? \p Hamish Falconer: Mr Speaker, as there has been a number of different reports on this, let me clarify that we believe that it is the Houthi Prime Minister, rather than the Yemeni Prime Minister, who has recently been struck. The Houthis, as the House knows, are a threat not just to the people of Yemen and to the region, but to international shipping. I have engaged closely with the Yemeni Government, including with both the previous Yemeni Prime Minister and the current Yemeni Prime Minister, who I am happy to report is still alive. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the worst aspects of the actions of the Israeli authorities is the continual stripping away of the dignity of the Palestinian people in Jerusalem and the west bank? Only last week, the Greek Orthodox patriarch learned that, for the first time in history, Israeli authorities launched a property tax on Greek Orthodox churches. There was international outrage at the freezing of bank accounts. That has made a difference. Can this House and this Government stick up for the rights of the Palestinian people? Not even the Ottomans tried to impose a church tax. \p David Lammy: I am grateful to the Father of the House for bringing to mind the situation in the west bank. Of course it is important that Israel has its full security, but the violence, the expansion, the denial of funds and the chilling effect on civil society are all of huge concern, which is why we fund and support organisations on the ground and work with civil society. \p Will Stone: We are at a pivotal point in our defence procurement. Is the Minister engaging with allies like Morocco to use defence exports as a way to bolster trade relations? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend has extensive experience in defence and I am grateful to him for his question. During the UK-Morocco strategic dialogue in June, both sides agreed to deepen our defence industrial co-operation. I am glad that two memorandums of understanding between the UK and Morocco have since been signed thanks to the work of the Foreign Secretary. \p Roger Gale: It has now been some weeks since President Trump invited the leader of the Russian Federation to the United States of America. Since then, Putin has increased his assault on the civilian population of Ukraine and shown no sign whatsoever of reaching the ceasefire that was desired, so Trump’s initiative has failed. Will the Foreign Secretary use his visit to the United Nations next week to call again for real United States sanctions on Russia? \p David Lammy: We applaud President Trump’s efforts to bring about a sustained and sustainable peace, and there are detailed discussions going on about security guarantees and what role the United States may play as a result of the summit, but our assessment is that Putin is not up to seriously negotiating. We condemn the killing and the loss of life that has continued, and the injuring of a security guard at the British Council. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the International Development Committee. \p Sarah Champion: We need to recognise that, due to climate change, conflict and population growth, forced and economic migration is only going to increase. My Committee will shortly publish a report on displaced people, covering both the drivers and possible solutions. I note with concern that Jordan—a country that houses many refugees—is receiving a 35% cut this year. Will the Foreign Secretary outline his strategy to keep people safe and economically viable in their own or host countries, and how that can be achieved with a dramatically reduced ODA budget? \p David Lammy: I am very grateful for the work that my hon. Friend continues to do on her Select Committee to champion the cause of people across the world who are suffering. She will be pleased that climate remains a priority, notwithstanding the changes that we have had to make in our development spend. We recognise that climate often drives migration routes, so our very important upstream work has to continue. \p Julian Lewis: Given communist China’s predictable support for the killer in the Kremlin’s campaign of murder and mayhem in Ukraine, why are the Government rewarding China with a super-embassy in London? \p David Lammy: There is no reward. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a quasi-judicial process that must be approached properly. Under the Geneva convention, all countries are entitled to an embassy. \p Christopher Vince: First, I pay tribute to my constituent Anne Strike for her constant campaigning for the eradication of polio. Sadly, we have seen cases of polio in warzones like Gaza. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure that we eradicate this disease once and for all? \p Hamish Falconer: I thank my hon. Friend for his important question; polio is an issue not just in Gaza but in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Eradication is vital, and we are committed to an eradication campaign. We have helped 600,000 children and we will continue to work on this vital question, including in my region. \p Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State reiterated the issue of the conditional recognition of the state of Palestine. If the Government want to do that, would it not be better equally to make it a condition that any future state of Palestine does not threaten the right of the state of Israel to exist, and that  if anyone carries out terrorist actions from any future state, they will be handed over to the international authorities? \p Hamish Falconer: There have been important commitments about the future nature of any Palestinian state, including from President Abbas, who said that any such state would be demilitarised. There was absolute clarity in New York—where we made the announcement about the recognition decision—that Hamas can have no future role in Gaza and that a future Palestinian state must pose no threat to an Israeli state. Two states requires two states living in safety and security and posing no threat to each other. \p Tracy Gilbert: I welcome the sanctions that the Government have put in place on the Israeli Government, as in their current form they are not a reliable or trusted partner. Has the Foreign Secretary ordered a review of the UK’s relationship with the Israeli Government over the last 13 months? If not, why not? \p Hamish Falconer: I set out the detail of the sanctions to which my hon. Friend refers, and the Foreign Secretary has announced a review of some of the elements of our bilateral co-operation with Israel, including a number of steps in relation to free trade agreements and so on. \p David Smith: I am grateful for the leadership that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East showed over the summer in their visit to Syria and in engaging with the Syrian Government, especially on the violence that took place in Suwayda. As UK special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, I was particularly worried to see that the violence especially affected the Druze and Christian minorities in that country. What more can we do to work with the Syrian Government to ensure that they protect all their citizens, regardless of their religion? \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend asks a vital question, which I raised directly with the Syrian Minister of Justice and the Syrian Foreign Minister last week. The violence—in coastal regions, targeting Alawites, and in Suwayda in the south, targeting Druze and others—was deeply concerning. The Syrians have conducted an investigation relatively independently in relation to the violence at the coast. I called on them, as the Foreign Secretary has done before, to do everything they can to ensure that minorities in the new Syria feel safe and protected by the Syrian Government. \p Andrew Murrison: Despite the strategic dialogue referred to by the Foreign Secretary, the Government have decided to veto the UK-Morocco power project, so what are they doing in practical terms to maintain the momentum in our relationship created by the association agreement signed with Morocco in 2019? \p David Lammy: There was no veto. It is right that the Government look at all projects through a value-for-money lens. I was very pleased to be in Morocco, I remain engaged with its Foreign Minister, and I will build on that strategic visit. There is much to do over the coming months. \p James MacCleary: I was pleased to read that the Government are finally taking steps to rejoin the Erasmus+ programme—something for which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for some time. Will the Minister now set out a timetable mandate and expected terms for UK reassociation with that programme? \p Stephen Doughty: I do not want to go into the details. We are involved in many different discussions with the European Union following our historic summit on 19 May. I attended the Gymnich with Foreign Ministers in Denmark last weekend. We are progressing this alongside the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office, and we will provide details in due course. \p Sonia Kumar: Save the Children reports that 61% of pregnant women and new mothers in Gaza were malnourished in early August: a sharp rise linked to the blockade and health system collapse. Will the Government consider enabling the medical transfer of pregnant women needing specialist care to the UK and outline their strategy for supporting Gaza’s long-term recovery, stability and maternity health? These children are the future of the two-state solution. \p Hamish Falconer: My hon. Friend is right, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), to raise the fate of pregnant women in Gaza, and indeed of those who have recently given birth. I am happy to meet her to discuss these issues in greater detail. \p Sarah Jones: I would like to make a statement regarding the insolvency of Speciality Steel UK Ltd, which is part of the Liberty Steel Group. Hon. Members will have seen that the High Court granted a compulsory winding-up order against Liberty Speciality Steels on 21 August, and the company has now entered liquidation.

First and foremost, let me say this: the Government stand with the affected steelworkers in Rotherham, in Sheffield and in Wednesbury. We stand with their families and the communities, who will undoubtedly be worried at this difficult time. I would like to reassure them and all those employed by Liberty Speciality Steels that we are standing by with our rapid response teams to give immediate support on the ground if required, that we are working with the trade unions and the South Yorkshire Mayor, and that we are working with the councils and hon. Members from affected constituencies to offer all the help we can.

I also want to stress that there will be no immediate changes to the current operation of the business, including to employees’ jobs. Following the appointment of special managers, the company’s sites have been secured and employee payroll processed within 24 hours. Other Liberty Steel companies outside Speciality Steel, such as Liberty Dalzell and Liberty Hartlepool, are not affected by this action.

Following the company’s liquidation, the official receiver has been appointed as liquidator by the court. Hon. Members will know that the official receiver operates independently of Government, with a statutory duty to act in the best interests of creditors.

Yesterday, I laid a departmental minute notifying the House of the contingent liabilities associated with this intervention. I regret that, due to the liquidation taking place during recess, we have not been able to follow the usual notice period of 14 parliamentary sitting days. However, a copy of the departmental minute will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. In addition, the Government have agreed to funding for the official receiver, who will now stabilise operations. The official receiver will gather company information and report to us on the likely next steps, including options for the company’s business and sites. The total costs will depend on market conditions and the strategy adopted by the official receiver. However, that will be subject to close scrutiny by my Department and the Insolvency Service.

As the House will be aware, the company has faced severe financial and operational difficulties since 2021. Liberty Speciality Steels had failed to file accounts for over six years—a failure that has led to a separate prosecution by Companies House of its parent company. I am sure that the official receiver will want to gain a better understanding of the company’s business and the conduct of its directors leading up to the liquidation. I also inform the House that the director of the company is currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office for suspected fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering. Given that, I am sure hon. Members will agree that it would have been wholly inappropriate for the Government to enter into commercial arrangements with the company.

This Government will always take difficult decisions when they are in the national interest. That is why, in April, we acted to prevent the pre-emptive closure of the blast furnaces at British Steel in Scunthorpe. In the case of Liberty Steel, the lack of transparency, the legal and financial risks and the complete absence of reliable corporate information meant we had no credible route to act before insolvency. It is worth noting that Liberty Speciality Steels uses electric arc furnace technology that can be powered up or down as needed—although it should be noted that those furnaces have not been operating since July of last year. That was the situation this Government inherited.

The circumstances in Scunthorpe were fundamentally different. British Steel operates the UK’s last remaining blast furnaces—assets that, once shut down, cannot simply be restarted. Allowing those blast furnaces to be closed pre-emptively would have removed our ability to make strategic choices about the future of steelmaking in Scunthorpe, and that was not a position this Government were prepared to accept. Scunthorpe was therefore a truly exceptional situation and that is why we took the unprecedented step of implementing the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025 to maintain the safe operation of the blast furnaces.

The situation with Liberty Speciality Steels is not comparable. The company was issued with a winding-up order by the High Court due to longstanding financial issues. Spending taxpayers’ money on a company operating in such a way would have exposed taxpayers to hundreds of millions—potentially billions—of pounds in hidden costs.

With all that said, I very much believe that the steelmaking sites in Rotherham, Stocksbridge, Brinsworth and Wednesbury have a future. I am keen to see them return to production, but that has to be achieved through private investment by an owner who can invest in the workforce and in the future of the business so that they put it on a long-term, sustainable footing. We know that the business environment has not been good enough for the UK’s steel industry, which is why we have already made substantial changes to secure a stronger future for it. I will say more about the steps that we have taken shortly.

In the case of Liberty Speciality Steels, it goes without saying that the company’s hardworking employees are key to turning the sites around. Their skills and expertise will be essential in delivering that brighter future. However, in its current state, producing only minimal volumes of steel and with many employees still on furlough, we know that some tough choices lie ahead. It is now for the official receiver to determine the next steps in the insolvency process. But let me be clear: this Government will stand by this workforce and do all we can to support them through this period of uncertainty.

Despite the challenges facing the steel sector today after years of neglect under the previous Government, we believe that this industry will bounce back and grow stronger tomorrow. This Government are doing everything we can to make that happen. We are pressing ahead with a bold steel strategy for the UK, set to be published later this year. That strategy will set out our vision for a competitive, decarbonised and resilient domestic steel industry. Our approach is clear: we want the UK steel sector to thrive, with strong private investment and commercially sustainable operations at its core.

Under our new industrial strategy, we have already announced some major policy changes to increase the future viability of the steel industry. We are reducing electricity costs for steel producers by increasing network charge discounts through the supercharger from 60% to 90%. We are changing Government procurement rules via the publication of a new steel public procurement notice to ensure that UK-made steel is considered for all public projects. We are also strengthening current steel safeguard measures, ensuring that UK steel producers will not be undercut while still ensuring that the UK has a steady and reliable supply.

Hon. Members will know that we have also secured a much-improved deal for the workers of Port Talbot—something the Opposition repeatedly said could never be achieved—and we delivered it alongside a £500 million grant to support the transition to low-carbon electric arc furnace production. I was proud to attend the groundbreaking event for this in July with the chair of Tata Group. We will continue to work hand in hand with this vital British industry to ensure its long-term success.

Let there be no doubt that, for Liberty Speciality Steels, we will pursue every option to keep steelmaking in Rotherham, Sheffield, South Yorkshire and the west midlands. We will offer all possible support to the independent official receiver on the all-important next phase, and we will continue to work with hon. Members across the House to ensure that the UK remains a proud steelmaking country now and for many years to come. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister. \p Gareth Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me advance sight of her statement today, but here we are again: another day, another Government takeover of a key British manufacturing plant, another 1,500 jobs—1,500 people—facing an incredibly uncertain future, and the prospect of significant job losses alongside the wider economic impact across supply chains and in aerospace, defence and power generation that would result from the collapse of this specialist steelworks.

Despite so many warm words about the steel industry, despite so many Labour promises to the people who have worked their whole lives in that industry, and despite the impression of superiority while in opposition, this Labour Government are failing British industry. They are failing to provide certainty of policy and the economic growth that they said was their central mission, and they are failing to get a grip on the issues that affect thousands of working people’s lives. The Minister says she wants to provide certainty to the steel industry and the people who work in it. She says that we can expect a bold steel strategy for the UK, but where is it? The Government are not new any more; they have been in power for a year now, and there is still no clarity on this supposedly bold strategy.

The British steel industry faces a fierce dual set of pressures: new 25% US tariffs and continued high energy costs. We all know that the energy costs in this country are too high, yet they have been driven only higher by  this Government’s ideological obsession with prioritising decarbonisation over economic growth. Back in May, Liberty Steel warned that it faced significant challenges due to soaring energy costs, but instead of focusing on tackling the underlying causes of expensive energy, the Energy Secretary is backing windmills while leaving Britain’s oil and gas industry in the doldrums. He is leaving our amazing British oil and gas—our greatest energy source—trapped under the North sea. This is economic illiteracy aimed at satisfying their own green obsessions. From steel to chemicals to cars, builders and makers across Britain are paying the price of this Government’s socialist green agenda, and it is their workers and investors who will lose out.

On tariffs, despite the economic prosperity deal agreed by the Prime Minister and President Trump, the agreement’s provisions lowering US tariffs on UK-produced steel and steel derivative products have still not come into effect. The Government have repeatedly avoided answering questions in this House on when the agreement will come into effect. We heard no mention whatsoever of it in the statement today or in the note yesterday, so I ask again: when will the provisions lowering US tariffs on UK steel come into effect?

Of course, even if those provisions do eventually come to fruition, steelworkers should beware of this Government, who have overpromised and under-delivered before, with devastating impacts for workers. Just look at Jaguar Land Rover. The Prime Minister looked workers dead in the eyes and promised that he would protect their industry and save their jobs. He then used those workers as a Labour propaganda photo opportunity across television and the front pages when the UK-US deal was announced, but little over two months later, Jaguar Land Rover announced it was cutting 500 jobs. The very same workers who were promised everything by the Prime Minister were left out in the cold by this Labour Government’s inability to secure a better trading relationship with our closest ally.

Let us today try to get some clarity on what exactly this Minister has done and will do for the British workers impacted at Liberty Steel. First, she announced that the Government had agreed to funding the official receiver and that total— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order—[Interruption.] No, it’s no use nodding at me. I have not gone over time; it is the shadow Minister himself. I am sure he is now coming to a conclusion. \p Gareth Davies: I am, Mr Speaker. Although I have lots of questions, I will ask just two very quick ones, if that is okay. \p Lindsay Hoyle: You must ask them now, otherwise I am going to stop you. \p Gareth Davies: I will, Mr Speaker.

What is the budget for the official receiver? The Minister has not laid out any costs. She has said that it is related to market conditions but has not set out any estimates. She knows that the Treasury will have approved estimates, so please will she set those out? The Government have made the National Wealth Fund allocate £2.5 billion to British Steel. Can she assure us that they will follow the investment allocation that assures its operational independence— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Please, it is not acceptable on either side of the House to take advantage of the Back Benchers who want to get in. You have a set amount of time. If the Minister can stick to it, I expect the shadow Minister to do so. If the Minister goes over time, I do then grant time the other way. Please do not do this again.

Let us come to the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Liam Byrne: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The Minister needs to respond. It’s been that long that I had forgotten. \p Sarah Jones: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall just explain to the shadow Minister how the system works. The Government have not taken over control. That is not the process of the official receiver. The official receiver was appointed following a court case which began in 2024. It has been a very long and arduous case.

The hon. Gentleman will hopefully understand that I cannot set out the cost of the official receiver at this point because the official receiver has only just begun his work. It is very early days and we cannot be specific. We know the numbers will be in the millions, as opposed to anything more substantial, because the company is not operating in and of itself. What we are doing is ensuring that the salaries are paid, which I hope the whole House would agree is the right thing to do. Companies will be coming forward and expressing an interest in buying parts of the company, and it will be for the official receiver to look at that and see what process we should go through, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the actual numbers on that. I hope the whole House will understand why not.

On the shadow Minister’s wider point, if this Government had not intervened, thousands of people would have lost their livelihoods in Scunthorpe; that is a fact. If this Government had not intervened, we would not have had a better deal for the workers in Port Talbot, we would not have been there supporting them in the transition, and we would not be there supporting the building of the electric arc furnace, which began back in July.

The shadow Minister asked what this Government have already done. We have already changed the rules on procurement. I have worked closely with colleagues in the Cabinet Office on that to ensure that where Government are spending money, we are spending on British business where we can—something his Government failed to do. On energy prices, we have committed to lowering prices through the reduction in costs that will come from the expansion of the super-charger—something his Government failed to do. We are working on a bold strategy, which we will publish this year, that will build on that. Whether on trade protections—on which we have already taken measures—our scrap policy, R&D, jobs, apprenticeships or skills, we will have a bold strategy because we believe in steel, unlike the previous Government, who said that manufacturing is a Victorian pursuit best left to the Chinese. We do not agree with that approach. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I will try again: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Liam Byrne: I congratulate the Minister on saving Britain’s real engineering from years of financial engineering which was not in the best interests of this country and was more in the interests of the self-enrichment of the people behind it. The question for us today, though, is what steps the Government will now take to ensure and safeguard a growing, thriving industry. Will the Minister reassure the House that she will use us on the Committee to oversee the liabilities that the Department has taken on? Crucially, will she set out when she expects those lower energy costs to kick in, when she expects the tariff barriers in the United States to come down, and when she will tie together the steel strategy, which I hope she will publish as soon as possible, for the House to debate? \p Sarah Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for those helpful questions. He reminded me that the shadow Minister had asked about the US. Of course, we are in a position where the world has tariffs of 50% on steel and aluminium; we have 25%. We are working with our US counterparts to reach a conclusion to those negotiations. My right hon. Friend will know that the President is due to come to the UK and, of course, we will be doing all we can to get that negotiation concluded at pace.

My right hon. Friend asked about energy costs. We are seeking to ensure that there is a viable steel industry into the future and that those companies currently talking to the official receiver about wanting to take over and invest in Liberty can do so in a way that will make them money. On the charges we are reducing—the 60% to 90% super-charger extension for network charge relief—to give an example, it will mean about £4 to £5 relief per tonne of steel produced. We know that Liberty is not producing what it can at the moment, but two or three years ago it would have been producing about 300 tonnes of steel per year, so it would have saved up to £1.5 million on its energy costs. That is a substantial reduction and something that I am sure he will welcome.

On the liabilities, of course we want to be as honest, open and transparent with the House as we possibly can. A lot of the liabilities are with the creditors at the moment. We want to come to the House as soon as we can to ensure that we are setting out the costs that we incur. My right hon. Friend is right that the steel strategy this year needs to be bold, and we will of course look to the work that his Committee has done to help us in that. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Sarah Olney: May I start by associating the Liberal Democrats with the Minister’s remarks in support of the employees, families and communities who are affected by this latest development? We welcome the Minister’s coming to the House today to provide some clarity.

Steel is a sector of huge strategic importance for our country. It provides vital materials for our national infrastructure, from defence to renewable energy, and it creates thousands of jobs across the UK. The neglect of the steel industry in recent years is just another part of the previous Government’s disastrous legacy. With Putin’s barbaric war in Europe and Donald Trump’s damaging tariffs causing economic turmoil, securing the future of steel production in this country is more important than  ever. That is why the Liberal Democrats firmly believe that nothing should be off the table in supporting this critical sector.

For too long, our steel industry has been neglected. The Conservative Government oversaw a string of near collapses and last-minute deals. They scrapped the industrial strategy, which is so vital to our manufacturers, and put in place new trade barriers, which constrained our exporters. In the light of this latest insolvency, will the Minister set out what actions the Government are taking to set our steel industry on a truly sustainable footing? What reassurance can the Government provide that job losses can be avoided in the future? What progress has been made in bringing down industrial electricity prices through the measures announced in the industrial strategy? What are the Government doing to press President Trump to finally drop his damaging 25% tariffs on our steel exports? Finally, what steps are the Government taking to treat steel as the nationally strategic asset that it is, ensuring that more British-made steel is used to power our national infrastructure and other major projects here in the UK? \p Sarah Jones: I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. She is right to ask about how we ensure that this nationally strategic asset is protected, and we are doing that. I have just set out the reduction in energy prices that the steel industry as a whole will benefit from—extending the super-charger from 60% to 90% to give network charge relief, which will bring significantly lower costs for energy prices for our steel industry. We are prioritising the procurement of British steel where the Government are spending money, because we believe that that is the right thing to do. We have already introduced protections for steel trading, and we are ensuring that we do everything we can, talking to our US counterparts all the time, about reaching a conclusion on the negotiations on the steel tariffs. I am optimistic about those conversations.

Of course, I speak to officials and other Ministers, and to the steel industry, about these issues all the time. We are lucky to have the Steel Council that we put together—trade unions, industry and others who are helping us to develop what we think will be an ambitious steel strategy that will ensure that the steel industry will not decline. The strategy will ensure that we will not be in the position we are currently in, where only 30% of the steel we use in this country is made in this country, and that we will be in a position where we can protect those good, experienced jobs and those good people who we want to support and make sure the industry grows. \p Sarah Champion: You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that as long as I have been an MP, I have been coming to this Chamber arguing for support for Speciality Steel in my constituency. I politely say to the shadow Minister that the difference in response from this Government is night and day from what I had under the Conservatives. I personally thank the Minister, and the Secretary of State, for having such an open-door policy to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). I know the Minister is doing everything she can to save this speciality business.

One of the first actions of the official receiver was to release approximately 30 apprentices who were due to start their training in the next few weeks. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will not only commit to the business but acknowledge that it can survive only with its highly skilled, committed, professional staff and that she is as committed to them as she is to the business? \p Sarah Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks; they are gratefully received, and we will continue to do all we can to support the steel industry. She is absolutely right that a number of apprentices were due to start this week, but the official receiver took the decision that, given that the 12-month continuation of the apprenticeships could not be guaranteed, it was right to try to find them other placements. I am taking a close personal interest in what happens to those 50 people. I know the local authority and the Department for Education are trying to ensure that we can find other places for them. I want to make sure that we can do so, because one of the things this Government are passionate about is ensuring that our young people have the apprenticeships to give them support for the jobs that we know we need into the future. \p Gavin Williamson: The Minister is obviously incredibly committed to the steel industry, as we all are, but manufacturing will continue to struggle in this country when it pays energy prices that are so much higher than competitors in Germany and France. Can the Minister assure the House that in a year’s time, following the Government strategy, manufacturers—whether ceramics or steel—will be paying the same amount for their industrial energy prices as their German and French competitors? \p Sarah Jones: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Of course, our energy prices are too high and it is difficult for companies to compete. We are taking action to address that, in the first instance by expanding the super-charger, which will make a significant difference to industries that use significant amounts of energy. We will also introduce an electricity scheme in 2027—it is a complex process and will take time to bring in—meaning that around 7,000 companies across the country will also have significant reductions in their energy costs. We are taking what we believe to be the right measures in our industrial strategy through those two interventions, to ensure that our energy costs come down and that we can be competitive among our European counterparts. \p Marie Tidball: Liberty’s Speciality Steels UK has failed its highly skilled workers. This ongoing situation has been deeply concerning, so I am delighted that the Minister has offered her solidarity and the Government’s support for the incredible workforce at the site in South Yorkshire. It is hugely positive—and a great contrast with the 14 years of Conservative Government—that this Government have stepped in and appointed an official receiver to protect the 1,400-plus jobs at the two sites, including Stocksbridge Speciality Steels in my constituency. The Secretary of State has acknowledged in this Chamber the strategic significance of those sites to national security, and we must ensure that those businesses are supported in  fulfilling their capability and have, as the Minister has recognised, a strong future. Will she take adequate time to find a responsible buyer with the right deal, and during that time will workers be kept in employment with salaries continuing to be paid, while efforts are made by her and the official receiver to resolve the outstanding pension issues? \p Sarah Jones: My hon. Friend and I have spoken many times about this—she is such a champion for the industry, as are many colleagues. She is right to point to the importance to the country of the work at Stocksbridge. Of course, we will do what we need to do through the process of the official receiver to ensure that people get the salaries that they need. For the past couple of years, so many of those people have been on furlough—we want to turn that around. We believe that this viable industry is languishing unnecessarily. The Government will provide the right support through interventions such as our energy reduction measures, and work with the official receiver. I can tell her that multiple companies are interested and coming forward, and we need to establish how viable those offers are and what the best situation is. Of course, the official receiver must think of the best outcome for the creditors, but we take a close interest in that. My hon. Friend is right to point out the pensions issue. I know that there is uncertainty. The official receiver and Teneo are considering these issues now to see exactly what has and has not been paid so that we can unpick the pensions issue. \p Andrew Snowden: This is the second crisis in the steel industry in the past year. It impacts other commercially operated industries that are critical to our national security. In Lancashire, the failure to place an order for 25 Typhoon jets is risking thousands of jobs in the critical defence industry of BAE Systems. There is also a lack of join-up between Departments, which do not realise that the whole life-cycle of nuclear fuel manufacturing is equally critical for our national infrastructure and impacts on hundreds of highly skilled jobs in Lancashire at the Westinghouse Springfields site. Will the Minister update me on her work with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that commercially operated industries that are critical to our national defence capability and security are strategically supported to be sustainable in the future? \p Sarah Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the importance of our defence industry and the need for us to support it. Of course, the industrial strategy outlined eight growth-driving sectors that we believe can be turbocharged with Government support—defence was one of them. We have published those sector plans, apart from the defence one, which will come shortly—he should look out for it. We have significantly increased funding for defence, which will lead to thousands of jobs across the UK. I will work closely with my colleagues in defence, particularly the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, to ensure that we procure UK jobs where we can and support our industry to grow. \p Clive Betts: First, I thank the Minister for her action—after 14 years of inaction by the Conservative party, it is a welcome change. Sheffield is synonymous with steel, particularly  special steels, after Harry Brearley invented stainless steel in the city over 100 years ago. The Minister mentioned public procurement, and consideration being given—I think those were the words she used—to the purchase of British steel. May I ask her to be clearer about what “consideration” means? I hope that it means looking not simply at the narrow issue of costs for a product, but at the wider benefits of purchasing UK steel—benefits to the steel and engineering sectors, as well as to the broader economy. Will she assure us that when public procurement takes place, those wider considerations will come into effect? \p Sarah Jones: Yes, within the parameters of what we can do legally, in terms of subsidies. We are ensuring, and the Cabinet Office is keen to ensure, that when we spend public money, we buy British. The value of that, and of British jobs around the country, is recognised in the contracts that we pursue. My hon. Friend talks about the importance of steel in his area. I have talked with colleagues about developing a steel corridor, which I think is important. We are pursuing that through the steel strategy. \p Chris Law: The Minister was right to come here today to make a statement on such an important part of the national infrastructure. It is just a shame that no Minister has ever made a statement in this House on Grangemouth. We have now learned that the Chancellor met INEOS chair Jim Ratcliffe just three weeks ago—just three weeks before Petroineos Grangemouth closed—but she did not do so much as raise the refinery with him. In her statement, the Minister said: “the Government stand with the affected steelworkers in Rotherham, in Sheffield and in Wednesbury. We stand with their families”. That is quite right; so do we in the SNP. But why have this Labour Government never stood with the workers of Grangemouth? \p Lindsay Hoyle: It is up to the Minister to answer that question if she wants to, but the statement is about steel, rather than petroleum. \p Sarah Jones: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will just say that we have very much stood with the workers of Grangemouth. We are investing, through the National Wealth Fund, £200 million to support that development. I have had multiple conversations, and the hon. Gentleman and I have spoken multiple times in this place, about how we will support industry in Grangemouth to transition and grow, and provide significant support to workers where they lose jobs. I fundamentally disagree with the picture that he paints. \p Olivia Blake: I thank the Minister for her action. Steel remains a key part of the South Yorkshire industrial and economic strategies. Can she reassure the House that workers’ wages and livelihoods will continue to be prioritised throughout the whole process, and will she join me in thanking our hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for their work to champion not just the sites in Stocksbridge and Rotherham, but the South Yorkshire steel corridor? \p Sarah Jones: Of course. I share that gratitude for those amazing colleagues who stand up for what they know to be right and sensible. We are protecting not  something that is not worth protecting, but something that has a vibrant and viable future; that is what we are working towards. We are working closely with the South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority and the Mayor. In broader advanced manufacturing in the region, including the innovation district and research centre, there is a huge wealth of expertise and talent that we can build on. \p Julian Lewis: I am grateful to the Minister for the frankness of her statement. She says that the director of the company is under investigation for suspected fraud, fraudulent trading and money laundering. Can she reassure the House that that will not in any way hold up the Government in taking any remedial steps that they need to take in support of the industry and its workforce? For background knowledge, will she tell the House precisely what sort of specialisms this plant offers, given that it names itself a Speciality Steel enterprise? \p Sarah Jones: The right hon. Gentleman should perhaps go for a tour and see what the speciality is, but it is defence, aerospace and industrial engineering on the Stocksbridge site. The Rotherham site has two electric arc furnaces, which feed the Stocksbridge site, and there is huge expertise there. There are a number of other sites that feed various sectors, such as the automotive industry, hydraulics and a whole range of others. There are a range of specialisms.

On the investigation, the official receiver will look at what is true and what is not, because there have not been any accounts published for many years. They will establish what has happened. The Secretary of State has written to the Insolvency Service today to ask it to take special account of the Serious Fraud Office investigation, and to pass over any information it uncovers to the Serious Fraud Office, so that it can do its work. \p Gill Furniss: I congratulate the Minister on the decisions she has made in the last few weeks. We in Sheffield are very proud of our steel industry, and we want to resurrect it. We want people to be proud of the city, and to get into the same work that their grandparents did many years ago. Constituents who have been in contact with me on the issue will be very relieved, following the reassurance that the Minister has given, but if she could clarify the pension issue, that would offer even more reassurance.

I am so proud to hear our Minister speaking about steel, and I am quite disgusted at the way the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), and other Conservative Members have tried to pretend that they did not run down the steel industry. They never even had a steel strategy in all their years in office. They really ought to apologise for the absolute rubbish they were talking. \p Sarah Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the failings of the Opposition, which we all understand very well. On the pension issue, I recognise the concern that people will have. We have to let the official receiver get under the hood and work out what has been paid and what has not, because that is not clear. Once we  know, we will look into that and do what needs to be done, but I do not want to say something on the subject until we know the reality. \p Richard Tice: I congratulate the Minister and the Government on doing the right thing in supporting our steel industry. I have been expressing concern about Liberty Steel since 2021. This is a critical moment, and it will be interesting to see whether private sector investment can be attracted into electric arc furnaces, with electricity prices where they are. I think there is a better solution, which I have spoken about outside this House: merging Speciality Steel with British Steel to create a cohesive, excellent, strong champion of our steel industry that we all support into the future and invest in. That is the way to ensure economic growth in this country. \p Sarah Jones: The official receiver is independent. Of course, we are very interested in this, and are keeping in close touch with the receiver on what comes out of this. The hon. Member’s idea is not necessarily foolish, on this occasion. This is a legal process, and the official receiver legally has to think of the creditors who have suffered throughout—we have to think of them as well, and make sure we do the right thing—but we will continue to do everything we can to make sure that there is a viable future, whatever form that takes. \p Jessica Morden: Like others, I very much appreciate the support being given today and the wider work being done on energy prices, procurement and more. By complete contrast, the Conservative party had no steel strategy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) said, and had a woeful record on steel over 14 years. However, market conditions are particularly tough—a point made to me strongly by trade union representatives at Llanwern steelworks over the summer—so will the Minister ensure that we support the steel industry as a whole, including Llanwern, and that Wales gets its share of the green steel fund? \p Sarah Jones: We talked before Parliament returned about how we can support Llanwern and the work done there. My hon. Friend is right that this is a difficult time for the steel industry. There are headwinds that we need to address: we need to conclude the negotiations with our US counterparts and bring in energy price reductions, which will make a big difference, and we need the steel strategy. We are putting all these things in place. We believe that there is a great future for steel in south Wales, and we will continue to support it. \p Andrew Murrison: British warships are made with a mixture of UK and non-UK steel. What impact will this announcement have on that mix, particularly for the Type 26 frigate programme, about which we had some good news earlier this week? \p Sarah Jones: Navantia, which is building three ships, has recently entered into a contract to use Liberty’s steel; that relates to the Dalzell plant in Scotland, so it is unaffected by the announcements we have made today. Of course, I work very closely with my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that we use British Steel  where we can, and that we have the right infrastructure across the country, producing the right types of steel. We produce some types of steel for defence and not others, and some types of steel for shipping and not others. We need to do everything we can to protect British jobs and produce what we can here in the UK. \p Chris McDonald: It would have enhanced the shadow Minister’s response if he had at least acknowledged that this Government are literally picking up the pieces after the chaotic dismemberment of the steel industry on the Conservative party’s watch. I have worked at Stocksbridge and Rotherham, and I pay tribute to the workforce there—but also to the dedicated steel team in the Department, who I know will have been working long hours in supporting the Minister on this.

The Government now own, control or fund three of the UK’s six steel companies. While a full merger of British Steel and Speciality Steel is one option, at the very least a review of all the assets under the Government’s purview would be a good idea, to see whether we can create more sustainable, investable businesses and reintegrate some of the internal supply chains. Would the Minister consider that? \p Sarah Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his words, and particularly his thanks to officials in the Department, who are brilliant; I work with them very closely, and they have not had many weekends throughout the whole steel process undertaken by this Government. His expertise is very much welcomed. We will continue to speak about this, as we did yesterday, and to use his expertise. Of course, we need to look at the whole situation. He is right that the Government are now involved in a number of steel companies, although we do not have ownership of any of them, and it is a different kind of involvement in different parts of the country. We are reviewing all that, and we want to see what the best mix is; we will continue to take his advice on that. \p Llinos Medi: The Government have made direct interventions for steel jobs in Scunthorpe and now in Rotherham. That is no comfort for steelworkers in Wales; no similar measures were taken to protect their jobs. Can the Minister explain why her Government will save jobs in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, but will only help workers in Port Talbot to write CVs and search for new jobs? \p Sarah Jones: As the hon. Lady will know, one of the blast furnaces had already closed by the time we came into government. We had long conversations with Tata about a different model that we had hoped it would pursue. We were unsuccessful with that. We have now improved the outcomes and the support for that workforce, and I was very pleased to be at the first stage of the build of the electric arc furnace at Port Talbot in July, which will secure many thousands of jobs there. We will continue to support Port Talbot with the £500 million that we are investing. \p Luke Myer: I thank the Minister for her statement, and for the decisive action this Government have taken to safeguard steel jobs across the country. Liberty Pipes is delivering an important contract for the Government’s landmark  carbon capture, usage and storage project in our region. Can the Minister provide assurance not only that those jobs in our region are unaffected, but that this project continues at pace? \p Sarah Jones: Liberty Pipes is separate and is not part of this situation at all. Of course, there will be concern in the wider group about the impact—I understand that—but at the moment, there is no crossover. Liberty Pipes will continue to do what it is doing and, I am sure, will continue to support the CCUS industry, which is great news for the workers there, and great news for us. \p John Cooper: It is good news that Liberty Steel Dalzell in Scotland is not involved in this immediate crisis, but it is not shroud-waving to suggest that the difficulties in the wider industry may mean that one day it will become involved. When the overdue steel strategy arrives, will it be a 360° look at steel production as a whole, in every corner of this country? Will the Minister help Scottish colleagues get to the bottom of the Scottish Government’s murky deal with this company, which means that they are on the hook for potentially as much as £565 million, a quite incredible sum, which is deeply troubling? The Scottish Government are using the devolution settlement to hide behind. What is going on there? Will she shine a torch of truth on that aspect of the steel industry? \p Sarah Jones: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Dalzell is a separate legal entity, so it is not affected, but he is right to worry about the overall situation and its possible impact on the company. I will look into the point he raised about the Scottish Government and Liberty. We are looking at what the steel industry should look like across the whole of the UK; the devolved Governments are involved in the steel strategy, as well as the unions, the industry and others, so we are taking a holistic view of the whole UK to see what we can do with steel. \p Sammy Wilson: The Minister is right to state that the business environment has not been good for the UK steel industry. The main cause for that adverse environment, of course, has been high energy prices—twice as high as those of European competitors and three times higher than those of US competitors. Given that the energy sector reminds us daily that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero intends to continue his manic obsession with net zero, which has caused the high energy prices and this environment, how does the Minister hope to attract the private investment that she says is necessary to make the industry bounce back stronger and to grow tomorrow? \p Sarah Jones: Industrial energy prices doubled under the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the impact of the Ukraine war on our energy prices highlighted how we are reliant on the global oil and gas market. That is why we are pushing for clean energy by 2030, to take us away from that reliance and to stop such a crisis happening again.

I should point out that the crisis at Liberty is nothing to do with energy prices—it operates electric arc furnaces, so it is not anything do with carbon pricing or anything else the right hon. Gentleman might be referring to. He is right that energy prices are too high, which is why we are intervening. We will see a significant reduction in  electricity costs when we extend the industry super-charger from 60% to 90%. As I outlined earlier, in a scenario where Speciality Steel is producing what it was producing a couple of years ago, that will give it upwards of £1.5 million off its energy costs. That is a lot more than the previous Government ever did. \p Bradley Thomas: UK manufacturing has been undervalued for far too long. One of the best ways to support industry is to ensure that its cost base is as low as possible. Will the Minister commit to the House that, in 12 months’ time, UK manufacturers will face lower energy costs than today? Will she also rule out further national insurance increases? \p Sarah Jones: UK manufacturing suffered under the previous Government, who had no strategy, did not really believe in it and allowed thousands of jobs to be lost across a range of different industries. This Government are taking a fundamentally different approach: we have an industrial strategy under which we intervene directly to grow the industries of the future, including foundational industries such as steel, which are so important to us for many different reasons. We are also introducing energy price reductions that, for companies such as Liberty that use high levels of energy, will mean significant reductions in their costs by next year. We are introducing an additional energy reduction for a wider group of up to 7,000 companies, which by 2027 will also receive a significant reduction. Again, that is something that the previous Government never did. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her statement and for her commitment. On anything that I have ever had to speak to the hon. Lady about, she has always been willing to try to achieve something to give security for jobs, and I thank her for that personally. The fact that some 1,450 jobs are on the line is devastating not only for all the families concerned, but for the subsidiary supply companies and those that rely on high-quality steel for their manufacturing. In Northern Ireland, for example, that includes Harland & Wolff, aerospace and the construction sector. For the future of steel, the sector must continue to win future contracts for our industry. How can she provide certainty in these uncertain days? \p Sarah Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He is right to point to the supply chain and the need for us to support not just the key industries, but the whole network of small and medium-sized companies across the whole UK, not just in Northern Ireland. I was in Belfast a couple of weeks ago, and I was delighted to see at Harland & Wolff the building under way of the three ships that are part of the MOD contract with Navantia. I was also pleased to go to Spirit, given our good conversations with Boeing about the future of that site and what it could look like. I also met lots of other parts of the industry. Advanced manufacturing in Northern Ireland is showing the way in lots of new technologies that we need to support. I will continue to support them. \p Caroline Nokes: Before I call the Minister, I remind hon. Members that they should avoid referring to any active cases that are currently before the courts. \p Jess Phillips: I would like to update the House on the progress being made to deliver Baroness Casey’s recommendations following her national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, which was published before the summer recess.

The sexual exploitation and abuse of children by grooming gangs are the most horrific and despicable crimes. Girls as young as 10 were exploited, abused and brutally raped by gangs of men, and then disgracefully let down again and again by the authorities that were meant to protect them. These despicable crimes have caused the most unimaginable harm to victims and survivors throughout their lives and are a stain on our society.

Baroness Casey’s report chronicled more than a decade of inaction on these appalling crimes by previous Governments, despite repeated warnings and recommendations. But this Government will not lose any more time in pursuing truth and justice for victims and survivors, who deserved so much better. That is why, on 16 June, the Home Secretary made it abundantly clear that this Government will accept all 12 of Baroness Casey’s recommendations, including the establishment of a new statutory national inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation, and a new national policing operation to get more perpetrators behind bars. Since then, we have made significant strides in laying the foundations for a robust, survivor-centred national inquiry and in establishing a national policing operation, while continuing to drive forward the major workstreams that were already well under way to tackle those abhorrent crimes.

I will first update the House on the progress made to establish a new national policing operation to get perpetrators who exploit, abuse and harm children behind bars, where they belong. Today, I can announce that Operation Beaconport has been established. It will be overseen by the National Crime Agency and delivered in partnership with policing, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the CSE taskforce and the tackling organised exploitation programme.

For the very first time, this new national policing operation brings together all the relevant policing partners under one operation, to ensure a swift and specialist law enforcement response to grooming gang offending. This collaborative approach ensures that a long-term investigative capability is built across policing and that best practice is standard, ending an unacceptable postcode lottery for victims and survivors. The new national operation will eliminate inconsistencies on how cases are handled across forces and will ensure that there is no hiding place for perpetrators. Victims and survivors are central to the operation, and trauma-informed practice will be at its core. Over the summer I have been meeting survivors and their support organisations on the issue.

This work is already well under way. In January the Home Secretary asked police forces to identify cases involving grooming and child sexual exploitation that had been closed with no further action, to pursue new lines of inquiry and to reopen investigations where appropriate. As a result of that commission, 1,273 cases have now been identified for formal review, and the new national operation has identified 216 highest priority cases—those that involve an allegation of rape—which are being accelerated as a matter of urgency.

We expect policing to meticulously pore over those cases and work with associated victims to relentlessly pursue perpetrators who should be behind bars. That includes the ongoing investigation relating to South Yorkshire Police’s handling of reports into child sexual abuse and exploitation in Rotherham. Following discussions between the Independent Office for Police Conduct, South Yorkshire Police and the National Crime Agency, I can confirm that it has been formally agreed that the investigation will now be carried out by the NCA, under the direction and control of the IOPC.

Alongside these ongoing reviews, Operation Beaconport will also provide additional support for police forces to conduct complex investigations, and to ensure that specialist best practice is being adopted consistently across the country. I thank the CSE taskforce for the work that it has done in preparing the way forward for these investigations. I can announce to the House today that in the first year that this Government were in office, from July 2024 to July 2025, the taskforce contributed to 827 arrests nationwide, an 11% increase on the previous year.

To bolster this vital work, I can update the House that last month I announced that the Government would be injecting £426,000 of new funding to the tackling organised exploitation programme, in addition to the £8.8 million that we are already investing in the programme this year. The new funding will enable TOEX to extend access to its suite of cutting-edge investigative apps and digital tools, stored within its secure capabilities environment, to all police forces in England and Wales. Following my announcement of a further investment, in addition to the 15 police forces that are already utilising TOEX tools, a further 10 forces are currently onboarding.

The TOEX expansion crucially supports the first phase of Operation Beaconport. Police officers will be able to access the AI-enabled tools to assist with detecting and investigating child sexual abuse and exploitation, including TOEX translate, a tool for bulk translation of foreign language text from seized mobile devices, which has enabled savings of an estimated £25 million so far, and the data analysis and review tool, which analyses large amounts of digital data to identify communications patterns and relationships between suspects. Further announcements on Operation Beaconport will be made by operational partners shortly. A comprehensive update is expected in the coming weeks, setting out the full scope of the operation and the support available to those affected.

We will never shy away from the facts in these cases. Following Baroness Casey’s audit and her conclusions on the disproportionate role of Pakistani-heritage gangs, and building on the work that the Home Secretary had already commissioned to improve ethnicity data in relation to those crimes, we have also committed to making it a  requirement to collect ethnicity and nationality data of suspects who commit child sexual exploitation and abuse offences. The Home Secretary has written to chief constables to signal that the current data collection across ethnicity and nationality is unacceptable, and that this data must be improved as a matter of urgency. Work is now under way looking to amend the annual data requirements to support this process, and we are looking at legislative options to drive forward these improvements.

Finally, Baroness Casey recommended the establishment of a new statutory national inquiry that could compel targeted investigations in local areas, to get truth and justice for victims and survivors, and to drive meaningful change in local systems and structures that had failed so many people in the past. I can confirm that the national inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse will place victims and survivors firmly at its heart. Crucially, it will ensure trauma-informed, accessible engagement for victims and survivors that reflects diverse lived experiences and minimises the risk of re-traumatisation.

The inquiry will examine how effectively local and national safeguarding systems protected children from group-based sexual exploitation and abuse, and hold institutions accountable for past failures. As the Home Secretary said in June, its purpose must be to challenge what Baroness Casey’s audit described as continued “denial”, “resistance” and “legal wrangling” among local agencies. The inquiry will consider intersections with ethnicity, race and culture, and assess the safeguarding duties of public services, identifying both failures and examples of good practice.

I know that everyone in the House and beyond wants to see the inquiry begin its work at the earliest opportunity. Colleagues will know that that requires the appointment of a chair and the agreement of terms of reference. Following a recruitment process over the summer, Home Office officials, the Home Secretary and I have met with prospective candidates for the chair of the inquiry and we are now in the final stages of the appointment process. Most importantly, the chair must have the credibility and experience to command the confidence of victims and survivors, as well as the wider public. Meaningful engagement with victims and survivors is paramount. To support that, a dedicated panel of victims and survivors has been established to contribute to the chair selection process. This is a critical milestone, and once an appointment is confirmed, the House will be updated at the earliest opportunity.

Members from across the House will understand that this process must be done properly and thoroughly. We must avoid a repeat of what happened with the efforts to appoint a chair of the original independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, when three chairs were appointed and subsequently withdrew, from July 2014 onwards, prior to the eventual appointment of Professor Alexis Jay in 2016, a full two years after the original chair was named. We are determined to ensure that that does not happen again.

In line with the Inquiries Act 2025, the appointed chair will play a central role in shaping the commission’s terms of reference. These will be published and subject to consultation with stakeholders, including victims and survivors. The inquiry is expected to run for two to three years, enabling it to examine a broad range of  issues, while honouring Baroness Casey’s recommendation that it must be time-limited to deliver answers swiftly, a key request not just from victims and survivors, but from Members from across this House.

The inquiry will begin by identifying priority areas for review, conducting targeted local investigations and reporting findings at both local and national levels. These reviews will be tailored to the specific context of each area and may involve a wide range of organisations, including children’s and family services, police, the Crown Prosecution Service, health and education providers, youth services, third-sector organisations and central Government Departments, whose actions and decisions have affected what has happened at a local level. Where appropriate, the inquiry will issue recommendations at both local and national levels. We will continue to keep Members of the House, the victims and the public informed of all appointments and the terms of reference.

The Government remain unwavering in their commitment to ensuring that this inquiry is robust, transparent and capable of delivering truth, accountability and meaningful change. As we have said from the outset, we are determined to ensure that every survivor of grooming gangs gets the support and justice they deserve; that every perpetrator is put behind bars; that every case, historic or current, has been properly investigated; and that every person or institution who looked the other way is held accountable, as that is a stain on our society that should be finally removed for good. I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Given that the Minister has just taken 12 minutes, I will be extending the time allowance to the shadow Home Secretary to six minutes and to the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats to three minutes. I call the shadow Home Secretary. \p Chris Philp: I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.

Let us remember that victims are at the heart of this: young girls, some only 10 years old, were groomed and gang raped by men of predominantly Pakistani origin. They were girls like Jane, who was just 12 years old when she was raped by an illegal immigrant, but when she was found by police, instead of arresting the rapist, the police arrested Jane; or like Anna, only 15 years old, who repeatedly told social workers that she had been gang raped, but instead of helping her, they allowed her to marry her main abuser in an Islamic ceremony, and the social worker even attended the ceremony. The ring leader of the Rochdale rape gang, Shabir Ahmed, was actually employed as a welfare rights officer by Oldham council.

In another case, a man tried to rescue his young daughter from being raped, but instead of protecting her, the police arrested her dad. I spoke to a mother whose daughter was raped by taxi drivers of Pakistani origin. When she complained to social services, they said that if she dared to raise the matter again, she would lose her daughter.

I spoke to a retired police officer who was told by a senior officer at the time to stop investigating abuse by Pakistani-origin taxi drivers in Bradford because the police locally did not want to offend Bradford’s Muslim community. A former Labour MP, Simon Danczuk, was even told by senior Labour party figures to stop asking questions in his constituency to avoid antagonising the Muslim community. These crimes were deliberately covered up by people in authority because so-called community relations were seen as more important than protecting young girls. That is a disgrace.

The Minister claimed in her statement a moment ago that nothing had been done about this issue previously. I do not want to dwell on this, but I gently remind her that it was the last Government who set up the original Rotherham inquiry in 2014 and set up the long-running independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which was much broader but did touch on this issue. We started to collect data on the ethnicity of suspects and set up Operation Soteria to combat sex crimes; I attended many meetings on that. We set up the grooming gangs taskforce, which led to 550 arrests in its first year, and I am glad that that is continuing. We introduced legislation to require mandatory reporting, and I am again glad that the Government are continuing that work.

It is clear that much more is needed. However, this Government have had to be dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way. When the Government’s rejection of Oldham’s call for a national inquiry became public on 6 January, the Prime Minister disgracefully smeared as “far-right” those supporting calls for that proper inquiry. That kind of language is how these crimes got covered up in the first place. Some 10 days later, the Government partially U-turned and announced local inquiries. On 16 June, faced with a parliamentary vote two days later, the Government finally announced a statutory national inquiry not because they chose to or wanted to, but because they were forced to. What the Prime Minister claimed was a “far-right bandwagon” in January had become Government policy by June. Here we are, three months later, and almost no progress has been made.

My office has been in contact with survivors in Oldham today, and they have heard nothing. We now discover that no chair has been appointed and there are no terms of reference. There is no news on towns such as Oldham or Bradford, and nothing of substance at all. That is just not good enough. Will the Minister tell the House a precise date when a chair will be appointed and when we will have terms of reference? Will this inquiry have full statutory powers under the 2005 Act? Will she confirm that all 50 towns affected will be covered?

Will the Minister confirm that no police force or council will be able to investigate themselves? Perhaps most importantly, will she confirm that this inquiry will look at those in authority—the police, the CPS and local councils—who deliberately covered this up? Those people were more interested in appeasing certain minority communities than in protecting young girls. Finally, does she agree that those individuals responsible for deliberately covering up this issue should be prosecuted for misconduct in public office and, if they are convicted, sent to jail? \p Jess Phillips: I partially thank the shadow Home Secretary for his tone, but I will correct the record. I did not say that he had done nothing: I said that Baroness Casey said that there had been

“a decade of inaction on these appalling crimes by previous Governments”.

That is exactly what I said.

I answered in my statement many of the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. His office may have spoken to some of the Oldham victims today; I spoke to some of them personally last night, so I keep in touch with lots of victims. What I will not do—what I will never do—is make it so that they are not involved. It takes time to ensure that this process is completely victim centred. Frankly, I am sure that is what he and other Members on the Opposition Benches who have written to me with that request want to see, and that is the process we are undertaking.

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, no local authority area can turn the inquiry down. The Home Secretary and I have said a number of times that it is a full, powerful statutory inquiry. I have seen some scaremongering, and victims have written to me to say, “This will not cover Government officials or people who covered things up.” That is absolute nonsense. Let me be very clear, and let it be taken away by everybody who I am sure has the best interests of victims at heart, that it will cover what it needs to cover to uncover the truth, and no stone will be left unturned. That will make for difficult conversations for people.

If people are found by our court system to have undermined and disgraced public office, they should of course be sent to prison. However, that has never happened to date in these cases. I very much hope that we uncover the kind of social workers that the right hon. Gentleman refers to, and I hope that they face the full force of everything that they deserve to face, but there is absolutely nothing that says that anybody can avoid this inquiry. It will be up to the inquiry, which is independent and statutory, to look at and work with areas about where this will be. \p Debbie Abrahams: I thank my hon. Friend for her statement. No one doubts her, and her team’s, absolute commitment to addressing the root causes of the abuse and exploitation that so many women and some boys have experienced. In my contact with women this morning—I speak on their behalf—I heard that they are absolutely committed and understand and reflect the commitment of my hon. Friend, but they are keen to know a bit more detail about when the chair can be appointed and about the relationship that the national inquiry will have with the local inquiries.

My hon. Friend quite rightly said that victims and survivors should be engaged and involved in the appointment of the chair, and that is so important. Will she say more about how we will ensure that there is locality-specific representation as well? There are slight differences according to locality. \p Jess Phillips: There absolutely are. My hon. Friend is exactly right that there are differences, so it will be for the chair, a panel and a commission to do that work in localities and ensure that victim engagement is really location specific.

With regard to the specific issue in Oldham, we have been engaging very closely with Oldham for some time, including with victims and survivors. As I said, I spoke to some of them last night about wanting them to be part of the terms of reference for the national inquiry. Our offer for a full and local independent inquiry in Oldham remains in place, and we are in discussion with them about how they want to proceed in the context of the national inquiry. We do not want to have victims having to do a repetitive exercise, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are speaking to officials in Oldham very regularly. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Lisa Smart: I am grateful as always to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. In every single conversation about this issue in this House, our first thought must always be with the victims and the survivors. No child should ever suffer the devastating trauma of sexual exploitation or abuse. These crimes are abhorrent and an assault on the very values of our society. We carry a responsibility to act, to secure justice for victims, to ensure that offenders answer for their crimes and to build a future in which such suffering is not repeated.

In 2022, Professor Alexis Jay published her independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. In June, Baroness Casey released her report on group-based exploitation. I am really grateful to the Minister for her update on the progress being made, but when does she expect to have implemented the crucial recommendations from both reports?

Baroness Casey was clear about one of her key recommendations: the Government must end the practice of out-of-area taxis by introducing stronger national standards for taxi licensing and driver regulation. Across Greater Manchester, we know that problem all too well; for years, drivers have exploited the fragmented system by securing the easiest licences to obtain from councils in one area and then operating elsewhere. As a result, many taxis working in Greater Manchester are licensed 100 miles away in Wolverhampton. What work is the Minister doing to address that specific issue? It feels like there is an opportunity to do so this afternoon through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, but that opportunity has not yet been taken. If an amendment to the Bill is the way to achieve that aim, will the Minister work with colleagues across the House to ensure that this important recommendation from Baroness Casey can be delivered?

Finally, I turn to an issue that I and others have raised repeatedly, and on which some progress was hinted at in recent press reports. Could the Minister confirm when Parliament will see legislation for a Hillsborough law, as promised many times by the Government, to guarantee that public officials and authorities co-operate fully with a duty of candour in cases such as this one, including in the upcoming national inquiry? \p Jess Phillips: I met the Department for Transport on the issue of taxi licensing last week—this is about looking for a legislative vehicle. The Government have said that we will undo some of the harm caused by the deregulation legislation of the past, including the dangers  that have come about related to safeguarding and taxi licensing. The hon. Lady invited Members to work across the House. In every interaction—there have been many—that I have had with victims of this crime since the last time I or the Home Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box making a statement, they have asked if we could just work together and stop throwing mud at each other. I will happily work with anyone on this issue. We are currently looking for legislative vehicles, but we do seek to legislate.

We expect the Hillsborough law shortly; I am sorry that that is not a very prescriptive answer, but that law is very much expected. \p Charlotte Nichols: The last Government failed to implement a single recommendation from the IICSA report, and Professor Alexis Jay herself spoke of the huge anger and disappointment at their response. Baroness Casey’s work rightly focuses on the future and I am grateful for today’s statement, but can the Minister please reassure me that the extraordinary work of Professor Jay and all the brave victims and survivors who contributed to her inquiry will not be forgotten and that the Government will implement the IICSA recommendations in full, including its recommendations on the criminal injuries compensation scheme? Currently, that scheme excludes far too many victims of group-based child sexual exploitation and leaves them without adequate support to rebuild their lives. \p Jess Phillips: I praise my hon. Friend for her long-term commitment in this space. The Government have given a number of updates on IICSA. I expect to come back to this House soon—one way or another—with further updates on progress in that area. Much of the progress we are seeking to make is through Bills that are currently passing through Parliament and are over in the other place, but my hon. Friend makes the very important point that we must not undermine the two-year piece of work that has already been done by Professor Jay. We will make sure that all those findings and recommendations, which Casey included as well, and any intelligence that is sent to us feeds into the new national independent inquiry. \p Robbie Moore: Over the summer, Lord Cryer said that there was a deliberate attempt to silence his mother, Ann Cryer, when she first bravely raised the issue of grooming gangs in Keighley more than 20 years ago. Ann Cryer was, of course, one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for Keighley.

Lord Cryer said that he was

“absolutely certain there has been a cover up on a local level”,

and that Bradford needs to be examined as part of the inquiry. Unfortunately, Bradford council and others in this House are still saying that they will only support a focus on Bradford if that is deemed necessary by the inquiry chair. That is not the same thing as saying that they will actively lobby for that outcome, so does the Minister share my concern that Bradford council’s reluctance for an inquiry to take place in our area has not changed, despite the voices of so many victims and others demanding one? \p Jess Phillips: I pay tribute to Ann Cryer, a woman I am incredibly fond of—personally as well as professionally—for her immense bravery. I have no doubt that none of us would be sitting in the Chamber today talking about any of this had it not been for her; she deserves absolute credit.

I do not recognise the characterisation that the hon. Gentleman has given. I have not had any particular pushback, or heard anywhere suggesting that the inquiry should not be looking into certain areas or giving any sense that they will resist it, but I would say to all local areas: resistance is futile. \p Paul Waugh: I welcome today’s update on the national inquiry into grooming gangs, particularly the way in which the Minister has made sure that victims and survivors are definitely going to be at the heart of whatever happens. During the trial of seven members of a Rochdale grooming gang earlier this year, it emerged in court that the social workers involved had referred to one of the victims—who was 13 at the time—as a prostitute. Other victims, who were 10 at the time, were also called prostitutes. I know the Minister will agree that the criminalisation of young girls as prostitutes causes them further trauma later in life. These girls were victims and the state should recognise them as such, so what steps will the Minister take to ensure that such convictions for prostitution are disregarded as swiftly as possible? \p Jess Phillips: Often in this debate, we discuss how people felt nervous or anxious about ethnicity, when what is also evident in every single case—regardless of the ethnicity of the perpetrators—is the ability of agencies to look at women and think of them as something else, and to treat young girls poorly. That is exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about. The Crime and Policing Bill, which is going through Parliament, is going to disregard any child prostitution convictions. We are working with the Ministry of Justice to find the wider cohort of victims, and with bodies in the criminal justice system to identify and review cases and to support victims. It will not always have been prostitution charges; I have met many victims who have been criminalised for a variety of things that they probably should not have been. That will be a much more complicated process, but it is one that we have set in train. \p Mark Pritchard: I am glad that the Minister wants to put victims and survivors first, and I hope the whole House will join her in that. It is absolutely right that we all do so. She will be aware of the Tom Crowther inquiry, which highlighted 1,000 victims over 30 years in Telford and in some parts of my constituency. Earlier, the Minister said to the House that we do not want victims to have to undergo “a repetitive exercise”. I understand why she said that, but would she support the national inquiry going back to Telford to ensure that things that should have been done, but that still have not been done, will be done? Will she also ensure that the Labour council—forgive me—in Telford and Wrekin will not stand in the way of that progress? \p Jess Phillips: On the contrary: very few people have written to me more throughout this process than the leader of Telford council, who has talked about how they want to continue to make progress. I am very  familiar with what happened in Telford. Quite a lot of the evidence shows that people in Telford were groomed where I live, in Birmingham, yet the Telford inquiry—while brilliant—did not lead to any changes in neighbouring areas. That is exactly what we hope the national inquiry will do, so although I cannot direct where it must go, I absolutely want it to look at prior work that has been done and some of the gaps that have been identified, exactly as the right hon. Gentleman says. \p Clive Efford: I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. This is yet another example of the state turning its back on working-class people—in this case, young girls. I also welcome the fact that cold cases are going to be investigated and that those cases will be reopened if there is any evidence of criminal activity, but in the past when an inquiry has been announced, we have seen police suspend until the outcome of that inquiry investigations that they have been undertaking. Can the Minister assure us that that will not happen in this case? \p Jess Phillips: Yes. My hon. Friend makes an important point that we have to make sure that the inquiry is not used for further state inactivity. There have been cases where that has happened before. As we are undertaking a new national policing operation in Operation Beaconport at the same time as the national inquiry, I give him my absolute assurance that I will ensure that the two work closely together so that such a situation cannot happen, unless it would cause such judicial issues that it would have to happen. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: I truly thank the Minister for putting vulnerable girls first and central in her statement. As we all know, victims of sexual abuse are too often disbelieved by the authorities, whatever the circumstances. Speaking out takes immense courage, and people pay an immense cost only too often. I welcome her announcements regarding the national inquiry, but can she assure me that the Government’s delayed violence against women and girls strategy will clarify how victims will be supported to rebuild their lives, and can she please say when it will be published? \p Jess Phillips: There has been some reporting that the violence against women and girls strategy will not include child abuse victims and grooming gang victims. I can stand here and say that is utter rubbish; it absolutely will, and it will be published very shortly. Any delay is only out of my own perfectionism—I think that is what I will call it. This is a 10-year strategy that will last until at least the next Parliament, and it has to be right. Huge parts of it will absolutely be about support for victims. \p Andrew Pakes: I thank my hon. Friend not only for her statement, but for the care and determination she has brought to this role to centre the discussion and action around victims and young girls, and to work in collaboration with others—not just in this House, but those who are directly affected. May I just add to the points that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) raised about loopholes in taxi licensing? One of the biggest issues that comes up in my constituency, both from taxi users and women’s groups, as well as from the vast majority of decent, hard-working taxi drivers, is that these loopholes, and ineffective and  outdated taxi licensing, give a bad name to the system as a whole. I urge the Minister to work with her colleagues and to ensure that as we proceed with the national inquiry, we also proceed with the updating of legislation to give protection to all. \p Jess Phillips: Absolutely. Long before Baroness Casey was pointing out the safeguarding issues, I was being lobbied by decent, hard-working people about the failures of the taxi licensing system as it stands. We will consider all options. As I have said, we have committed to legislating specifically on this point, but we are also looking at including out-of-area working, as well as national standards and enforcement, and at consulting on making local transport authorities responsible for licensing. \p Esther McVey: What a disappointment. I came to the House today to listen to the Minister’s statement in the hope that we would get some detailed information about the Government’s statutory inquiry. What have we had today? A long statement and little information. In fact, I would go so far as to say that what this Government are doing with the rape gang inquiry is a masterclass in procrastination. What did we hear from the Prime Minister? That it was a right-wing bandwagon. What did we hear from senior Ministers? That it was a dog whistle issue. We want to know what the terms of reference are and when they will be put on the Government’s website so that we can all inspect them. When will this conclude—or does the Minister hope that it will go on and on past the next general election? \p Jess Phillips: I am not sure the right hon. Lady wants to hear my hopes about the next general election. As I said earlier, the victims of this crime have sat in front of me with tears in their eyes and said that they hate it when we shout at each other about these things and that they wish we would work together. Just to tell her the details again, I outlined that 1,273 cases have now been identified by the new policing investigation, which was recommendation 1 of Baroness Casey. Of those, we are expediting 216 cases. The terms of reference will be published and consulted on, and I would very much welcome the right hon. Lady’s opinion. She has never asked for a meeting with me, and I would love to have one. If she would like to be involved in how we build those terms of reference up, please get in touch with my office. I have to say, however, that hers is not the voice I am most concerned about hearing—those people I am speaking to. \p Chris Murray: One of the most shocking indictments in Baroness Casey’s evidence to the Home Affairs Committee was the long list of inquiries and speeches, and the shocking lack of action that had followed, so I welcome the announcement that the Minister has made about action to tackle these issues. Can she update us on the establishment of the child protection agency, how it will be set up as this inquiry goes on, and how it will adjust and evolve as learnings from the inquiry come out? \p Jess Phillips: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because Baroness Casey pointed out how many of her recommendations hinge on there being a good child protection authority, and that work is being done by  Department for Education colleagues. I have been involved, along with Alexis Jay, and I have ensured that she has been in meetings with them. The authority will evolve, because what we do not want to do, contrary to the views of some in the House, is to wait forever to set it up or to try to get it exactly right first time when it is a complicated thing. It will evolve along the way, but all those involved in the inquiry, across both local and national bodies, will have the opportunity to feed in their views about what it needs to look like. \p Richard Foord: I am wholly supportive of this Government-commissioned report into group-based child sexual exploitation, but the Government must not be distracted from the places where child sexual abuse occurs most frequently. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children reports that 90% of young people who have been sexually abused said that the perpetrator was someone they knew. Around a third of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by young people under the age of 18, and the NSPCC says that in relation to sibling sexual abuse:

“The number of children affected by this hidden harm is far greater than is acknowledged by…policymakers”.

Is the Minister certain that the Government will not be distracted from abuse within schools and within families? \p Jess Phillips: I praise the hon. Gentleman for saying that, because familial abuse and child exploitation not by groups but by families or peer groups are, I am afraid to say, not uncommon. I know that from my years of experience. Those victims feel as if their voices are being marginalised. This piece of work that we have announced today is part of a much broader child abuse body that sits within the Home Office and works on all those things. The recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse keep us on that track, but we must not lose sight of all the abuse, especially that happening among young people against other young people and online. \p Katrina Murray: I thank the Minister for her statement today and for the recognition that a process that is supported by those people who should be at the heart of it is always difficult. We must take time to ensure that any inquiry has the faith of the people at the centre of it, because it will never be possible to do that again, as they have been failed too often.

We have discussed before how child abuse and exploitation does not stop at Gretna. Will the Minister outline what engagement there has been with the devolved Administrations on how we can make this a truly national inquiry? \p Jess Phillips: My hon. Friend is right. As I said earlier, there is likely to be border-crossing between Birmingham and Telford, which was mentioned in the earlier inquiry. We continue to discuss this with the devolved Administrations. The Scottish Government can set up a specific national inquiry under the Inquiries Act, as we have, but any cross-border findings will of course be shared, action will be sought, and, potentially, recommendations will be made. \p Julian Smith: At the start of the summer, there were some horrendous reports about rapes and assaults committed by South Yorkshire police. I welcome the decision to involve the National Crime Agency and strip responsibility for those investigations from the force, but can the Minister confirm that the national inquiry will examine the role of the police not only in cover-ups but in the crimes themselves? \p Jess Phillips: South Yorkshire police should never have been left to investigate themselves in this matter, and moving those investigations to the NCA is absolutely the right thing to do. I would be lying if I said that over the years I had not met girls who talked to me about how police were part of not just the cover-up but the perpetration. We must ensure that victims can come and give that testimony. It is harder to give than other testimony because it brings fear and a lack of trust, but if that is where the inquiry takes us because that is what victims say, that is what will happen. \p Catherine Atkinson: The crime of group-based child sexual exploitation is probably the most heinous imaginable. It is so brave of victims to speak out, seek justice and drive change so that other young lives are protected from such crimes. Can the Minister tell us more about how the national inquiry will engage with victims and survivors and ensure that their voices—and the voices of those who previously bravely contributed to investigations and inquiries—are central to the recommendations? Unlike the criminal law, the criminal injuries compensation scheme does not recognise that children cannot legally consent, and excludes those who have been deemed to consent from compensation. Will the Minister work with the Victims Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—to right that injustice? \p Jess Phillips: I absolutely commit myself to working with the Victims Minister. The issue of consent, and the age of consent, was a huge part of Baroness Casey’s review, and a number of Members have mentioned making this a victim-centred process. These are words that we say, but it is much harder in reality. We are talking about people who have been very badly wronged and whose level of trust has been badly affected. This is not something that happens easily. It is not a process in which every one of the victims will get on with the others. We will ensure that in both the national policing inquiry and the national statutory inquiry there are systems to enable as many voices as possible to be heard as comfortably as possible, but I do not think we should lie to the public about how easy those procedures are. I speak as someone who has worked in this field for a very long time. We are talking about very traumatised and distressed young people, and this will take considerably more effort and patience than I think they have been shown in the past. \p Steve Darling: Grooming gangs are entirely abhorrent, as are all forms of grooming leading to sexual exploitation. This summer I met a Torbay resident whose 15-year-old adopted son had been groomed online and then prostituted online. Can the Minister please tell us how she intends to tackle all forms of grooming that lead to sexual exploitation? \p Jess Phillips: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) mentioned the importance of drawing attention to the fact that, especially in the context of the online crime of sexploitation, boys are at greater risk. That is the only area of exploitation in which most of the victims are teenage boys, and it is a new and growing phenomenon. I say to the hon. Gentleman that in both the national inquiry and Operation Beaconport, the Home Secretary and I have been pushing at every stage for recognition of the fact that this process cannot just rake over historic coals. It must be grounded in recognition of the way in which abuse is happening now and improving police forces’ responses to it, and undoubtedly it is now happening online. The most frightening statistic that keeps me awake at night is that last year 53% of child sexual abuse was perpetrated by children aged between 10 and 17. \p Barry Gardiner: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for what has been a lifetime of work protecting women and girls. I welcome what she has said about updating the ethnicity data, which will enable the public debate to take place on the basis of data and fact rather than the prejudice and scaremongering of which she has spoken, but does she think it might also help to engender trust in the debate if she were to take this opportunity to acknowledge that there was a completely unacceptable woke reluctance to offend certain communities, and that this culture of deference, where it persists, must be stamped out? \p Jess Phillips: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words, and I will certainly take that opportunity, because I have seen this with my own eyes in cases in which I have been involved. People have said, “Oh, it might cause trouble.” That was not stopping them doing it, but they would not have even mentioned it to me in other circumstances.

What we have to do, and what we all owe to the victims of these crimes, is to call it what it is, but also not to use our own political agendas in relation to their very delicate and harmed lives, whatever form that takes. We do not want a backlash causing the police to go on thinking, “Oh gosh, this is going to open a can of worms.” We must all act responsibly in respect of these issues. However, I have definitely seen this, and it should never have been allowed to happen. \p John Lamont: I recently met Dr Joanna Kerr, an extremely brave survivor of child sexual exploitation and abuse in Scotland. As it stands, the national inquiry will not cover Scotland, and the Scottish National party Government will not launch their own. I ask the Minister again: will she commit herself to extending the national inquiry to cover all parts of the United Kingdom including Scotland, or do victims like Joanna not deserve justice? \p Jess Phillips: It is not that victims like Joanna do not deserve justice; they absolutely do deserve justice. I do not know about Joanna’s case, but I should be more than happy to meet her and talk to her about it. The body that must hold a national inquiry into events in Scotland is a body in the devolved Government, because both policing and child protection are devolved issues. However, as I said to one of my hon. Friends earlier, I am more than happy to look into this. People who are  Scottish, or who live in Scotland now, and have been abused in an area covered by the inquiry will absolutely be able to take part. \p Laurence Turner: One of the questions that haunt Baroness Casey’s audit is, “Why?” Why was this type of offending allowed to grow seemingly unchecked for so long? Will the Minister, whom it is good to see in her place, give an assurance that serious and credible research on all the factors that drove and enabled the horrendous crime of gang-based child sexual exploitation will be commissioned and will operate without fear or favour? \p Jess Phillips: Absolutely. One of Baroness Casey’s recommendations was for a piece of research on exactly that: the “why” about things that were covered up and the “why” about communities but also institutions. The Home Office is currently working with various academics to commission such research, and it is fundamental.

While a huge amount of discussion—and, as I have said, I agree with it—has concerned the “why” issue on ethnicity, with the nervousness, the wokeness or whatever we want to call it, another “why” is about class and the way in which the systems treat these young women when they come forward, and, indeed, the way in which they treat plenty of other women when they come forward in relation to any of these issues. \p Sammy Wilson: It is a pity that the Government have had to be dragged screaming into granting this inquiry into Pakistani rape and grooming gangs, but the inquiry is welcome. However, given the fact that nobody has been appointed yet, the terms of reference have not be determined and we do not even know how long the inquiry is going to take, I am sure the Minister will understand why victims will be looking for what can be done immediately to address their concerns. For those cases where police officers, social workers and council officials have been identified as covering up, can we be assured that their cases will be dealt with ahead of any inquiry? For those who have been put in jail, can we ensure that they serve out their sentences, unlike the Oxford Six, who were released early despite the recommendations? \p Jess Phillips: I did actually say in my statement that, as outlined in Baroness Casey’s review, the inquiry should take around two to three years and be time-sensitive. All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that in order to make sure that we are doing this right, we will shortly be providing an update on the chair of the inquiry. I gently remind him of the two years it took to find a chair for the child sex abuse inquiry—two years and three failed attempts. I do not want to do that to people this time, so that is why we are taking the time. \p Tan Dhesi: We all want to see an end to grooming gangs, and justice for victims and survivors, because exploiting the most vulnerable is about as despicable and heinous as it gets. We all know that perpetrators come from different backgrounds and communities, but certain politically motivated individuals are trying to blame particular communities, which is why they try to gloss over that fact in their effort to sow division and discord. We certainly cannot be politically correct about this either,  because no one, regardless of race or religion, is above the law. We cannot allow such an important issue to be treated like a sectarian political football by those who seek to sow division. Can my hon. Friend the Minister outline what the Government will do to root out this evil with this second national inquiry? How will it remain focused on victims and survivors, and how will she ensure that this debate is conducted in a sensible, sensitive manner? \p Jess Phillips: I stand here as a vessel of the victims who have spoken to me. They have not necessarily used the word “sectarian”, but they hate this issue being used as a political football. Baroness Casey, in the media that she did post releasing her report, said the same: she felt that politics was not meeting the moment in some of the responses. We have got to do better, and the very first thing that I would say is that I welcome the involvement and look forward to the engagement on the terms of reference, which will be published for consultation with every single Member of this House, regardless of what they might have said before or whether we might have fallen out on other occasions. I welcome the inquiry, and I want to make sure that we show the very best of this place, because that is the least that victims deserve. \p Bob Blackman: The Minister will be well aware that many of the victims of this disgraceful, despicable type of activity were originally taken from broken homes and put into the care of a local authority, and then groomed ruthlessly. Social workers turned a blind eye. Managers told social workers to turn a blind eye. The police, in many ways, were complicit. One of the problems is that the whistleblowers who came forward to tell the stories were all sacked. What action will the Minister take to ensure not only that the victims are protected, but that the whistleblowers who come forward and tell the truth of what was going on are similarly protected as part of this inquiry? \p Jess Phillips: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman—he is not a man I have fallen out with before. I heard from some whistleblowers this week that some of their testimony was not published by IICSA. When dealing with the terms of reference, we have to ensure that there are robust safeguards for whistleblowers. I have worked with one of the whistleblowers, Sara Rowbotham, who lost her job in Rochdale. I have met her and her Member of Parliament to talk about exactly some of that and how we need to get this right—not just in the inquiry or in Operation Beacon Port, but in the future. \p Charlie Dewhirst: On 6 August, the Minister described certain councils that do not believe that they have a problem with grooming gangs as “idiots”. Can she explain if that also applies to the Government, given the enormous pressure it took for them to implement this inquiry and the disparaging comments previously made by the Prime Minister? \p Jess Phillips: It would be playing a very long game to say that I have been taken kicking or screaming into this issue. Sarah Rowbotham was one of the whistleblowers,  and I wrote a book about her and this particular issue about nine years ago. I have also set up many, many support services for victims of these crimes. I will always do what I think is best in these cases, and I took the advice of Baroness Casey. Trying to see bad faith, or to score political points, is not what we should do. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I pay tribute to the Minister for her work and thank her for her statement.

This crime is absolutely abhorrent. Every single victim and survivor of this crime must get justice, no matter the perpetrator—Pakistani, Indian, English or anyone—so can we please dial down the politicisation and the inflammatory rhetoric in this place, and show total compassion and empathy when we work together to tackle this scourge in our country for every single victim? May I ask the Minister for a meeting with me and my colleagues so that we can learn how we can support the work of the Government in this space? \p Jess Phillips: Of course I will meet the hon. Gentleman and, like I say, any colleagues who wish to take part in this work. As somebody who represents a large and diverse community, I have to say that the Pakistani part of my community has been most fervent in wanting the truth to come out, because harm has been done to them by the alleged wokeness that has been talked about.

As I finish my statement, let me take this opportunity to say that we have to make sure that we have the facts and do not feel squeamish about the perpetrators. At 6 am on Monday morning, I met victims of this crime who are black, white and Asian. We must not silence those victims by only ever talking about one type of victim. The victimhood in group-based abuse is not just one type, apart from one thing: they are all girls. \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Shabana Mahmood, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Angela Rayner, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary Peter Kyle, presented a Bill to make provision about the sentencing, release and management after sentencing of offenders; to make provision about bail; to make provision about the removal from the United Kingdom of foreign criminals and the processing of information about foreign criminals for immigration purposes; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 299) with explanatory notes (Bill 299-EN). \p UNKNOWN: Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dr Al Pinkerton presented a Bill to make provision about offences relating to the misuse and illegal copying of vehicle registration marks; to require the Secretary of State to introduce measures to reduce incidences of such misuse and illegal copying; to make provision about support for victims of any such offences; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 298). \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Becky Gittins: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a review of allergy guidance relating to the feeding and weaning of babies and infants; and for connected purposes.

Having a child, I am told, is one of the most amazing and fulfilling times of a new parent’s life. I hope to be able to report back to the House on the validity of that claim later in the year. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] However, it can also be a period of huge anxiety. Parents are reliant on our brilliant NHS through pregnancy and those important first few months of a child’s life. They will be inundated with information via medical professionals, peers, support groups or the internet and will, of course, make the best decisions they can based on the information they have.

This matter is personal to me. As a long-time allergy sufferer expecting my first child, I have been actively seeking out information on how I can best militate against my child growing up with some of the food allergies that I have, and I am not alone.

Rates of allergic disease such as asthma, hay fever and food allergies have been increasing. The UK has some of the highest rates of allergic conditions in the world, affecting more than one quarter of the population. Allergic conditions are one of the most common chronic diseases in childhood. Around 6% of all visits to the GP are due to allergies, and medicines to treat allergic diseases account for 10% of the total GP prescribing budget. The direct cost to the NHS of managing allergic diseases is more than £1 billion per annum, but the cost in reality is likely to be much higher. The cost to individual allergy sufferers and their families is greater still, with huge impacts on their lives, as many of us know all too well—increased anxiety, social isolation and limited opportunities for travel and other experiences, because the health risks are far too high and allergy awareness is far too low. On average, two children in every classroom are affected by food allergies, and food allergy doubled in the UK between 2008 and 2018. The scale of the problem is huge, with allergies impacting every classroom and every GP surgery in the UK.

Having spoken to some of the most noted allergy specialists in the country ahead of today, it is clear to me that the current food allergy guidance for the feeding and weaning of babies and infants should be reviewed, with a particular focus on children who are showing early signs of allergic disease. Better addressing allergies at primary care level is a relatively simple but hugely effective way of moving the allergy conversation towards prevention.

The Government’s new 10-year plan for the NHS rightly demands that focus on prevention. Prevention in allergy is about recognising the key principle that preventing severe conditions from developing, rather than purely focusing on the treatment of those severe conditions, is better for both patients and the financial sustainability of our NHS. Rather than long waits to see allergy specialists and the hope of medical trials once a child  has already developed an allergy, which have huge waiting lists and are, sadly, not effective for everyone, improving our approach to allergy in our public health advice and primary care can be the key to preventing children from developing allergies in the first place.

The guidance should be reviewed for a number of reasons: to improve the clarity and consistency of message; to increase awareness; to help to empower healthcare professionals; and to ensure that ethnic minorities are not being put at a disadvantage. However, before I go into detail as to why the evidence suggests we need this review, I want to be clear about what this Bill is not.

Current NHS guidance recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about the first six months of the baby’s life, and that continuing breastfeeding into the baby’s second year or beyond, alongside other foods, is best for their development. The Bill does not contradict that advice. It is not about changing the advice given to the majority of parents; it is only for children who are beginning to show signs of allergy development, such as those with severe eczema and those already showing signs of food allergy. Additionally, any suggestion of early weaning for this cohort of children is to be done alongside breastfeeding. There are no suggestions in the studies that I cite to support the Bill that breastfeeding rates are impacted by altering public health advice to better prevent allergy.

NHS guidance on introducing foods that could trigger allergies shows that delaying the introduction of peanut and eggs beyond six to 12 months may increase the risk of developing an allergy to these foods. The report that this advice is based on is almost 10 years old. Other countries around the world have taken a more aggressive approach to allergy prevention over the past decade, and we in the UK need to learn and adapt based on the outcomes of those different approaches. The medical guidance and evidence from other parts of the world, including the US and some areas of Europe, actually goes further and encourages the early introduction of those allergens, which is particularly the case for children who display allergies early on.

The Learning Early About Peanut allergy study, or LEAP, looked at the introduction of peanut into the diet of infants aged between four and 11 months who were at high risk of peanut allergy, with high-risk infants defined as those with the presence of significant eczema and/or a pre-existing egg allergy. Published 10 years ago now, the study demonstrated that the consumption of snacks containing peanuts by infants who are at high risk of developing a peanut allergy prevents the subsequent development of the allergy. Of the children who avoided peanuts, 17% had developed a peanut allergy by the age of five, while only 3% of the children who were randomised to eating the peanut snack had developed the allergy by the age of five.

In the US, the guidance recommends that parents of children who are believed to be most likely to develop a peanut allergy—infants with severe eczema, an egg allergy or both—introduce these children to peanut-containing food at four to six months, or get a referral to an allergist who will give the child a skin prick test or blood test to check if the child is allergic to peanuts. European guidelines make similar recommendations on the early introduction of peanut and egg between four and six months.

While NHS guidance suggests that delaying the introduction of peanut and eggs may increase the risk of developing the allergy, I believe that more information should be given to parents when their child is showing early signs of allergy. The feedback I have had from speaking to young parents and parents-to-be is too often that the information for these children is too difficult to find, or that the medical professional the parents are engaging with is more likely to take a safety first approach and not encourage the early introduction of allergens.

I believe that a review of the guidance will help to empower our NHS to give the best, most medically appropriate information to parents at a time when they can be at their most anxious. It must be supported by education and awareness campaigns, together with training for the different healthcare professionals who support these new parents so that the advice they give is consistent and reflects best practice.

Finally, as I touched on at the start, I have concerns that the current lack of guidance is most likely to impact young children from ethnic minority families. The evidence suggests that these children are both more likely to develop an allergy and more predisposed to have multiple allergies. As a result, they are more likely to be disadvantaged without clear, unambiguous guidance on how their parents can navigate those first few months.

I ask hon. Members across the House for their support with the Bill so that we can get parents the best allergy advice for their children and so that we can mitigate the effects of, and in many cases ultimately prevent, allergic disease.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Becky Gittins, Jim Shannon, Chris Bloore, Alex McIntyre, Sarah Coombes, Kirith Entwistle, Jodie Gosling, Maya Ellis, Pam Cox, Claire Hughes, Satvir Kaur and Catherine Fookes present the Bill.

Becky Gittins accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 297). \p UNKNOWN: Second Reading

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on 28 January and 25 February 2025 on English Devolution, HC 600.] \p Caroline Nokes: The reasoned amendment in the name of the official Opposition has been selected. \p Angela Rayner: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Government were elected on a manifesto to deliver change—real change for working people; change that people can see and feel around them. That means more money in their pockets, decent jobs, new homes, good transport links, thriving high streets and opportunities for young people. But after 14 years of a Tory Government unwilling to take the tough choices to make life better for working people, it is no wonder that people have lost hope that real change is possible. And we have a plan to change that—a plan to give people with skin in the game real control over their lives and the power to have a real stake in their place and share in our country’s success.

Our landmark English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will deliver this and more. It will help us to build a modern state based on a fairer, stronger partnership between Government and local people, with the aim of renewing people’s faith that the state can work for them. That faith has been sorely tested in recent years. After more than a decade of broken promises from those on the Conservative Benches, people associate Whitehall with failure and decline. The communities that once built Britain have seen good jobs disappearing, secure homes crumbling and once-strong communities divided. Things that our parents and grandparents once relied on—that I relied on as a young mum—have fallen by the wayside. It is my mission to rebuild those foundations of a good life for all communities in all parts of our country.

I worked on the frontline of local government and I saw how it changes people’s lives. I know that I will not achieve our goals unless we fundamentally change the way that our country is run. That means handing power back to where it belongs—to local people with skin in the game—so that they can make decisions on what really matters to their communities. This Bill will drive the biggest transfer of power in a generation out of Whitehall to our regions and communities and end the begging bowl, micro-managing culture. It will make devolution the default setting by: giving mayors new powers over planning, housing and regeneration to get Britain building as part of our plan for change; rebuilding local government, so that it can once again deliver good local services that people can rely on; and empowering local communities to have a bigger say in shaping their local area. \p Wendy Morton: In the right hon. Lady’s attempts to drive forward this carthorse of devolution, will she tell us where the accountability and scrutiny will come from and where the voice of local people will really be heard? \p Angela Rayner: I am really disappointed, because I thought that the previous Government were the ones to turbocharge devolution, and we are moving on that agenda. We actually do believe that devolution is a good thing and that these measures will enable mayors and local areas to be empowered more to drive that growth that we desperately need in all parts of the country.

This Bill is long overdue. England is one of the most centralised developed countries in the world. Too often, the system works against rather than with local people. Too many decisions affecting too many are made by too few. That, combined with short-term, sticking-plaster politics, has left the country in a doom loop of worsening regional divides. \p Jamie Stone: Madam Deputy Speaker, you many wonder why a Scot would make an intervention at this point in the debate. May I advise the right hon. Lady to look north, to Scotland, to see how this should not be done? The Scottish Government have centralised powers, taking them right away from communities such as mine. That is how we should not do it. This is a cautionary tale. \p Angela Rayner: I thank the hon. Member for his guidance. I always look north—contrary to what other people believe. I am very proud of the north. I gently say to him that the challenge at the moment lies with the Government of Scotland. Hopefully, we can reverse things and have a Government who truly believe in putting the power in local people’s hands.

We only have to look at the difference being made by our mayors to see that there is a better way. From building tens of thousands of new social homes with Mayor Rotheram in Liverpool, to fighting child poverty with Mayor McGuinness in the north-east, to making people’s commutes quicker and cheaper with Mayor Burnham in my own Greater Manchester, and to creating London’s summer of al fresco dining and world-leading culture with Mayor Khan— \p James Frith: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point? \p Angela Rayner: I will happily give way. \p James Frith: We are very proud of the work of our Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham. On the issue of driving change, I would like to raise a point about drivers. Half of private hire taxis in Greater Manchester are licensed outside the area. That undermines local enforcement and accountability as well as local drivers who do the right thing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is a chance to fix that, protect passengers, raise and maintain standards, and back the best in trade? \p Angela Rayner: As another Greater Manchester MP, my hon. Friend will know that Mayor Burnham has been trying to address taxi licensing for some years. I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were here for the previous statement, which I listened to intently, in which the Minister made it clear that there is a commitment to introduce that legislation as quickly as possible. We need to make sure that that vehicle is there, and sitting next to me is the Leader of the House, whose job it is to make sure that happens.

We have also increased opportunities and given young people a voice in decisions in the east midlands with Mayor Ward. We are driving forward a new mass transit network for West Yorkshire with Mayor Brabin, supporting women and girls into activity and sport with Mayor Skaith in North Yorkshire, and, not to forget, working to secure the future of Doncaster Sheffield airport with Mayor Coppard in South Yorkshire. We are also securing the extension of the Birmingham tramline with Mayor Parker. \p Laurence Turner: For many years under the Tories, the west midlands was at the bottom of the league table for regional transport investment, but Mayor Richard Parker has secured £2.4 billion of investment to extend the metro. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the powers in the Bill will make it easier for combined authorities to deliver these kinds of projects in the future, including, I hope, further extensions of the metro to south Birmingham? \p Angela Rayner: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and again give full credit to Mayor Richard Parker, who has been working tirelessly with the Labour Government to invest in the future of Birmingham. I also thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning, pressing the case that his constituents are better off for such an investment, which will bring new jobs and better transport links. This Bill is just the start of that. \p Uma Kumaran: On jobs, in Sadiq Khan’s first two terms as London Mayor, he has seen the creation of more than 330,000 jobs by the Greater London Authority. These are high-quality, well-paid jobs that bring huge opportunity to Londoners from all walks of life. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is the testament to growth that devolution can deliver, which will be further boosted by this Bill? \p Angela Rayner: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is about unlocking growth in all parts of the country. I hope that most hon. Members can see that people with skin in the game are working across the board to make sure that that potential is reached. I am talking not just about London—although London is incredibly important to that—but about all regions across our country. \p Iqbal Mohamed: First, I thank Mayor Tracy Brabin for her investment in mass transit across West Yorkshire, including a new bus station in my town of Dewsbury. I am grateful for those investments, but how will this Bill stop a council from making the decision to distribute funding unequally across its borough? How would it stop a council from, for instance, making a decision to shut down a sports centre that is used by people of all ages on the pretence of there being reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and then not taking steps to investigate or having a plan to reopen? \p Angela Rayner: I welcome the hon. Member’s comments on the mass transit network for West Yorkshire, which I am sure will bring added benefits to his constituents. To his other point, obviously elected officials in local councils make decisions, and I would gently say to him that councils have faced significant pressures since the  austerity measures of 2010, which I am sure he is aware of. I was in local government at the time, and I remember being a union rep and seeing the devastation.

We are trying to restore and empower local government, instead of this situation where they have to make incredibly difficult decisions that are harmful to their constituents. It is about being able to grow our economy and have a bigger slice of the cake. We are already investing more into local government so that we can deliver the services that people want. Within this Bill is the community assets element, which may be able to help communities in relation to high streets and to sports facilities, which can be utilised as an asset that they value in their local area.

We are also improving local transport for people in the west of England with Mayor Godwin. Our brilliant, ambitious mayors are making a difference every day for their regions. Working with them, we have already achieved so much after just a year in office. We are on track to achieve devolution across almost 80% of the country, covering 44 million people. We have created integrated funding settlements for Greater Manchester and the west midlands, giving their mayors the tools and freedoms to make decisions to get growth going, with Liverpool city region, London, the north-east, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire set to benefit from the same freedoms next year. \p Rupa Huq: We are in London, the greatest city in the world—some would say anyway—and we have all just come back from holiday, have we not? Our Mayor Sadiq Khan has ambitious plans for an overnight accommodation levy that would put us on a par with Paris and New York and would harness our growth. Those funds could help regenerate the tourism sector and improve the visitor experience. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would be open to using this devolution Bill to give mayors everywhere the power to make decisions about those kind of things. \p Angela Rayner: I can hear much provocation from the Conservative Benches, but any new tax is, of course, a matter for the Chancellor at the Budget, and it must balance the potential revenue and benefits against the impact on taxpayers and the economy. \p Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I really welcome the Bill’s efforts to strengthen communities and local democracy. However, I am worried that not enough is being done to protect private renters. In Lambeth, nearly a third of residents are renters. Rents are rising faster than wages, and the average renter is paying 72% more than the national average, which is leaving many families struggling and in poverty. The Renters’ Rights Bill was definitely a step in the right direction, but it fell short on rent hikes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Bill is an opportunity to give metro mayors the power to bring in rent controls and protect renters in their cities? \p Angela Rayner: The Renters’ Rights Bill does contain measures that mean that renters can challenge unfair rent hikes. The previous Government said many times  that they would do something about section 21 no-fault evictions but they did not. Our Renters’ Rights Bill will ensure that we end those evictions, which are causing so much harm to my hon. Friend’s constituents and many around the country.

Our devolution revolution is well under way, with others queueing up to join it. This what we committed to in our manifesto, and we are delivering it through this Bill. Crucially, the Bill will make devolution the default for how the Government do business, with new strategic authorities having powers to pilot and request new functions and Government having a duty to respond to certain requests. It will mean that we can deliver devolution further and faster. \p Carla Denyer: On devolving the ability to run pilots, and following up on the point made by the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), Bristol city council—including Labour councillors—voted cross-party to have the power to pilot rent controls. Recent figures show that typical private renters in my constituency spend 45% of their income on rent. That is not sustainable. This Bill could offer the opportunity for that pilot— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Interventions have become far too long. There are many Members in the Chamber who wish to contribute, which the Secretary of State might think about before she takes more interventions. \p Angela Rayner: I will pay attention to that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Lady is right that there is a challenge in housing at the moment, which is also contributing to the rental situation for people. That is why we have a big ambition to build more houses. The Bill gives us more powers for strategic planning so that we can get on with building the homes that people need. The Renters’ Rights Bill does start to make progress toward making housing fairer for renters—something that the previous Government promised but failed to deliver.

I will now make progress, Madam Deputy Speaker. \p Marsha de Cordova: Before the Secretary of State makes progress, will she give way? [Laughter.] \p Angela Rayner: The strategic authorities will be created as a new category of authority in law. They will make it easier for local leaders to work together over larger areas to drive through big pro-growth projects such as integrated transport networks and housing. These will operate at three levels—foundation, mayoral and established mayoral—and the particular powers and responsibilities that each of them will have are to be defined by the Bill.

Working alongside parliamentarians and local councillors, mayors drive forward the delivery of people’s priorities—driving growth, unlocking infrastructure and powering a national renewal from the ground up. That is why the Bill will give mayors wide-ranging new powers in areas such as transport, planning and economic development. \p Marsha de Cordova: Will the Secretary of State give way? \p Angela Rayner: I will make progress.

We will create new planning powers to raise the mayoral community infrastructure levy, which has generated over £1 billion since 2012 in London and, alongside investment and leadership from Mayor Khan, has helped to fund the Elizabeth line. With the expansion of their remit, the Bill will allow mayors who choose to raise a precept to spend it on the full range of functions, ensuring that local taxes are spent on local priorities.

I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), will welcome this change given that it was the Conservatives who first introduced the mayoral precept nearly a decade ago and that Mayor Boris Johnson used a business rates supplement to help pay for Crossrail. I hope the shadow Secretary of State will wholeheartedly support the new powers in the Bill, which will mean that mayors can intervene in major strategic planning applications to unlock housing—as long as that housing is nowhere near his constituency, of course.

We will also introduce powers to license shared cycle schemes so that they work for everyone and so that bikes are not lying across pavements. The Bill will see more mayors take on police and crime commissioner functions and become responsible for fire and rescue functions, allowing them to take a joined-up approach to improving public safety. \p Bayo Alaba: Will the Secretary of State give way? \p Angela Rayner: One more time, and briefly. \p Bayo Alaba: In Southend East and Rochford we are a proud coastal community, but we have been left behind when it comes to connectivity, educational outcomes and investment in skills. Does the Secretary of State agree that through this Bill we have a chance to deliver the long-term meaningful change that my constituents deserve? \p Angela Rayner: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is about all areas being able to join up and create inclusive growth for their areas, and that is broader than at local authority level. By combining those efforts we can unlock the potential, and his constituents will feel the benefit of that as we take this forward.

The new powers also mean new duties, including to produce a local growth plan demonstrating how mayors plan to unlock growth through planning and house building. There will also be a duty to co-operate with local government pension scheme managers so that mayors can attract investment into their local areas, unlocking jobs and opportunities. Mayors across the country will also be able to appoint commissioners to support them as their responsibilities grow, just like in London. The Bill also strengthens the ability of mayors to work with the public sector, convening local partners so that they can lead with a helicopter view of public services across their region.

We are backing the ambition and untapped potential of local areas with a more ambitious role for the mayors representing them. That must be underpinned by elections that command public confidence. Because of changes made by the last Government, mayors can be elected on just a fraction of the vote, despite serving millions of people and managing multimillion-pound budgets. We  can do better than that. The Bill will therefore revert to a supplementary vote system for electing mayors and police and crime commissioners after the May 2026 elections to provide greater accountability and a strong, personal mandate for mayors. In addition, the Bill will bar mayors from also sitting as MPs, ensuring that local places benefit fully from having dedicated local champions. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: If the Deputy Prime Minister feels that elections for mayoral authorities should have a supplementary vote as that gives them sufficient authority, why does she not feel the same for Members of this House? \p Angela Rayner: Millions of people are represented by mayors, who have huge powers over big regions. We want mayors to have strong personal mandates for the communities they serve rather than being elected on a fraction of the vote. It is right that first-past-the-post remains in place for general elections to maintain the constituency link. \p Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Lady give way? \p Angela Rayner: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been very patient. \p Julian Lewis: I am truly grateful. This is, I hope, a non-party political point. The White Paper in advance of the Bill mentioned rightly that there had been consultations on strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities, which relates to a campaign many of us have been involved in to try to protect local council clerks against bullying. We were pleased to be called into that consultation. There is, however, nothing about that in the Bill. Does the right hon. Lady plan to bring it forward in separate legislation? \p Angela Rayner: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue. We intend to bring forward legislation. Our response to the local government standards consultation sets out our plans for whole-system reform, including empowering local authorities to suspend councillors who are guilty of serious misconduct for up to six months, with the option to withhold allowances and institute premises and facilities bans. We are committed to ensuring that misconduct is dealt with swiftly and fairly across the country at local and regional mayoral levels. We do want to take action on the issue.

Let me be clear that stronger mayors and strategic authorities will not replace councils, nor the crucial work of the House. MPs on both sides of the House will continue to be vocal champions for their areas, and we expect mayors to engage in regular and constructive dialogue with MPs, working together in the best interests of their constituents. Alongside the freedom for mayors to focus on local priorities, my Department is continuing to explore a local Public Accounts Committee-style model to improve the system of accountability and scrutiny of local spending.

The Government expect mayors to use their new powers to deliver real change, not retain the status quo. This is not about grandstanding or making a political point; it is about using the levers of growth to unlock infrastructure and drive investment. The role of local authorities in delivering vital local services and improving local neighbourhoods is essential, and it will continue.  We also expect to see strategic authorities working hand in glove with their constituent councils to deliver for their residents.

The Bill will help rebuild local government for the communities who depend on it day in, day out. As a fit, legal and decent foundation of devolution, the Bill will establish the Local Audit Office to help fix the broken, fragmented local audit system. We will also reform local authority governance, requiring councils with a committee system to move to a leader and cabinet model and putting a stop to new local authority mayor roles being created. That change will streamline decision making across all councils and make it easier for people to understand how their council is run. It will also give the Government the tools to deliver local government reorganisation, resulting in better outcomes for residents and significant savings that can be reinvested in public services and improving accountability.

At all levels, we are backing local people to drive growth and greater opportunities for all, because, from top to bottom, the best decisions for communities are made by those who know their area best. That is why the Bill will also give local communities across the country much-needed new powers, like a bigger say in shaping their place through effective neighbourhood governance, with councils required to make sure that this is happening, as well as the tools to transform their high streets and neighbourhoods through a new community right to buy—to save much-loved community assets, like pubs and shops, from being lost and to protect sports grounds, which are at the heart of so many communities and a source of great local pride. The Bill will also support our high streets by banning the unfair practice of upwards-only rent reviews, preventing the blight of vacant shop fronts, because it is only when every community succeeds that our country succeeds.

The Bill and our reforms herald a new era for Britain: a new way of governing that puts politics back in the service of working people. Where previous Governments promised and failed the British people, this Government are keeping faith.

I note the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment. I must say that after they left the country with the worst housing crisis in a generation, I am dismayed that they would oppose a Bill that will unlock housing and planning on a vast scale. This Bill will empower local communities to take back control of their high streets by ending the Tory policy of upward-only rent reviews, and it will end the begging-bowl culture of the last Government.

While the Tories made empty promises to level up the country, this Labour Government are getting on with the job. Within days of taking office, Secretaries of State were passing down newly-won powers for the sake of our towns, cities and villages, with the Prime Minister leading the way. It has not always been easy, but real change takes hard work. We are rewiring Britain and, with it, growth and opportunity. This is how the British people will take back control, and how we will unite our country in times when we have never needed it more. I commend the Bill to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p James Cleverly: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, because the Bill does nothing to empower local communities, but instead contains measures reducing the democratically elected representation of communities and enables the Government to impose local government restructuring on communities, irrespective of local opinion, disregarding local geography and identity; because bureaucratic restructuring of local government will cost money and reduce focus on housing delivery with no evidence that it will deliver better services; because the Bill will lead to greater costs for residents by creating new mayoral precepts, increasing borrowing powers, and raising parking charges on motorists, and adding more local bureaucrats as mayoral-appointed commissioners; and because the Bill will result in higher council tax bills for hardworking families, at a time when local government is facing increased costs pressures due to unfunded rises in employers’ National Insurance contributions.”

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—it is a title straight out of the Ministry of Truth. The Bill is not about devolution; it is clearly a blatant power grab by the Deputy Prime Minister—a right hon. Lady for whom I have a huge amount of respect—and her Department. It is not about community empowerment at all; it is about stripping power from local authorities and concentrating it in Whitehall and the hands of the people in Whitehall.

Big Brother would be proud. Centralisation is devolution. Whitehall diktat is community empowerment. The fact that the Bill does the opposite of what it claims is, as we set out in our reasoned amendment, why we cannot give it a free pass. This Bill sidelines communities. This Bill forces restructuring without consent. This Bill wastes money while families are facing higher bills because of Labour’s mismanagement. This Bill disrupts and distracts councils from building the homes that local people need. Those are our objections. That is what we have set out in our reasoned amendment.

If the Government want to win the confidence of this House rather than just shoehorning their Back Benchers through the Division Lobby, they need to justify the demands embedded in the Bill. During the debate and when summing up, I sincerely hope that they answer our questions. Why centralise control? Why raise taxes? Why deny residents their voice? Those are the questions that those on the Treasury Bench need to answer before this Bill can make credible progress through the House.

The case has been set out, but before Members on the Labour Benches get too excited, let me put to bed a few spectres that have been raised. The Conservative party believes in devolution, not just in theory but in practice: we created many of the existing mayoral roles; we created police and crime commissioners; we empowered parish councils and neighbourhood planning; and we gave families the power to block excessive council tax rises. We devolved by consent—by agreement with local leaders—and not by Whitehall diktat.

The simple truth of the matter is that Labour does not and has never believed in devolution, and it does not deliver meaningful devolution. It is a centralising party and it centralises. This Government are abolishing councils without consent and forcing them to sign up to their model of restructuring. They forced the postponement of elections in nine county councils. That was  unprecedented. Elections are the foundation of democracy, and denying them undermines public trust and confidence. In truth, denying residents their democratic voice was done for a very specific reason. It was done because Labour feared what people would say to it at the ballot box. \p David Burton-Sampson: The right hon. Gentleman has just listed a load of things that the Tories did with devolution. He cannot deny that the reason we need devolution and local government reorganisation is because his Government significantly underfunded local government, which is now on its knees. We therefore have to take action to get local government back in a good place, and devolution and local government reform is one of those actions. \p James Cleverly: I think the hon. Member said the quiet bit out loud: this is about putting up taxes on local people. That is what this legislation is fundamentally about; we know that to be true. I promise the House that I did not tee up that intervention—it was the next bit in my speech. Labour, by imposing this restructuring from the centre, is leaving local people without a voice. This legislation is about creating what this Government want, which is a cohort of subservient Labour mayors.

Let us look at what Labour mayors actually deliver—as I say, this speech was written before the previous intervention. Labour mayors put up taxes. Labour mayors increase the tax burden on local people. The Liverpool city region—up by 26%; Greater Manchester—up by 8%; West Yorkshire—up by 6%; and London, since Sadiq Khan took office in 2016—up by over 70%. Labour Members are quiet now, aren’t they? The truth hurts. \p Simon Opher: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me, then, why Labour keeps getting re-elected to mayoralties? \p James Cleverly: I will mention Paul Bristow later in my speech.

The difference is that under Conservative mayors, we keep costs down. Ben Houchen, for example, is delivering a zero precept. If more places get mayors under this Labour proposal, how much more will local people pay? Will Ministers—whether that be the Secretary of State or whoever responds to the debate—guarantee that costs will not go up under this model and that council tax will not rise under this model, or is this another set of taxes on hard-working families by stealth? The truth is that the record of Labour mayors is that they increase taxes by well above the rate of inflation. Also, will the pressure on parish council precepts also hit hard-working local people in the pocket? The Conservatives are in no doubt that, once again, it will be hard-working families and local people who will pay the price for Labour’s ineptitude.

It is not only families that will be hit. This Bill forces councils to merge, and prudent councils—those that have been careful with their money—will be forced to inherit the debt of others. How on earth is penalising good financial management at local government level fair? What protections will be in place to protect people from higher bills? Looking through the Bill, there are none that I can see. \p Joe Robertson: How does my right hon. Friend think my constituents on the Isle of Wight feel about being fused under a combined mayoral authority with Hampshire without having a single say? \p James Cleverly: My hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of these proposals. For all Labour’s warm words about community engagement, community voice and communities actually having a say, that is a classic example. I have visited the Isle of Wight, not only in a personal capacity but as a guest of my hon. Friend, so I know full well that even though the county of Hampshire has many, many excellent things, the people of the Isle of Wight want to maintain their autonomy—and they should have the right to do so if that is what they want.

It is not just that local councils will lose control of their finances; they will also lose control of their powers, which are being stripped from them in this Bill. Mayors are gaining sweeping planning and transport powers without council consent or representation. Let me give an example: what if communities oppose punitive anti-driver proposals from a mayor in their local neighbourhoods? How can they make their voices heard? Who will win? Will it be the mayor who has been imposed upon them, or will it be the local communities? What will the accountability model be for those mayors? We can see nothing in the Bill about people holding their mayors accountable. There is no provision for meaningful scrutiny during the tenure of the mayoralty.

The Secretary of State made reference to the upwards-only rent reviews. I completely get that that is a superficially attractive set of proposals, but what assessment has been made of the effective valuation of commercial property, including properties that are owned by the local authorities themselves? If she is confident that this is such a good idea, why was there no scrutiny? Why was there no consultation on these proposals? Do Ministers really think that that is best practice when it comes to creating a stable investment environment and confidence for people spending money in the high street commercial properties that keep our communities alive?

The silence on those questions about the Bill is frankly deafening, because the Government have no answer. This Bill is not about empowering local communities, and it is definitely not about empowering local councils. It is about creating a cohort of puppet mayors controlled by the right hon. Lady’s Department. I respect her enormously, but her ability to strip power not just from local councils but from the Prime Minister is something well worth watching. I think we should at least be impressed by that. I put this to Labour Members: if this is about community empowerment, why does it reduce local representation? If it is about fiscal responsibility, why will it burden ratepayers—council tax payers—with debts that their local authorities did not create? If it is about more homes, why does it hamper and suffocate councils with increased bureaucracy?

Devolution can work, and indeed does work, when it is done properly. We know that it works because Conservative mayors have delivered. Ben Houchen saved Teesside airport, delivered the UK’s largest freeport with 18,000 quality jobs and secured Treasury North in Darlington with 1,400 high-skilled roles, all with a zero mayoral precept. Paul Bristow in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is ending Labour’s ideological attack on  drivers. Boris Johnson, while Mayor of London, delivered the 2012 games and secured Crossrail. In the west midlands, Andy Street was a genuine champion for his region and a household name. Who has he been replaced by? A person who is not even a household name in his own household. That says it all. We Conservatives deliver. We delivered devolved government that delivers infrastructure, jobs and economic growth. What has Labour delivered? Higher costs and broken promises—[Interruption.] More tax, less delivery. That is the Labour way. \p Chris McDonald: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way—sorry for treading on his punchline. I was very pleased to hear his new-found enthusiasm for Teesside. That is something we all share, but it seems to stand at odds with the comments he made to my predecessor about the town of Stockton. Does he stand by those terrible comments that he made, or would he like to take this opportunity to apologise to my constituents? \p James Cleverly: The hon. Gentleman really does need to keep up. I addressed those comments at the time. I have been to Stockton. I have campaigned with my good friend and colleague the Conservative mayor of the town. I have knocked on doors in Stockton, and I have a huge amount of respect for the town. The point I was making was about the then Labour representative, who I was not terribly impressed with, and the hon. Gentleman knows that that is the case.

We were always deeply sceptical about whether the content of the Bill would match its aspirational title, so we set five tests, framed in the form of five simple questions. First, is this a genuine choice for councils? Secondly, do all the affected tiers agree with the changes? Thirdly, is there genuine public support for the changes? Fourthly, will the changes keep bills down? Fifthly, will the changes protect social care? Having looked through the Bill, it is clear that the answer to every single one of those questions is no. Five questions, five failures.

As I have said, Conservatives are in favour of devolution when done properly, but only if that devolution is meaningful and only if local communities and their immediate representatives have the power to deliver. We are its champions because we delivered it. We have proven that it works, but it must be by consent; it cannot be by compulsion. It should be by partnership, not imposition, and by empowering councils and councillors, not by erasing them. This Bill is not devolution; it is central control. This Bill is higher taxes and weaker local democracy. This Bill is a power grab by the Secretary of State. It fails to deliver on its promise, and that is why the House must decline to give it a Second Reading and demand that the Government rethink these proposals. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: With the exception of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, there will be an immediate five-minute time limit. \p Paul Foster: I rise to support the Second Reading of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is a vital step  towards modernising local government and delivering fairer investment and greater accountability across England. I do so with 17 years’ experience as a local councillor, for five of which I was leader of South Ribble borough council in Lancashire, which forms part of my constituency. Although the scope of the Bill covers many distinct subject matters, I intend to focus my brief comments—listening to what you said, Madam Deputy Speaker—on part 3, chapter 1 on local government reorganisation.

Let us be clear: Lancashire is now an outlier. While 74% of England’s population live under unitary authorities delivering all local services through a single accountable body, Lancashire remains part of the shrinking 26% operating under a two-tier system. Frankly, no one would design the two-tier system today—it is inefficient, confusing and expensive. Residents do not understand why one council is responsible for potholes and roads and another for pavements and parks, why education sits at county level while planning sits with district, or why one council collects their waste and another disposes of it. They do not understand why they are paying for two different sets of local councillors for the same geographical area, and for 15 chief executives and senior management teams when they only actually require three or four, or why our neighbours in Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region are all unitaries, but Lancashire is left with two tiers of bureaucracy. The result? Duplicated services, inefficient staffing and confused accountability.

We know that change works. In South Ribble, through shared services with our district council neighbour, Chorley, we have saved over £1 million for local taxpayers—real money back into local budgets. Imagine what could be achieved with a fully unitary structure across Lancashire. In my time as leader of South Ribble borough council, I froze council tax for three consecutive years while still delivering effective and efficient frontline services. Yet our residents’ council tax bills kept rising as Lancashire county council increased their taxes annually due to its inefficiencies. My community were confused by these council tax bills, not understanding that the local district council only accounted for around 11% of their overall bill and, in fact, that they were paying more to the police and crime commissioner than to their district council.

Beyond efficiency, this is about fully unlocking devolution. Lancashire has been left behind. We will end up being one of the largest counties in the north of England without a metro mayor. We have missed out already on hundreds of millions of pounds of investment seen in Greater Manchester, the west midlands, West Yorkshire and the Liverpool city region. That is why I welcome the powers in the Bill that allow the Secretary of State to mandate reorganisation where appropriate from a two-tier system to a unitary model. It is a necessary tool to drive reform, and I commend the Secretary of State and the Local Government Minister for their bold vision. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Vikki Slade: May I start by welcoming the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly),  to his place on the Front Bench. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a councillor at Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Transferring powers closer to communities through devolution is critical to getting service delivery right and developing trust. The public consistently say that they have more faith in local government than in national Government, and the Bill was meant to deliver on that promise. As the Secretary of State noted, the Prime Minister said in his first weeks in office that he wanted to give power to those with skin in the game and pledged to help citizens to take back control. The Liberal Democrats absolutely agree with that desire.

However, what we see here is a Bill that centralises decision making, limits community influence and, because it leaves areas unsure of their future, risks deepening inequalities between regions. The White Paper promised mayors for all regions and community-led reorganisation, but the Bill provides powers to merge councils from Westminster and fails to strengthen the councils closest to people—our towns and parishes. It even allows councils that have directly rejected a combined authority to be forced into one with their neighbours. \p Gideon Amos: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives have some nerve talking about top-down reorganisation when, against people’s wishes—as expressed in a poll—they imposed an unwanted and unpopular unitary council on the whole of Somerset? Does she also agree that the Bill should introduce fair votes, in this place and in councils across the country, to restore faith in democracy and politics? \p Vikki Slade: A similar thing happened in Dorset. In fact, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) voted against a merger in our area but failed, even under his own Government. I will come to the issue of proportional representation.

Strategic mayors have the potential to be our regional champions. The Liberal Democrats recognise the benefits that they have brought to many cities, including London and Manchester. However, the Bill fails to standardise their role or to put all regions on an equal footing. Some areas have been selected for early adoption and funding, while others—Kent, Medway and my own area of Wessex—are left behind with no timeline or support. \p Helen Morgan: It is unclear for some areas, including Shropshire, where they will end up being made to form a combined authority. Shropshire shares borders with Wales and Cheshire, which is in a different region, so there is no clear partner for it. I am concerned that Shropshire will end up being forced into a combined authority with an area that does not look like Shropshire or give any benefit to its residents. Does my hon. Friend agree that this needs to be better thought through? \p Vikki Slade: I share my hon. Friend’s concern that some areas risk being left behind by this muddled approach. I ask the Secretary of State for assurances on how she will ensure that such areas do not fall further behind neighbours that are further along in the programme.

We Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government are reversing the Conservatives’ disastrous decision to use first past the post for mayoral and police commissioner elections—it is ridiculous that one of the mayors elected this May won on just 25% of the vote—but the Government must go further in making votes fair. We believe that the Government should bring in the alternative vote system so that voters’ voices are properly heard. We maintain that if the Government believe in majority support for elected officials, they should extend that mandate to MPs and councillors, too. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: The Sussex mayoral elections that are due to take place in May next year will use the current first-past-the-post system rather than the proposed system that the Government say they favour. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is totally unfair on Sussex residents that everybody who is a year behind in the programme will get to vote using a better system? \p Vikki Slade: I will come to that later in my speech, when I will share the concerns of electoral officials about whether the legislation can deliver in time for any of the changes scheduled for next year. Although I recognise that there is an anomaly for next year, even electoral officials are worried about the Bill’s timeline and the ability to make any changes for 2026 and for those who have already had elections delayed.

Across the sector, there are serious concerns about the power of the commissioners that will be appointed by mayors—people with significant influence but little scrutiny. There is concern that they will hold more sway than elected leaders of local authorities but without any democratic accountability. In the very centre, the Secretary of State will retain sweeping powers to merge authorities and extend functions without parliamentary oversight or local consent. I am seeking an explanation of how and when those powers would be used, so that we can assure our local leaders that they will not be overridden.

There is widespread concern about the loss of highly skilled, experienced councillors through the removal of district councils. I noted the Secretary of State’s concerns about putting power into the hands of too few people. How will she ensure that there is not a democratic and skills deficit and that people are properly represented across these larger regions?

For the last decade, the Conservative Government have cut funding to councils but forced them to do more. Their economic mismanagement and failure to fix social care has left many councils on the brink of collapse. This Bill was an opportunity for real local government reform, but it is an opportunity missed. \p Rachel Gilmour: A particular concern of my constituents in Tiverton and Minehead, where we have one local authority in Devon and one in Somerset, is the real difficulties around special educational needs and disabilities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill could create difficulties for local authorities that are struggling to deliver good SEND education for so many of our children? \p Vikki Slade: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Special educational needs are a huge passion of mine—I am sure Members have heard me talk about them  many times—and this issue will take so many councils to a very dark place. I trust that the Minister hears that on a regular basis and that we will see in the fair funding review something really serious about special educational needs provision.

Local authorities have unique access to every household and business, which gives them a huge opportunity to improve people’s health and wellbeing. The Bill requires strategic authorities to improve the health of their communities, but I am concerned that it does not provide substantial funding to do that, and without that funding, I cannot see how it can be achieved. While the Bill makes substantial improvements to the workings of audit, it misses the opportunity to shine a light on all the places that taxpayers’ money is spent through the introduction of local public accounts committees. I was reassured to hear the Secretary of State refer to that being in her thinking, but rolling them out alongside strategic authorities would really aid transparency, improve value for money and enable organisations to share resources for the good of the community. I urge the Government to reflect on that as we go towards the Report stage.

The Bill also proposes that strategic authorities take on the functions of police and crime commissioners and fire authorities. However, because of the disparity in boundaries, there is a real risk that community priorities will not be maintained, and the control of such things by appointed rather than elected commissioners further reduces democratic accountability. How will the Government ensure fair funding and effective policing and fire services where strategic authorities cover vastly different communities?

Councils have expressed similar concerns about a mismatch between places within those authorities—for example, the different needs of urban and rural areas, or the inclusion of a single authority among a cluster of places with very different levels of deprivation or demographics. Some communities feel that where decisions are made by simple majority vote, their voice will not be heard. Weighted voting and the meaningful inclusion of town and parish councils can ensure that local insight is retained, particularly around issues such as planning and transport.

Representation must not end there. This Bill was an opportunity to ensure that local services draw on and are informed by the full range of lived experiences in an area. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Bill could make it more difficult for residents to access services, because where authorities that currently deliver services on a county-wide basis are split into multiple authorities, it will create borders within counties? \p Vikki Slade: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

There is the opportunity to use more effectively our town and parish council system to drive community empowerment. Instead, the creation of neighbourhood committees feels like a top-down solution. Without statutory powers or budgets, they risk becoming symbolic rather than effective. While it is welcome that existing town and parish councils can participate, the Bill does not provide a framework for communities wanting to establish new councils or the funding to do so.

District councils have long underpinned the civic identity of towns and driven the activities that reflect their origins. With their loss in ancient towns and cities such as Colchester and Winchester, and without the funding to support smaller community-led councils, there is a real risk that our distinct history, culture and civic pride in our communities could be eroded. We cannot allow that to happen.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the replacement of the community right to bid with a right to buy with first refusal. I have seen some fantastic examples of the right to bid working, such as the Anchor Inn in Shapwick in my constituency, but these successes are few and far between. \p Munira Wilson: Communities such as Teddington in my constituency will very much welcome the new community right to buy. At Udney Park, playing fields have lain derelict for more than a decade. However, although the Bill makes provision for what happens when there is a disagreement over price, it is silent on what happens when a community bid is refused by a buyer even at market valuation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must look to go further on that point? \p Vikki Slade: I agree that there is opportunity to do much more as the Bill moves into Committee. Communities’ long struggles to save such assets is not because of a lack of passion or volunteers, but because the system feels stacked against them. “The Museum of Broken Dreams”, a display on the parliamentary estate, shows some good examples of where community groups have lost out to commercial developers who have demolished buildings and walked away, or where the groups cannot get support.

We are pleased to see sporting assets included in the right to buy and we welcome their indefinite inclusion on the register, but we want environmental assets to be included as well, so that we can protect our land for restoration and nature management. We also want restoration of the funding for neighbourhood plans, so that smaller authorities, which will now struggle to make such plans for their tiny communities, can do so without onerous costs to their residents. \p Roz Savage: To pick up on my hon. Friend’s point about environmental concern, at the moment local authorities have a weak duty on biodiversity—to consider from time to time what they might do to conserve or enhance biodiversity—so does she agree that the Bill offers a real opportunity to strengthen such environmental protections, to get this country back on track? \p Vikki Slade: I believe that the community right to buy has huge opportunities for councils. In Committee, I hope that we will be able to improve and enhance the Bill for everyone.

As a former retail business owner, I welcome the removal of upward-only rent reviews. Businesses should not be locked into rising costs when market conditions shift. This is a long-overdue reform that will help small businesses to adapt and survive. The Bill makes interesting and welcome changes on things such as pension schemes and transport devolution, but misses the opportunity to improve council standards and attendance, and it fails  to establish in statute the promised council of regions and nations or the local authority leaders council, both of which would be important in giving local government a stronger voice in Whitehall.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats support the principle of devolution. We recognise the crisis in local government funding and we welcome the fair funding review promised later this autumn. The Bill, however, does not deliver the ambitious shift in power that our communities need. It risks disenfranchising places left at the back of the queue with no funding or timeline to work toward. We cannot support a Bill that centralises control, weakens local accountability and misses the chance truly to empower communities, as we laid out in our reasoned amendment. We urge the Government to think again, and to revise and recommit to genuine devolution and community empowerment so that we can support the Bill. \p Alison Taylor: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes the fact that I remain a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. My contribution is to assist the Secretary of State and the Government in ensuring that this important Bill will truly deliver on my right hon. Friend’s ambition for a transformative change in our communities—a vision that we share. Others in the House will want to articulate the advantages of devolving power and increasing strategic focus for the English regions, but I have expertise in commercial leases, so the House will forgive me for focusing on that one point.

The Bill represents a crucial step in the vital work of promoting economic growth and opportunity for our communities. Our constituents will all have witnessed at first hand how the previous Government’s failure to promote growth and support economic activity has contributed to the decline in the wellbeing of our communities.

I have spent 30 years in the commercial property industry and, as a result, numerous organisations and businesses have contacted me directly about the proposals to ban upwards-only rent reviews. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is already working to make lease terms, including about rent reviews, more transparent. Since 2020, the “Code for leasing business premises, England and Wales, 1st edition”, which includes advice on rent reviews, has been in place for chartered surveyors to adhere to when advising both landlords and tenants. The proposal to implement by legislation a universal ban on clauses within commercial leases for the provision of upwards-only rent reviews creates uncertainty for the funding of property development. My concern is that this legislation would apply to all commercial properties, not just high street retail or small business properties. As currently drafted, the Government’s proposals would impact high street retail, as well as all other commercial sectors.

The ambition to protect high street retail and small businesses, particularly in tough economic conditions, is certainly not to be underestimated, and nor is it unwelcome. There is a surplus of vacant, unsuitable, poorly configured and energy-hungry retail units crying out for regeneration in most towns across the United Kingdom, including in the towns of Paisley, Renfrew  and Erskine in my constituency, but I do not believe that it is just upwards-only rent reviews that are preventing the regeneration of our towns and cities.

With my professional background, I can help to improve this technical aspect of the Bill in order to prevent unintended consequences for the Government’s growth agenda. I understand the desire to support small businesses on our high streets and I understand the pressures faced by those businesses because of difficult trading conditions. Property development can be the foundation stone of economic growth in our regional economies. My experience is that new sustainable development, in the right place, can be transformative, a source of jobs and training in construction, and a source of employment and opportunity in operation. New transformative sustainable development adds vitality to an area, acting as a spur to further development and wider investment.

I know that all Members will intuitively feel that upwards-only rent reviews are unfair, but that is a simplistic view. Among the earliest pioneers of upwards-only reviews were the Church of England’s Church Commissioners, who implemented them to ensure certainty of income for the Church and remain among the largest landowners in the country. My concern is that the well-intended focus on the genuine problems of small business and the high street could have unintended consequences for the broader property development sector.

In closing, I encourage my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider an amendment to the clause to ensure that it is focused where it is needed most, without impacting on all property sectors. I stand ready to help with that endeavour. \p Peter Fortune: This Bill is supposed to be the Government’s flagship piece of legislation to empower England’s cities, regions and communities, but there is disappointingly little in it about strengthening accountability in existing devolved bodies, especially the Greater London Authority.

It is right that power is returned to cities, regions and communities, but those who hold devolved power must also be held accountable for their decisions, actions and delivery. Nowhere in England enjoys more devolved powers than London. That is in part why it is the only area with a directly elected Assembly, devoted to scrutiny. However, as the Mayor of London’s responsibilities, powers and budget have grown, the Assembly has become weaker and weaker in comparison. A notable issue is the two-thirds majority required to amend the mayor’s budget and strategies, but that is impossible to achieve in the London Assembly, which is why no budget or strategy has been amended in 25 years.

Unlike other combined authorities, the Assembly cannot call in mayoral decisions and London’s 32 boroughs are excluded from decision making. That means the mayor does not have 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. That political fracture was made clear when Mayor Khan imposed the ultra low emission zone expansion on outer London, despite overwhelming opposition.

There is a glaring democratic and accountability deficit in London, which is why so many of my constituents—and, I know, the constituents of other Members—are now questioning the place of the London borough of Bromley in the Greater London Authority. They have never paid more to City Hall, yet people feel that they are ignored on every issue. Mayor Khan has increased council tax by 77% in nine years, meaning that Londoners pay nearly £500 a year on average to fund his policies. Let us not forget the huge sums that Londoners now pay City Hall thanks to his road charges. In the first three months of this year, motorists forked out nearly £220 million thanks to his ULEZ charge, the Blackwall tunnel toll and his hiked congestion charge. What do they receive in return for all that money? ULEZ cameras, too few police officers and green-belt protections being ripped up.

Anyone who wants to see devolution in London succeed must support measures to make the Mayor of London more accountable. First, this Bill introduces simple majority voting in combined authorities as the default decision-making process, but it stops short of doing that in the London Assembly. That is a mistake. It should abolish the two-thirds majority requirement to amend budgets and strategies, allowing a simple majority of Assembly members to force changes. That alone would transform London’s politics and force mayors to the table. Secondly, this Government should consult on a new model to give the 32 boroughs a voice and a vote in London, so that Bromley can no longer be ignored. Finally, this Bill should give the London Assembly the power to call in mayoral decisions.

My constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill have had enough of being ignored by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. If the Government want to maintain the support of Londoners for devolution, the London Mayor must be made accountable. \p Jack Abbott: Devolution and local government reorganisation must not simply be a sticking plaster over the problems of today; instead, we must determine what we want the coming decade to look like for our local communities. We must ensure that people in places such as Ipswich and Suffolk have the resources, powers and trust to determine our own futures. We can end the fragmentation of services and decision making that has at times hampered progress and instead usher in a new era of energy, ambition and delivery.

It has been really encouraging to see all Suffolk’s district and borough councils, led by different political parties, working collaboratively and with compromise to form a forward-facing submission. However, there is a stark and disappointing contrast with Suffolk county council. It has been really concerning to see that more time is being spent on aiming to discredit alternative ideas and proposals, rather than promoting why the plans are right for our county. Tactics have at times been bizarre, but there is a serious point here. Residents are entitled to proper information, not a spin-heavy PR campaign.

I fully accept that turkeys do not vote for Christmas, but I expect local authorities to hold themselves to a higher standard. While running such a misleading campaign betrays a lack of confidence in their own proposals, it  does them a disservice and, more crucially, treats local residents with a lack of respect and no little disdain. Residents will question why the Conservatives at Suffolk county council are spending so much money and resources on such an overwhelmingly negative campaign at a time when our potholes go unfilled and our children with special educational needs are so badly failed, all the while raising council tax by its maximum level every single year. Suffolk county council looks not like an authority that is ready to grasp the future, but like one that looks to keep power and status for itself.

Alongside the investment in our communities by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, this Bill and the wider efforts of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister offer Ipswich, Suffolk and East Anglia a once-in-a-generation chance to turbocharge investment, growth and opportunity, giving us the chance to determine our own future. While I am supportive of the Bill for the transformative effect it will have on our country, on a local level, a Greater Ipswich council could do far more than just regenerate our town and the surrounding area. It could become a nationally leading economic powerhouse, and our friends and neighbours in east and west Suffolk would also greatly benefit from being able to set the direction of their local communities. This is not just my personal view; it is a view shared by every district and borough council in Suffolk, as well as by political parties of all stripes across Ipswich. From my discussions with local residents, including at my recent town hall event, it seems to be the option that they favour, too.

A Greater Ipswich will renew our area’s economic foundations and deliver the infrastructure we need after years of neglect. Lowestoft and the energy coast will be able to power new jobs and investment for their area, and Bury St Edmunds will be better able to align itself with the opportunities offered by the growth around Cambridge and Peterborough. People want their councils to deliver public services effectively, responsibly and accessibly, which is why I believe our devolution settlement needs to produce unitary authorities of sufficient scale to achieve that. However, people rightly also want their councillors and councils to be rooted in their local community so that they can listen, understand, and act in their best interests. I believe that three unitary authorities in Suffolk, working alongside a Mayor for East Anglia, would achieve that balance.

This is not about loosening the fabric that holds our county together—it is about strengthening it. I moved to Suffolk when I was 10 years old, a quarter of a century ago. It is my home, and I care deeply about what happens next. For a long time, we have been ill served as a town and a county by short-termism and a do-nothing approach. Every day I have entered this job, I have thought about all the ways in which we can leverage the change we need to set us on a new path. The Bill we are debating today will be the driving force behind how we do that. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has set out time and again, the goal of devolution must not be to tinker around the edges of our current system, sticking with a system that is not working for anyone. Instead, we should look to the future and take this opportunity to transform local government, our public services and our communities for the better. I proudly support this Bill, and in doing so, I will continue to work for an ambitious devolution settlement that meets the needs of people in Ipswich, Suffolk and East Anglia. \p Martin Wrigley: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as someone who is still a sitting councillor. In fact, when I came into this place, I sat on three different councils, so I speak from a good history of local council knowledge.

This Bill focuses on mayors, yet we hear about putting power in the hands of local people. Having a Mayor of Greater Manchester, which has a single identity, is quite different from having mayors in Devon, which is a vast area containing different sorts of places—let alone, perhaps, a mayor of Devon and Cornwall. That is not power in local hands, and the idea that reorganising councils will save money is a fallacy. We will see a few senior executives go, but the numbers of people on the bins, doing the work in the streets that needs to be done across Devon, will not be reduced. Reorganising councils will not save money; in fact, it will cost a huge amount of money, which is not being funded. \p Helen Maguire: The Government have claimed that the measures in this Bill, including merging councils, will save significant amounts of money. However, the County Councils Network has revealed that reorganisation could make no savings and cost money. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures in this Bill are based on out-of-date reports that risk further bankrupting local authorities? \p Martin Wrigley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. However, in my remaining minutes, I will focus on two or three other areas that were not covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). In all the powers and broad strategic aims of this Bill, the key roles played by town and parish councils are forgotten; in fact, the Bill barely mentions them. It also omits the role played by our national park authorities.

Parish and town councils are the first port of call for residents. They are closest to the ground and most responsive to the day-to-day needs of their communities—these are the truly local hands. As district councils disappear, their local assets of less significant value to the new unitary authority will likely suffer, or be overlooked or sold off without considering local input from the town or parish council, despite any changes to the community right to buy, whose successes—as we have heard—are few and far between. This Bill must contain a statutory obligation to work with the most local and community-rooted bodies, which are our parish and town councils. A duty to co-operate must be put into the Bill. Neighbourhood committees or areas, as vaguely set out as they are in the Bill, may play a part in keeping planning and other functions local within the wider unitary geography, but they must also consider and work with the town and parish councils that they cover. This must be a statutory requirement. The Bill allows mayors to convene partners and request collaboration, but those are discretionary powers. They may be used, or they may be ignored. There is no enforceable duty and no statutory requirement to co-operate, and that is a profound weakness.

National park authorities are mentioned not once in the Bill, yet they carry the legal responsibility for some of our most precious landscapes. National park authorities,  such as Dartmoor, have a majority of members from a mix of local authorities—five, in Dartmoor’s case—and a minority of Government-appointed members. Without changes, if Dartmoor ended up completely within the boundaries of a new unitary, it would effectively be managed as part of that unitary and lose its unique identity. Its planning authority will be overridden and its strategic vision may be subsumed. We must protect Dartmoor and the other parks for people to freely access and enjoy, and not let greed rip things apart for mere profit. The Bill must address how these authorities will maintain independence and protect the identities of the areas they serve.

Another missed opportunity is the need to make the provision of public toilets a statutory responsibility. Too often, councils in financial difficulties cut these vital facilities, and in Devon we know that there will be no money left over once the special educational needs and disabilities overspend has been paid for by the carefully managed districts and their reserves. It will still be a case of there being no money left.

Finally, I welcome the return of the alternative vote for mayors, but urge the Government to go further and introduce full proportional representation for all the new unitary councils, making every vote count. \p Abtisam Mohamed: I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on bringing forward this Bill, which embeds our ambition and champions the promise of devolution. It will mark the biggest transfer of power from Whitehall to our regions in a generation. It means that the protection of our public spaces will result in the improvement of our infrastructure and the strengthening of our local economy. Devolution should promote local accountability and bring decision makers closer to the people who feel the impact, and I wholeheartedly welcome the parts of the Bill that will ensure that. The creation of a community right to buy, offering more oversight on local policing and placing a duty on authorities to improve health and reduce health inequalities are also welcome steps in the right direction. The spirit of the Bill is one we should all support.

I bring clause 57 to the Government’s attention. It effectively abolishes the committee structure and introduces a measure that will impact on Sheffield, one of 38 councils running under the committee governance system. More than 80,000 people in a democratic referendum in Sheffield voted decisively in favour of a modern committee structure over the leader and cabinet model that clause 57 imposes. Through the referendum, Sheffield citizens chose collaboration through their committees, instead of decision-making powers being concentrated in fewer hands. Six years on from that referendum, the committee system works for Sheffield. It has delivered meaningful scrutiny where it was lacking before, and it has proven its worth in those moments where public trust has been under threat.

However, we are not here to discuss the merits and disadvantages of these two models of local governance. What matters is that residents have made a democratic decision at a local level, and it is important for that mandate to be respected and upheld. If the Bill passes in its current form, Sheffield is one of several councils  that will be forced to undo those years of democratic engagement. I have received countless emails from constituents and campaigners, such as It’s Our City!, who have stressed just how important this democratic engagement has been for Sheffield, and they are right. One size does not fit all, and the LGA echoes that view. \p Iqbal Mohamed: The hon. Member is making an extremely informed and important point in her speech. Does she agree that for Sheffield and her council the committee system has been better, more inclusive and more democratic for her residents than the original cabinet system? Does she endorse the view that any council that wants to go down a committee route, or any community that has already decided to do so should retain that right? \p Abtisam Mohamed: The point that I am going to make is about existing committee structures retaining their models, rather than about new committees.

The Local Government Association has also called for councils to be able to retain their structures until local communities choose otherwise, and for my constituents, similarly, this is a matter of principle. Until the people of Sheffield choose another structure in another referendum, as promised, their decision should be allowed to stand, with the same flexibility that is being offered to those who chose to directly elect council mayors. There is still time to reflect that flexibility in the Bill, so I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) and me, as well as our local council leaders, to discuss the impact that these proposals will have on our communities and their trust in local governance and, more importantly, to ensure that devolution works for Sheffield. \p Charlotte Cane: I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which states that I am a sitting member of East Cambridgeshire district council.

We can surely all agree that power should be devolved as close to communities as possible, because they know what is best for their areas far better than anyone else. Strong and empowered parish, city and principal councils that are accountable to residents help our democracy and make better decisions for the communities that they serve. Sadly, the Bill does not deliver that. Although the Government’s intention of devolution by default is commendable, the Bill represents centralisation by choice. Instead of providing for genuine decentralisation of power to communities, it empowers regional mayors at the expense of local councils, and the Secretary of State.

Local councillors have expressed concerns, including about the uncertainty that these proposals have caused at a time when councils are trying to set their budgets amid the wider crisis in local government funding, and fears that bigger authorities, particularly in rural communities, will lead to weaker connections with the areas they serve. The Bill has caused considerable uncertainty locally because it comes at a time when integrated care boards are being changed, which means that relationships with key health partners are being doubly unsettled.

Councillors in my constituency fear that because the Bill has been drafted hastily, it will not fix some obvious anomalies in our existing boundaries, such as what some people have called the “Newmarket bite”. The town of Newmarket is almost completely surrounded by my constituency. Many of my residents look to Newmarket for some of their services, and many in Newmarket look to Cambridgeshire for some of theirs. Newmarket and the surrounding villages should have had the opportunity to choose between a Cambridgeshire-based and a Suffolk-based unitary.

I am particularly concerned about the Bill’s provision to enable mayors of strategic authorities to appoint seven unelected commissioners to deliver specific areas of policy. We already have an established system for that very purpose. In most councils, we have an administration consisting of elected councillors, from which the leader of the council chooses a small group to form their cabinet. In other councils, we have committees that are responsible for oversight of policy areas. Like an earlier speaker, I am also worried about the Government’s plans to impose a leader and cabinet model on these authorities. East Cambridgeshire district council has kept the committee system because that is what our residents tell us they want. We cannot have a Minister telling us that we cannot run ourselves in the way our local community wants.

Appointing commissioners rides roughshod over the current system of democratically elected councils by allowing mayors to nominate unelected commissioners to lead on policies. How can the public hold these commissioners to account, if not at the ballot box? Who will scrutinise their judgment calls? How can we improve the transparency of their decision making at a political level?

The Bill is a missed opportunity to meaningfully decentralise power to our communities and make a fundamental shift in where power lies in this country. Where the Government are claiming to make devolution the default, they have introduced centralisation. These proposals weaken existing systems of accountability, and even in parts of the Bill where progress is made, such as on electoral reform, it tinkers at the edges. We urgently need a system where every vote counts, so we need proportional representation.

True devolution comes as a result of grassroots consultation rooted in communities. Top-down attempts at devolution, such as this Bill, sadly end in being well wide of the mark. People in my constituency do not want to be forced into a unitary authority that is, on the one hand, too big to understand local needs and, on the other hand, too small to cover the areas where they work, spend leisure time and receive healthcare. They do not want decisions to be taken by appointed commissioners rather than elected councillors. They would value real devolution and a proper say in the changes they want. I urge the Government to reconsider this Bill so that it delivers the devolution in England that people want. \p Andy MacNae: I enormously welcome this Bill. It is a thoroughly rare thing for a Government to seek to actively give up power, but this Government understand that we are going to deliver an economy that works for everyone, with a new way of governing that shifts powers away from Westminster  once and for all. At its heart, this Bill is about putting power back in the hands of communities, recognising that decisions should be made by those who know their communities best and who are fully accountable for the consequences of those decisions.

For somewhere like Lancashire, this Bill is a great opportunity to address the fundamental issues that have held us back for so long. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) explained the dysfunctional nature of Lancashire eloquently, but I will recap: we have 12 district councils, two unitaries, a county council, and a police and crime commissioner. This confusing two-tier structure—hollowed out by austerity, with little accountability and remote, fragmented decision making—sits in stark contrast with the clarity of leadership and devolved resources of our neighbouring city regions. We have had to watch Manchester, Liverpool and West Yorkshire forge ahead while we have been stuck in the slow lane.

This lived reality is the status quo that the Conservatives—including the shadow Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place—have sought to defend and maintain, but this Bill gives us a chance to change all that. It is a chance to take back control and empower our communities, and a chance to rebuild local government—to make it more effective and to save money that can be reinvested in local services. It is a chance to bring in resources that can turbocharge growth and deliver on our potential. I urge Lancashire leaders to work together with a sense of urgency in order to grasp this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

But there is an additional challenge. Even with clear determination from local leaders, it will be at least two years until Lancashire has a mayor and a restructured combined authority. It is likely to take much longer before we have the sort of capacity and capability that is already in place in the likes of Liverpool and Manchester. In that time, those city regions will move further ahead. The risk is that Lancashire will fall further behind, yet as the new Lancashire growth plan shows, there is a bright future for the county if we have the tools to create it. The plan identifies 12 transformational projects that will be game changers for us, ranging from transport infrastructure to world-class innovation zones. Overall, the proposed project pipeline has the potential to attract over £20 billion of additional investment to our county, but as things stand these are just bold ideas and possibilities. Taking them to the stage where they are fully worked-up, investable proposals requires the sort of capacity and capability that Lancashire no longer has.

That is in contrast with our neighbouring city regions, which have been able to use devolved resources to have full business cases and shovel-ready projects ready and waiting for the green light. We can see the result, with the vast majority of infrastructure pipeline projects located within strategic mayoral authorities. The stark contrast between the investment in established mayoral authorities and in areas like Lancashire, which is just starting the devolution process, risks embedding inequality in our regions. Places like Lancashire cannot wait until the devolved authorities are in place. To stop inequality taking root, we need support now to ensure that we can progress our transformational projects and deliver on our growth potential.

The recent Green Book review rather fortunately recognises this issue and helpfully identifies some ways of addressing it, including expanding the Treasury’s better business case programme, progressing the National Wealth Fund’s strategic partnership programme and, crucially, secondments from central Government to the regions. That is exactly what we need in Lancashire so that we can start to deliver on our growth plan, with our projects taking their place in the infrastructure pipeline.

Although I strongly welcome the Bill and call again on councils to come together to seize the opportunities it offers, I ask the Government to work with Lancashire MPs and local leaders to ensure that Lancashire receives the up-front support we need to start to catch up with our neighbours and to play our full and rightful role in delivering growth and prosperity for all our communities. \p Wendy Morton: Democracy matters; accountability matters. I am afraid that this Bill strips away both. At the heart of this Government’s attempted reforms lies a democratic deficit where planning committees lose their powers; councillors may scrutinise but cannot decide; and local councils are diminished, while in their place a mayor is handed sweeping powers over planning, housing, infrastructure and even development orders. This is not devolution downwards to communities; it is centralisation.

Let us be absolutely clear. In the west midlands, the Labour Mayor has shown time and again that his focus is on Birmingham, not communities such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills. This Bill will entrench that imbalance. It gives a licence to concrete over the green belt and drive a coach and horses through local democracy, leaving the elected Member of Parliament with no formal way of holding the mayor to account or even to question his decisions.

The Government say that this Bill empowers local communities, but they have cut the very funding that made neighbourhood planning possible. The neighbourhood planning programme, supported by the National Association of Local Councils, helped more than 2,000 communities to write neighbourhood plans, yet Ministers have scrapped it—at a time when they seek to railroad development across communities. The NALC is right that this move by the Government weakens the very tier of democracy that should be strengthened. It is not empowerment; it is a contradiction. My constituents know exactly what that means. Aldridge-Brownhills is all too often treated as the dumping ground for housing numbers decided elsewhere. \p Bradley Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s devolution proposal is an urban-based model that cannot be applied to rural areas without fundamentally distorting the character of that area? \p Wendy Morton: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. His communities, not dissimilar to mine, are on the edge of a large urban area—the west midlands; Birmingham—and yet we are not deeply rural. We are at real risk of being subsumed into the suburbs of Walsall or Birmingham with no say in the matter.

My constituents know what this all means, with communities feeling “done to”, not “worked with”. We have seen what happens when contradictory housing targets are imposed from above. Take the Black Country plan, which was meant to be a model of strategic planning, but it collapsed. It fell apart because residents across the Black Country lost confidence, and rightly so—it was plain wrong.

The Bill repeats the same mistakes, introducing powers to push development through, riding roughshod over local objections and concreting over our communities’ green spaces. Look at the imbalance: Birmingham’s housing targets are falling while Walsall’s are rising by 27%. My constituency is told to take the strain as our second city offloads its numbers. It is not devolution, but displacement, and it will only deepen distrust. Take Stonnall Road, Longwood Road, Longwood Lane and Bosty Lane; the list of speculative planning applications across my constituency goes on and on—and all this before the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and even this piece of legislation have been enacted.

If this Government were serious about empowerment, they would have put a brownfield-first duty into their reforms, but they chose not to. The west midlands has hundreds of hectares of derelict land that could be brought back into use, and there is funding for this already: the brownfield housing fund, the national competitive fund and the brownfield, infrastructure and land fund. However, there is no requirement for the mayor to use those funds first before launching into our precious green belt and green wedges.

Without a statutory brownfield-first duty, we know that developers will always go for the easy option first. Take the Birch Lane proposal in Aldridge—hundreds of homes on green-belt land now rebranded as grey belt. It is precisely the kind of inappropriate development this Bill will make it harder to resist, with local consultees weakened and mayoral powers strengthened. This Government are not building communities; they are dividing them.

What about infrastructure? My constituents were promised Aldridge train station—as many Members know, I talk a lot about that. Funding was secured and the business case made, yet the Labour mayor diverted the money elsewhere. If he cannot deliver on those commitments, why should this House be handing him more?

There are serious questions to answer about what exactly is grey belt. Regulations suggest that it can be used to redefine a green-belt site with building on three sides. That should alarm all of us in this place. We in Aldridge-Brownhills are now at serious risk of being subsumed within a Greater Birmingham and a Greater Walsall. Do not get me wrong, we do need houses, but let us give it some thought. Let us put them in the right place and let us not lose our identity or our communities because of Government diktat—because that is exactly what it is.

This Government are making a complete mockery of what we call green belt and green wedges, which were there to protect communities from urban sprawl. And all this at a time when Birmingham city council cannot even empty its bins. The mayor has washed his hands of it and the Deputy Prime Minister does not seem interested.  This Bill is not devolution or empowerment. Quite simply, it is a developer’s dream and a neighbourhood nightmare, and I shall be voting against it tonight. \p Sadik Al-Hassan: Having served as a town councillor and deputy mayor before my election to this House, I have witnessed at first hand the critically overdue need for reform of our local and very local council systems. Town, parish and very local councils have been plagued by inefficiencies and toothless standards for too long, which is why I particularly support the reform of our local audit system outlined in the Bill. My experiences, and those regaled to me by others over the years, have underscored the urgent need for an overhaul to ensure transparency, efficiency and accountability within our local governance structures. The Government’s commitment to reforming the local audit system is both timely and essential. The Bill prioritises the establishment of a more coherent and reliable audit framework, which will undoubtedly build trust within our communities and foster a more robust democratic process.

By addressing these systemic challenges, we are sending a clear message that councils must be accountable and that the integrity of their operations is paramount. Furthermore, these reforms represent a significant step towards greater devolution, empowering town and parish councils, such as those in North Somerset, to take decisive action tailored to the unique needs of their locals.

However, we must go further. It is crucial to introduce greater accountability through a compliance scoring system that clearly indicates to the public whether their elected representatives are undertaking best practice and demonstrating financial competence with their money. Internal audit parameters should be set nationally to ensure consistency and transparency, and we should focus on establishing effective minimum standards for councillors, ensuring that there are proper consequences when acceptable behaviour is breached. That would not just improve outcomes for local communities, but restore confidence in our local democracy.

It would also help to alleviate the ongoing issue with recruitment and retention of town and parish clerks nationally, who are the impartial and objective legal advisers to the very local councils and are tasked with ensuring that those councils operate lawfully. I am sure that many colleagues will have been made aware of the totally unacceptable behaviours that some town and parish clerks are subjected to, which are enabled by a lack of effective recourse against the perpetrators.

The ongoing loss of highly trained and experienced experts is a great loss to the sector. This recruitment crisis also hits the number willing to stand for very local councils, as potential councillors face the same unacceptable behaviours. We need professional regulation for councillors as an important first step. Monitoring officers must be properly funded through professional regulation fees paid by councils based on the number of councillors. This would enable monitoring officers to perform their vital oversight function effectively.

We cannot continue the current slide towards empty council chambers across our towns and villages, declining community involvement, and, in some areas, poor standards of behaviour and conduct. The Localism Act 2011 that  came into force during the coalition Government dismantled essential structures of accountability by abolishing the Standards Board for England.

Since then, powers to suspend councillors who breach standards have been repealed, leaving councils with no substantive recourse against poor conduct. There is now no recourse against poor standards of behaviour. This legislative deficiency has allowed pockets of inadequate behaviour to persist unchallenged, undermining the very essence of local government. We must take this opportunity to effect new systems and processes and to foster a new model of accountable politics at the local and very local level.

I have seen myself how unacceptable behaviours in local councils can go entirely unchecked, eroding trust. The Bill represents a chance to establish a higher standard and ensure that we have appropriate people serving our communities, cutting out the rot in some of our councils. If town and parish councils are to play a larger role in the devolution of local services, which undoubtedly brings the benefits of greater ownership and influence to local communities, it is essential that all councils are effectively held to the same high standards.

I wish to point out that there are very many local councils across the country that do a fabulous job, and there are some great ones in my constituency. They are governed extremely well and enrich their communities, but the minority of councils risk tarnishing the wider reputation of the sector and creating a disparity in community benefit. This Bill represents the foundation that we should build on to do better in order to establish proper standards at the local level of democracy and ensure that we have appropriate people serving our community. \p Joe Robertson: As I am sure all Members in this place do, I support the principle of devolution and empowerment—two of the words on the face of the Bill—but this Bill is about centralisation and disempowerment. For the Isle of Wight, it is about fusing our island with Hampshire under a combined mayoral authority, where 93% of the population live in Hampshire on the mainland and just 7% live on the island.

There is no empowerment, because island people will not have a say. This plan was last crystalised under the previous Labour Government, who gave islanders a say through a local referendum. Islanders voted no, and the previous Labour Government respected that vote. This Government do not respect my constituents enough to ask them whether they are happy to be fused with a much, much larger county that sits across the water. It is centralising because my local authority, the Isle of Wight council, will lose some of its powers. It will lose powers over strategic planning, so a mayor who represents largely Hampshire voters will be able to allocate more housing on the island, and any mayor who is interested in getting re-elected will, of course, be responsive to the much larger voter cohort in Hampshire.

There are three particularly offensive things about the Bill that the Government are imposing on my constituents. Our police authority is called Hampshire and Isle of Wight. Our health commissioning body is called Hampshire and Isle of Wight. Our fire and rescue  service is called Hampshire and Isle of Wight. The vast majority of organisations that operate across our two counties are named after our two counties—Hampshire and Isle of Wight. This Government are going to call our mayoral combined authority Hampshire and Solent, potentially removing our name from all the organisations that the mayor will end up having power over—from our police, our fire and rescue service, our health commissioning body, and who knows what in the future. That will be done without anyone on the Isle of Wight having a say.

The second offensive thing about this proposal for my constituency is the powers that it gives the mayor over local transport. The authority will have Solent in the title, yet the mayor will get no contingent powers over the biggest transport issue facing my residents: crossing the Solent on ferries. Solent is in the name of the combined authority, but the mayor will get no powers over ferries. Our ferries are the only unregulated, entirely privatised, foreign-owned, debt-laden key transport provider in the UK.

The Government are prepared to nationalise railways, extend the arm of Government in buses and put more money into roads, but they are not prepared to do anything about my constituents being left at the mercy of foreign-owned, debt-laden companies. I will acknowledge that they have used some warm words, and the Minister has visited the island, but this is the opportunity to deliver on those words and put powers in the hands of the mayor to regulate cross-Solent transport.

To make a really important point on ringfenced funding, because the Isle of Wight will be fused with Hampshire, the mayor will be able to spend money as they wish across a homogeneous single zone. There is no special provision in the Bill to ensure there is ringfenced funding for the Isle of Wight that cannot be raided for Hampshire. The local integrated care board is already raiding money from our hospice to spend on Hampshire hospices. In the mayoral deal, we need powers to stop that from happening.

Finally, in the consultation of my constituents on the key issue of transport, the F-word—ferries—was not mentioned even once. \p Perran Moon: 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. \p Andrew George: 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. \p 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. \p Ian Sollom: When the Government get something right, it is important to acknowledge that. The community right-to-buy provisions in the Bill represent the genuine empowerment that constituents need. I therefore acknowledge that.

In my constituency, I have a village community that is desperate to buy the local pub—an asset of community value that has been up for sale for some time. They have raised the funds for the asking price and they have community support, but the owner simply refuses to sell to them. Under the current system, they have no right of purchase and no right of refusal, and although they have raised the money, more time to organise the complex legal and financial arrangement required for community ownership would have been appreciated. The new community right-to-buy provisions in the Bill are therefore welcome.

Just as the Bill gets community empowerment right in one policy area, it misses the opportunity to do so in many others. I draw a contrast with one in particular: the skills architecture. The Bill creates new skills responsibilities for strategic authorities without clarifying how they will co-ordinate with the national role of Skills England—another new body—or the existing employer-led local skills improvement plans, or LSIPs. We have a system in which Skills England sets national priorities, LSIPs identify local employer needs and strategic authorities deliver adult education funding, but the Bill has no clear mechanisms for ensuring that those layers align or avoid costly duplication.

This fragmentation is compounded by the separation of adult skills from the broader skills and education ecosystem. The Bill devolves responsibility for adult education to strategic authorities but leaves 16-to-19 education with central Government and provides no clear role at all for universities in local economic development. This is despite the Education Secretary herself calling for universities to make a stronger contribution to economic growth through closer alignment to skills needs and economic growth plans. How can we develop coherent local skills strategies when we artificially separate the pipeline that feeds skilled employment?

The funding arrangements are also concerning. Strategic authorities will hold the adult skills budgets but have only joint ownership of the LSIPs that should guide their spending priorities. It is difficult to see how democratically accountable bodies can be responsible for outcomes when they lack control over the full planning process. Furthermore, current LSIP boundaries do not align with the proposed strategic authority boundaries, and the Government’s solution appears to be to hope that it all works out in the end. The Bill provides no mechanism for resolving conflicts and no timeline for achieving the geographical coherence that effective planning requires.

Possibly most troubling is the absence of any performance framework linking those different institutional layers. Strategic authorities must produce local growth plans, but there is no requirement for them to align with LSIPs or with Skills England workforce forecasting. We risk having three different bodies in each area producing conflicting skills priorities with no clear co-ordination mechanism. That is a recipe for confusion, waste and ultimately a failure to address the skills shortages that our economy desperately needs to resolve.

I wanted to draw a contrast, so here it is. On community assets, the Bill trusts local people and provides clear, enforceable rights. However, on skills—one of the most critical challenges facing our economy—it creates institutional complexity and lacks accountability and clear lines of responsibility. I hope the Government will go away and think again, and come back with a more coherent approach that actually delivers the local responsiveness on skills that communities and our economy so desperately need. \p Emma Foody: The UK is one of the most centrally run countries in the world. For decades, Whitehall has made every major decision on growth and investment, while the communities impacted were too often an afterthought. This has left communities poorer and trapped, playing a game that they can never win. For regions such as mine, physically the furthest away in England, it has meant that we have felt removed from decisions and decision making. This Bill is a chance to change that failure.

In the north-east, during her first year, our Mayor Kim McGuinness has launched important local projects including tackling child poverty and bringing buses back into public control, but she is unable to tackle some of the big economic challenges that we face because she does not have the powers to change them. This Bill makes it easier for the Mayor to decide how local money is spent by putting the pen in local hands, so that our own priorities come first, rather than an agreed list  made years ago with Whitehall. This will allow the Mayor to create a growth plan showing where investment is needed most, so that Westminster can follow that lead.

The north-east growth plan sets our priorities so that we can then work with this Government to deliver the projects identified. By creating these local growth plans, the Government can see the shared priorities in areas such as advanced manufacturing, clean energy and digital innovation. Regions are able to create a list of projects ready for investment; we know where the blockages are in our area because we live with them every single day.

Of course, one such priority that politicians, businesses and communities have identified for our region is the case of Moor Farm roundabout in my constituency—something I have spoken about many times in this place. It has already been identified as a priority, because upgrading it would not only address the misery that it causes for local people every day, but unlock investment in manufacturing, clean energy and housing and support business growth.

Alongside changes in the Green Book to a local place-based business case, we can ensure that we approach these priorities with a cross-departmental, mission-led approach. For too long, departmental silos have prevented a cross-Government approach, but now we can ensure that the likes of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport, the Department for Business and Trade and the Treasury work together with regional leaders to deliver local priorities.

It is not just new mayoral powers that we benefit from. I am absolutely thrilled to see in the Bill steps to protect communities and community sport for the future. The Bill takes heavily from one that I introduced in May, creating a change to safeguard sporting assets of community value. It would automatically protect football clubs, leisure centres and other sports facilities by giving local communities the first chance to buy them if they go up for sale. \p Simon Opher: Just briefly, as my hon. Friend explains about the sporting, economic and social interests, does she believe that environmental interests should also be taken into account? That would allow communities to claim other different types of funds and also to protect the environment. \p Emma Foody: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We should look at what communities prioritise and make considerations as to what they value.

Going back to sporting assets in particular, there are over 6,000 sports grounds in England alone. Protecting them under the current system is complex, buried in red tape and made far too difficult. It has meant that fewer than 100 sports facilities are protected community assets across the country, meaning that almost 99% of sports facilities across the country cannot be preserved if developers try to buy up land.

We want to give people the authority to make decisions about their own areas. This summer I was absolutely delighted to visit so many facilities in my constituency: Cramlington Rockets, Burradon Juniors and Backworth Hall cricket club, as well as working with the likes of Hazlerigg Victory, Wideopen football club and many more. These clubs and facilities are at the heart of our communities, providing not just sport but community activities, running holiday clubs and being a welcoming  community space. They are the lifeblood of many of the villages and towns across the Cramlington and Killingworth constituency. I am delighted that this Government are protecting these vital pillars in the community that are so important to local people.

For too long, Whitehall has left communities and regions like mine trapped and poorer because decisions were not taken with them in mind. This Government are changing that with the biggest shift of power out of Westminster to the north-east and my communities. It will boost growth, raise living standards and deliver services for local people. It is about giving power to those who know our communities best. I am delighted that this Labour Government are putting our regions, our communities and our neighbourhoods first. \p Ben Maguire: I rise to make the case for Kernow, or Cornwall, and its unique status in this United Kingdom. My constituents have been crystal clear with me: Cornwall must never be forcibly joined with Devon or merged into any wider regional authority. But that is not to say that Cornwall wants to go it alone. It is not about separatism at all; this is about respecting our distinct status and history. Cornwall has proudly partnered with other UK regions for decades. It has a proud and unique language, culture, history and—crucially—national minority status, which was granted over a decade ago. We were afforded the same status as our Celtic brothers and sisters in Scotland, Ireland and Wales, and so the people of Cornwall deserve a devolution deal that recognises that.

This status is not just symbolic. It creates a duty on public authorities to promote equality for the Cornish people, to support our culture, language and identity and, specifically, to avoid any assimilationist policies. Under the UK’s Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty, Ministers and local authorities alike must consider the impact of their decisions, including in this Bill, on the Cornish people. If they fail to do so, their actions can be challenged in the courts using an array of legal claims, including judicial reviews, an Equality Act claim and a Human Rights Act 1998 article 14 differential treatment claim. Therefore, these rights carry real legal and political weight. To disregard or dilute Cornwall’s status in this Bill would be insulting, unlawful and dangerous. I am alarmed that the Bill would grant the Secretary of State power to force combined authorities without local people’s consent. Devolution, in essence, should give power to the communities, regions and counties that it aims to empower, not to a mayor, a Secretary of State or an unelected commissioner.

At Prime Minister’s questions last October, the Prime Minister told me that he believes that

“Those with skin in the game know what is best for their communities.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 834.]

The Secretary of State has repeated that today. I agree with them both: decisions should be made for Cornwall and in Cornwall by a fully elected Cornish assembly—and not in Plymouth, Bristol or Westminster. They should be made by those from within the duchy who understand our unique way of life and our unique economic and social challenges—the immense challenges of funding rural transport; the unfair and unequal investment in  our schools over decades; the plight of our farmers and fishers, who seem to be left out in the cold by Government after Government; and the enormous proliferation of second homes and holiday lets, which lock local people out of our housing market, generation after generation.

In my office, I proudly display a famous painting of the Cornish rebellion of 1497. It illustrates the Cornish spirit of fairness, justice and persistence, of proud Cornish men and women who had taxes imposed upon them by the Government in London. That spirit lives on. Given Cornwall’s history and that strength of feeling, if the Secretary of State imposed a mayor of Devon and Cornwall —completely disregarding Cornwall’s national minority status, as well as legal battles—she might have a full uprising on her hands.

The Bill would likely limit Cornwall to a foundation strategic authority with limited powers, funding and control. That is why we are fighting for a bespoke devolution deal. The Bill should have mechanisms in place to allow such a bespoke deal to take place. Cornwall’s MPs look forward to working together for the good of Cornwall, onen hag oll—one and all—to make that happen. I call on the Government to fully respect Cornwall’s national minority status; to create a Minister for Cornwall, who could sit in the Wales Office; to consider the feasibility of an elected Cornish assembly instead of a mayor; and to commit to a devolution deal that respects Cornwall’s historic identity by excluding it from combined strategic authorities with other regions. Kernow bys vyken! \p Noah Law: Few matters have occupied as much of my first year in this House as the question of Cornish devolution. For decades, if not centuries, the people of Cornwall have spoken of their desire to have a greater say in the decisions that shape their lives. That desire is founded in our distinct needs and our more than 1,000-year-old national identity. That is why the arrival of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill has been watched in Cornwall with keen anticipation and, in some quarters, with understandable apprehension.

Having pored over the text of the legislation, my conclusion is this: far from being the bulldozer that many feared, the Bill leaves Cornwall’s position intact. It formalises our single foundation status and—once and for all I hope—a single geography. Crucially, it does not strip away the strategic powers that Cornwall already exercises. Recognition of our national minority status is now firmly acknowledged in this place, and, as one of the largest unitary authorities in England by geographic footprint, we retain the ability to deliver many of the functions that are only just being handed to combined or mayoral bodies elsewhere. \p Perran Moon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the historic Cornish constitutional status must be considered as part of the devolution discussion? \p Noah Law: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. On top of the many examples he has given of Cornwall’s constitutional status, and aside from our devolution arrangements with Westminster, the leader of Cornwall council was in 2023 given permission to attend ministerial meetings of the British-Irish Council, much like the other Celtic nations and the Channel Islands. In the  same year, Cornwall council and the Welsh Government signed a historic collaboration agreement, reflecting the shared culture of these two Celtic nations.

Perhaps more weightily in this place, the Crowther and Kilbrandon report of the royal commission on the constitution in 1973 acknowledged that the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1337

“established a special and enduring relationship between Cornwall and the Crown. Use of the designation on all appropriate occasions would serve to recognise both this special relationship and the territorial integrity of Cornwall”.

It went on to say that what the Cornish want is

“recognition of the fact that Cornwall has a separate identity and that its traditional boundaries shall be respected.”

Let me be clear: while the letter of the Bill does not necessarily offer the content of devolution that so many in Cornwall have long called for, I have no doubt that it will be very welcome in cities and other regions across England. But Cornwall is different: a remote coastal community, an existing administrative unit, a functional economic geography and a very good brand, if nothing else, as many Members will know from their summer holidays. Above all, Cornwall is a proud part of the United Kingdom with a distinct national identity, a resurgent language and a desire to be heard after centuries of dismissal. With the right powers, we stand ready to not only shape our own future but help lead the way in a United Kingdom that values local voices and unlocks prosperity across all nations and regions.

I greatly welcome the inclusion of new powers such as the community right to buy. That is exactly the sort of measure that can put power back into local hands, giving people in my constituency the chance to ensure that public assets like the Dolphin Inn in Grampound or the sites of the former General Wolfe in St Austell and the Fowey community hospital remain in public hands and continue to serve local needs. \p Andrew George: The hon. Member makes a very strong case for Cornwall. He should urge his colleagues in government to welcome amendments to the Bill that strengthen Cornwall’s ability to achieve its unique and very special status, which we believe needs to be enshrined in this legislation as well as the historic record. \p Noah Law: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is incredibly important that Cornwall’s national minority status is respected by the Bill, and that the powers and investment required to meet Cornwall’s distinctive needs—if not enshrined in the text—are considered as part of the devolution process in the months ahead.

Finally, we should acknowledge that while the Bill streamlines England’s devolution architecture, the mayoral model will not suit every part of our country. Cornwall has shown for over 15 years as a unitary authority that there are other effective ways to deliver devolved functions. What we need now is a plan for Cornwall—one that equips us with the powers we require over housing, transport, skills and industrial growth to meet the challenges we face. The truth is that the statutory framework set out in the Bill is not the central issue at stake. What really matters is that we secure a settlement for Cornwall that recognises our unique circumstances, protects our ability to make strategic decisions for ourselves and gives our communities the tools to thrive. \p Rebecca Paul: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to raise a few issues, all of which I know are very much on my constituents’ minds.

First, I want to emphasise the importance of ensuring that boroughs such as Reigate and Banstead, which have been managed well and are not loaded with debt, are not left footing the bill for the failures of other councils that have been less prudent with their finances. Reigate and Banstead borough council has a commendably strong record of financial prudence, so please will the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that protection will be put in place to safeguard our community assets, such as the Harlequin theatre, and our community and leisure centres?

On the Harlequin theatre specifically, I emphasise how important the asset is to the people of Redhill and beyond. It has now been closed for more than two years, following the discovery of RAAC, and residents and community groups—notably, the Harlequin Support Group—have been resolutely campaigning for its repair and reopening. I am delighted that, under the leadership of Councillor Shelly Newton, who is one of the most tenacious local councillors I have ever come across, it has now been confirmed that the £4.5 million needed for repair has been allocated. All being well, the theatre is expected to reopen by Christmas 2026. I mention that because my constituents would appreciate hearing directly from the Secretary of State and Ministers that the local government reorganisation will not hamper such projects, which have been agreed but will take some time to complete.

I also make the point that the reorganisation is not the only challenge faced by Reigate and Banstead borough council, which has just had its housing target more than doubled by this Government, at a time of great uncertainty and transition—a recipe for disaster.

I want to focus mainly, however, on the future of the civic mayoralty in Reigate and Banstead. Reigate has had a mayor since 1863. Great history and tradition is associated with the role, and the importance placed on it can be seen physically in the mayoral robes, the chain of office and the mace, which are still very much in use. The Government have been clear that their intention with the Bill is to provide a consistent model for how local government will be structured across England. What is rather less clear—I hope that the Minister or Secretary of State will be able to provide clarity—is what that means for boroughs such as mine, where a borough council is intermeshed with a long-standing tradition of civic leadership in the form of a borough mayor.

Unlike metro mayors, the mayor of the borough of Reigate and Banstead is no kind of political executive. The role is that of a civic figurehead, non-partisan, ceremonial and community focused. We have a truly outstanding mayor, Councillor Rich Michalowski, and, before him, Councillor Eddy Humphreys was another dedicated and hard-working public servant. In the past  civic year alone, the mayor responded to more than 350 engagement requests, hosted 25 town hall tours for schools and community groups, and oversaw 32 civic and charity events attended by nearly 1,500 people, not   including the thousands more who attended Remembrance Sunday. The position of borough mayor does real, practical good. Their attendance at an event brings that extra sparkle, which residents so appreciate.

Through the mayor’s trust fund, 38 families in my constituency have already been supported with grants this year. A single funding workshop led by the mayor’s team unlocked more than £50,000 for local charities. Through sustained community engagement, the mayor helps connect employers with jobseekers, donors with good causes, and schools with mentors. They promote local artists, support care homes, champion the armed forces covenant, and offer practical help to residents in crisis. I hope that Ministers will agree with my constituents in recognising the great value of a borough mayor, and that they will provide clarity on whether such roles will be preserved under the Bill and, if so, how in practical terms that will be achieved. \p Andrew Cooper: It is a pleasure to speak on what may prove to be one of the most impactful and transformative pieces of legislation of this Parliament. The Bill represents one of the most significant shifts in local government in more than half a century. It sets out a clear ambition to move power out of Westminster and into the hands of local leaders who know their communities best. For areas such as Cheshire and Warrington, that has the potential finally to give us the tools we need to unlock our full potential and to deliver real, tangible benefits for our communities.

On transport alone, the opportunity is to talk no longer about the decline in bus services but about how we are providing new routes; and to hear, instead of that we have been campaigning for a bridge or railway link for 40 years, “We have a plan to deliver.” On skills, instead of the 92% drop in adult education starters that has occurred in my area between 2015 and 2020, we can talk about how we will fix that.

It is important to recognise, however, that the approach set out in the Bill is not without risks for Cheshire and Warrington with respect to police services. The Bill gives power to the Home Secretary to redraw the policing boundaries to match the mayoral combined authority. There is no consensus in Cheshire that Cheshire police should be reorganised to exclude Halton, which is currently part of the Liverpool city region. Indeed, quite the reverse: it is felt that such a move would be explicitly bad for Halton and would damage the viability of the remainder of Cheshire police. When the Minister sums up, I hope he will provide reassurance that there will be a full consultation before Cheshire police is reorganised, and that it will not be reorganised against the wishes of its communities?

Let me turn to the Bill’s provisions on adult education. The new duty placed on strategic authorities to secure appropriate facilities for the education and training of adults aged 19 and over is a welcome step. In the focus groups that I have run with technology businesses across Cheshire and the wider north-west, there has been a clear divide between mayoral areas and non-mayoral areas, where—with some exceptions—businesses did not feel that there was a good understanding of their needs, nor a plan to deliver on them. The mayoral  combined authority presents an opportunity not only to fix that, but to think strategically about taking advantage of projects like HyNet, which will require miles of new hydrogen pipeline and people with the right skills to build it.

An important gap that the Bill does not address is post-16 education. Local authorities currently have a duty to secure enough suitable education and training provision to meet the reasonable needs of all young people in their area who are over compulsory school age, but they lack any powers to deliver this and neither can they meaningfully affect how further education is organised. That is a real challenge, particularly in my constituency, which has been left with big gaps in provision following the 2016 review into post-16 education in Cheshire and Warrington, contributing to NEET levels in Winsford being five percentage points higher than the borough-wide average.

There is an opportunity for the mayoral combined authority to deliver better outcomes for young people in my constituency, but it needs the powers to do so. I urge Ministers to work with colleagues in the Department for Education so that we can use mayors to tackle entrenched inequalities and ensure that every young person, regardless of background, has access to high-quality education and training that prepares them for the future.

This Bill is not just a handover of power, but a partnership between central Government and local communities—between elected leaders and the people they serve. For Cheshire and Warrington, it is a chance to lead by example, and to show what empowered communities can achieve when given the freedom to flourish. \p Marie Goldman: I also used to be a councillor, like many Members across the Chamber. I was deputy leader of Chelmsford city council for five years and an opposition member at Essex county council. I have seen at first hand the work of local councils and  I know that they do it in very difficult circumstances—circumstances that have got harder and harder, with dwindling funds and increased demands on council services.

Despite the very best efforts of council leaders across the country and council officers, who are often the unsung heroes local government, there are crises in housing, in special educational needs and in adult social care. We do not seem to have a plan to fix any of them, yet we seem to be rushing ahead with local government reorganisation and devolution, which to me seems a bit like putting the cart before the horse. Is the best way to fix the crisis in special educational needs or in adult social care, or to truly deliver all the housing we need a different form of local government? Why are these really important issues not part of the mix? Why do we not have a plan to fix them first—before we reorganise local government and trap ourselves in a corner?

I am in favour of devolution: it is right to have power closer to the people it affects. I want local communities to be empowered, but this Bill does not deliver that. In fact, although it devolves powers relating to transport and skills—and other things in the Bill are good, too—the local government reorganisation that goes with those measures means that this legislation does the exact opposite of delivering devolution.

Let us take Essex as an example. I choose Essex because I represent the constituency of Chelmsford in the very heart of Essex, because I used to be an Essex county councillor and because Essex is in the first wave of reorganisation. Essex will not benefit from the scrapping of first past the post, so my constituents will not benefit from their votes truly being represented. There is a proposal to replace Essex county council plus the district councils with either three, four or five unitaries. If we include the other existing unitaries plus Essex county council, we are talking about 15 councils in total. Replacing them with possibly three unitaries would be the exact opposite of devolution; it would take power away from the people and make the councillors elected to represent the people further away from them. \p Andrew Rosindell: I am delighted to hear the hon. Lady’s speech. She and I are both Essex MPs, and I agree that we should not create these huge unitary authorities, because local councils are truly in touch with local communities and local needs. However, does she agree that as Havering is also part of Essex, we should be part of that discussion as well? If my borough wants to be part of an Essex unitary authority—such as Central Essex, which would include Chelmsford—does she agree that my constituents should have the right to make that decision in a democracy? \p Marie Goldman: Absolutely. My problem with this Bill is that it feels rushed. More people want to contribute to the discussion. Constituents want to be represented and to have local government reorganised in a way that they have been able to contribute to. That would truly be democracy. What we are seeing right now is rushed and is not a proper representation of democracy.

The three-unitary model is not the only proposed model. That is being proposed by the county council, but the model that has the most support from the local district councils—nine of them—is the five-unitary model. I certainly support that, because if we have to go ahead with local government reorganisation, surely it should be with the model that keeps power closest to people. \p Andrew Rosindell: Will the hon. Lady clarify if she would support the people of Havering if they chose to be part of an Essex unitary authority—if that was their democratically chosen wish? \p Marie Goldman: I think we are in danger of getting into the weeds on exactly how local government would be reorganised.

We talk about the size of the unitary authorities that would be created. The three-unitary model in Essex would instantly create three of the top five biggest unitary authorities in the country; after growth, they would be three of the top four biggest unitary authorities. It would create enormous councils with considerably less connection with the local communities they served. That is the opposite of devolution, and I worry a lot about the loss of identity that it could lead to.

A lot of the talk is about savings. The Deputy Prime Minister talked a bit about savings from reorganisation, but there is very little evidence to support that using real-world data. Past models produced by consultancies have not used real-world data. However, according to real-world data, if the five-unitary model is chosen,  local government reorganisation is expected to save only £105 million across the whole of Essex after five years. If the three-unitary model is chosen, we will end up with £49 million less than that. This is a huge undertaking, with a lot of resources going in for very little, and we still do not have a plan for special educational needs, adult social care and all the things I mentioned earlier.

The really important point is that Greater Essex contains Thurrock, which has a very, very big debt problem: about £800 million of unsecured debt. There is no model of local government reorganisation or devolution in Greater Essex—even keeping the existing structure, frankly—that would be financially sustainable without central Government stepping in and providing funds to cover Thurrock’s debt. The maths simply do not work. I am looking directly at the Minister, because we need a solution. There will be much more unity in Essex on how to move forward if we can work out how to deal with Thurrock’s debt. It cannot be that other local residents, such as my constituents in Chelmsford, are asked to shoulder the blame for something that they did not bring about in the first place.

I turn to Essex county council elections, which were cancelled last May. We have absolutely no idea whether they will go ahead next May; it would seem a bit strange if they did, but equally we want democracy. Can the Government provide some clarity?

Finally, why is first past the post being scrapped for mayoral elections, but not for local government or general elections? That seems rather inconsistent. \p Alice Macdonald: I cannot say that devolution is a topic that comes up very often on the doorstep, but the issues that this Bill is designed to address—too much power exercised by people far away, too little say in shaping the places where we live, and too much confusion over where to go when we have a problem or an issue that needs resolving—certainly do. My constituents have raised those issues with me time and again, and devolution and the measures set out in this Bill will tackle those challenges. They will return power to local people, empower communities and power growth in areas of the country like mine in Norfolk.

In Norfolk, devolution means opportunity. It means innovation and investment, helping create new jobs in emerging industries such as clean aviation, and bolstering our existing strengths, including financial services, life sciences and clean energy. Devolution means connectivity, unlocking better and sustainable transport, which is essential in rural counties like ours. It means enhancing Norfolk and Norwich’s reputation and reach, amplifying our voices, our contribution and our impact nationally. As such, I welcome the Bill and the fact that Norfolk is part of the devolution priority programme. Current proposals will see an elected Mayor for Norfolk and Suffolk alongside the establishment of a combined authority, but we must get the structures below that level right in order to take full advantage of this opportunity. That is why local government reorganisation, and the tools set out in the Bill to deliver it, are so vital. It is a once-in-a-generation chance to provide more efficient public services, to end the overlap of councils and to deliver better value for money.

I am pleased to back the proposals, supported by six out of seven of Norfolk’s district councils, to create three unitary authorities. In Norfolk, there would be a Greater Norwich unitary with extended boundaries and two unitary authorities broadly covering the eastern and western parts of Norfolk. I grew up in Norfolk; we moved there when I was three. I know how essential it is that what is delivered is rooted in place and identity, and I believe this proposal will reflect Norfolk and what is needed there. Of course, the specific boundaries still need to be shaped with the support of community engagement, but it is the shape I believe our county needs. With it, we can unlock the full potential of Norwich. It is already a key city for the region and our country, with its economy having grown by 64% since 2010, but we can do so much more to unlock our full potential as a city of great innovation, culture and prosperity, driving growth across East Anglia and beyond. As the need for affordable and sustainable housing continues to grow—I see that the Housing Minister is on the Front Bench—the establishment of a Greater Norwich unitary authority will also offer a more effective mechanism for addressing housing demand, which is such a pressure in our city.

Devolution and effective reorganisation will be a game changer for Norwich and Norfolk, but only if we get it right. I fear that some of the other options on the table will simply not work. The proposal backed by the Conservative-controlled Norfolk county council calls for the creation of a single county unitary in Norfolk. I believe that would be just too big; its footprint would cover thousands of square miles, stretching ties between local councillors and the people they are elected to serve. Similarly, a model involving two unitary authorities fails to recognise the unique growth opportunities in Norwich, which I have set out.

Although we may disagree on the model, it is important that there is healthy debate on this subject. I thank all the councillors at all levels, who do so much for our communities every single day and who have contributed to the discussions so far. As these proposals are developed, it is vital that we work collaboratively across parties, listening to our residents to get the very best for our communities. On that point, I ask the Minister to underline that this Bill will not affect town and parish councils, and indeed will recognise the vital role they play. We have many in Norwich North—Sprowston, Drayton, Old Catton, Hellesdon and Thorpe St Andrew—and they all play important parts in our neighbourhoods.

I have one minute left—so, as a Labour and Co-operative MP, I take this opportunity to thank the Co-op party and all its members for all the campaigning they have done to deliver so many measures in this Bill, including the community right to buy. I recognise that this process may not be easy, but if we get it right, the benefits will be huge for the constituents we serve and the places we represent. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Nusrat Ghani: As colleagues can see from looking around the Chamber, there are far too many speakers to be accommodated by 7 pm, when this debate has to end. As such, after the  next speaker, the speaking limit will be three minutes, and you can calculate the numbers—not everybody will get in, even on that time limit. I call Bradley Thomas. \p Bradley Thomas: While the current devolution plans in this Bill put politics before people, the Government are pressing ahead with the Bill before the independent adult social care review is published in 2028. I believe that to reorganise local government without first confronting the fundamental crisis in care is to put the cart before the horse. Effective reform cannot be done in isolation. The Local Government Association has been clear in its view that devolution must be aligned with health, police, fire and integrated care board structures, with councils kept central to delivery, accountability and collaboration at every level.

Local consent should be a priority throughout the devolution process. Any change in governance must be made with the full consent of the people affected, yet this Bill allows the Secretary of State to impose new governance structures, including strategic authorities and regional mayors, without local agreement. That strips local people of their voice and runs counter to the very principle of devolution.

Local democracy is already being eroded by the unprecedented housing targets being forced on communities, with local objections routinely brushed aside. Residents feel powerless in shaping the future of their towns and villages, and trust in government is draining away rapidly. This Bill will only deepen that resentment, because Ministers promise devolution, but communities will actually receive less say while being treated as little more than an extension of nearby major cities. Birmingham, a city with 140 hectares of brownfield land and established infrastructure, is seeing its housing targets cut by over 30%. Meanwhile, in my constituency, where 89% of the land is green belt, targets have soared by a staggering 85%. That is not sensible planning; it is an attempt to urbanise rural areas against the will of local residents.

In her opening remarks, the Deputy Prime Minister said that at the minute, too much power is in the hands of the few when it should be in the hands of the many. The Government should therefore let local people have more of a say in what the housing target should be. If our current councils in Worcestershire are to be sidelined, it should be for a singular Worcestershire council to come into existence that can deliver value for money to the taxpayer, provide the best possible services and keep decision making local. We cannot accept Worcestershire involuntarily becoming an extension of Birmingham in the name of devolution.

The Bill’s proposals are modelled on city experiences. Worcestershire is not the same as Birmingham, Manchester or any other big city. We have different needs, different challenges and different priorities. Forcing a city template on to rural areas sidelines communities, strips away their voice and sacrifices the fabric of rural life. Once again, rural and semi-rural residents are treated as an afterthought. Counties shaped by their rural character, such as Worcestershire, are rightly proud of their identities and traditions. If this Bill is to touch our communities, it must first recognise their distinct needs and be rethought to respect them. \p Jo Platt: I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The fight to rebuild trust in politics must begin in our communities. In Leigh and Atherton, people want to feel proud of the place that they call home. They want visible investment and the power to shape their future, and that is why I welcome the Second Reading of this Bill.

This ambitious Bill is an important step in our devolution revolution, representing one of the greatest transfers of power from Westminster in a generation. It is the first UK Bill in history to include the word “empowerment” in its title. For too long, devolution has meant power being shifted between Whitehall, mayors and councils without making meaningful contact with local people. This Bill offers a meaningful step forward, giving our communities the tools to take ownership of the spaces that matter most.

As a Labour and Co-operative MP, I welcome the introduction of the community right to buy. In practice, this means that when assets of community value come to the market, communities get first dibs. Where we have lost such local assets, it has meant not just a loss of service to the community, but a further erosion of trust in local democracy. I am therefore in no doubt that giving communities a stronger voice in local decision making helps to restore trust in politics from the bottom up.

In my constituency of Leigh and Atherton, Leigh Spinners Mill and Leigh Works stand as shining examples of what happens when local people take the reins. Once derelict but now community-owned, they have become an anchor for regeneration. The mill and Leigh Works support jobs, culture and wellbeing. Across the country, people have seen beloved community spaces forced to close their doors. Thousands of community centres, youth clubs, libraries, pubs and leisure centres have closed over the past decade. With this Bill, Labour is rebuilding the fabric of our communities. Giving local people the power to buy community spaces means more assets owned and shaped by the people who use and love them. We are helping communities to unleash the energy, passion and creativity that exist in every community.

Many Members have pointed to Greater Manchester as a blueprint, and it does show what is possible when devolution is done right. Since 2015, we have built 85,000 homes, launched the Bee Network and helped more than 100,000 residents into work. I have been a strong advocate for devolution for many years. My work as a local councillor at Wigan council and then at Spinners Mill reinforced my belief in giving power to local authorities and the communities that they represent. We must seize this opportunity to put power back where it belongs, and to build a future where Leigh and Atherton and communities across the country feel empowered and proud of the places that they call home. \p Lewis Cocking: We have all been told repeatedly that the Government’s plan for local government will improve local services and save the taxpayer money, but it is increasingly clear that the Bill fails to deliver on those points. This is a forced, top-down change from Westminster that will abolish effective local councils and strip local people of their ability to have a say on local issues.

In my constituency I have two district councils, East Herts and Broxbourne, as well as Hertfordshire county council. Under this “devolution” plan, they will be abolished and replaced by new unitary councils. I strongly opposed Hertfordshire county council forming a single new unitary council covering 1.2 million people, and I am pleased to learn that that has been ruled out, but the new unitary councils will still be far larger than the district councils that we currently have. I am sure that many other Members on both sides of the House will share my experience that large local authorities are often less efficient and deliver worse services than smaller, more agile ones. The biggest council in the country is Birmingham, with a population of more than 1 million, and I doubt that anyone here would call it efficient. While no council is perfect, I believe that councils work best when they are close to the people they serve.

On top of that, I have serious doubts that these plans will actually save any money. There is no way in which efficiencies will cover the extra cost of spending by these bloated new unitary authorities. The process of reorganisation is expensive and disruptive, and I have yet to see it notably improve the finances of councils that have gone through it. Indeed, many areas will be worse off as a result of it. Responsible Conservative councils such as Broxbourne which have consistently kept within budget and kept council tax low will be forced to merge with debt-ridden neighbouring councils and raise their council tax levels. I know that where unitarisation has happened, councils have gone on to set up delivery of services based on the old district boundaries anyway. The efficiencies expected by the Government have not emerged.

I believe that the Government are going down this path of creating big new super-unitary councils, because of their failure to make progress on their target of building 1.5 million new homes. The Government are getting desperate. Rather than building houses where they are needed in London, and rather than building houses where there is appropriate infrastructure or making developers deal with infrastructure first, they are abolishing local councils in order to force through huge arbitrary housing targets in all the wrong places—on precious green belt throughout the United Kingdom. \p Euan Stainbank: Delivering a more representative system locally, as well as one that empowers local government, is necessary now, given the palpable long-term frustration with decision making that is perceived by communities to be exclusively dictated by those confined to Planet Westminster or—especially in Falkirk—Planet Holyrood. We know from experience that devolution works best when it is rooted in economic regeneration, with a real impact on ordinary people’s lives. I agreed with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who is no longer in the Chamber, when he said that Scotland is a cautionary tale. The cautionary tale for local government from 19 years of SNP government is about what happens when we do nothing, which is what the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will vote for tonight.

Local leaders can more effectively deploy policy levers in the collective national interest. For instance, the transport procurement policies of Manchester and Liverpool’s mayors have delivered hundreds of orders  from Falkirk’s bus manufacturer. That was essential, especially while our own devolved Scottish Government had their eye off the ball and on shiny new Chinese buses. When local leaders with popular mandates have been able to take charge of industrial strategy and regeneration, we see confidence return to communities that for decades have felt left behind. Reflecting on the centralising tendencies of my absent SNP colleagues, I observe that they have persistently ignored, constrained and harmed local authorities in Scotland. I am still waiting for the council tax abolition that I heard about in primary 3.

If we are asking our constituents to invest trust in their local leaders, and to engage in local decision making with the hope that it can change something, we must also take a microscope to the health of our democratic structures nationally. Turnout has been going down, and we know why: we keep hearing from folk on the doorstep that they do not think their vote changes anything. \p Simon Opher: With the removal of first past the post for mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections, is it not time that we gave local government the option of dropping first past the post, as Wales has done? Is it not also time for a national commission on electoral reform? \p Euan Stainbank: That is the point I was just about to get to. In 2022, I was elected as a local authority councillor in third place under the multi-member system, and it did work. Many people would not have gone to a different political party, or would not necessarily have come to speak to the Labour representative, but it helped that they had diverse representation. I do think it is worth looking at that system, as I was about to touch on as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections. That is why the provisions in the Bill concerning voting systems are welcome and why, to echo my hon. Friend, we should consider a national commission on electoral reform—a commitment to foster a national conversation about how we should be elected in modern Britain, and to build consensus and a way forward.

Different voting systems are already used across the country—for example, for the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, for our councils and for mayoral elections here in England. Disillusionment did not start yesterday, and any change to a voting system will not solve the degree of disengagement that we have seen in communities, but it could allow people to see their views always reflected in the institutions that represent them, as we saw with Falkirk council under the multi-member ward system. Continuing to rely on a voting system nationally, when nearly two thirds of people want change, risks crystallising the disillusionment.

By formalising and extending devolution, the Government are today moving to strengthen trust at a local level. By engaging in a serious exercise about how we are sent to this place, we can go a long way towards renewing it at a national level too. \p Sarah Dyke: It is a pleasure to speak on this important piece of legislation, and I declare my interest as a vice president of the Local  Government Association. This Bill’s intention is to support further devolution—something that the Liberal Democrats are in favour of. However, the Bill fails to properly do so, and instead only reinforces the overly centralised approach taken by the last Government.

Alongside contiguous neighbours, Somerset was ready to move forward with further devolution over six months ago, when it was part of the joint “heart of Wessex” bid. Disappointingly, the Government chose not to include it in the devolution priority programme, despite the proposal matching the growth and economic objectives set out in the Government’s White Paper and encompassing nearly 2 million people. The deal would have provided greater powers for communities struggling under national policies and given rural communities confidence that their voices are being heard.

This Bill fails to adequately deal with the ongoing and ever increasing financial crisis faced by councils across the country. Despite the challenges, Liberal Democrats in Somerset have been getting on with the job of fixing council finances following the wild mismanagement of the previous Conservative administration. Just yesterday the council published a new 20-year economic prosperity strategy, which aims to build a thriving, fair and green Somerset economy. It is leading the way on low-carbon energy, aerospace and defence.

The Bill makes no reference to the unique nature of rural communities. For example, Somerset’s population is both older and ageing faster than the national average, which will increase the amount of care needed in the county. As chair of the APPG on rural services, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the additional financial challenges that rural authorities such as Somerset face. Over half of Somerset’s budget goes towards adults’ and children’s care. There is a shortage of social care providers, which will be impacted by the rise in employer national insurance contributions, and as with so many local authorities, the pressure on the delivery of SEND provision is only increasing. The Bill does nothing to stabilise the financial footing of rural councils; in fact, it fails to even mention rural communities.

We must also acknowledge that rural communities are often at the forefront of environmental issues, such as flooding. Last month, riparian ratepayers in Somerset were informed that the Environment Agency will cease main river maintenance work within the next six months. I am deeply concerned that this will put Somerset at increasing and unacceptable risk of flooding and environmental harm. How do the Government intend to implement all of this through devolution, given that the existing authorities are responsible for reinforcement, enforcement and regulation? \p Olivia Blake: I welcome the Bill and commend the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), for her leadership in bringing it forward.

For too long, decisions about our communities have been made far from the people they affect. This Bill signals a profound shift, putting trust back into local leaders, strengthening councils and ensuring that communities have a real say in shaping their future. It provides the foundation for a new settlement for England that values local knowledge and unlocks local energy.  The return of the supplementary vote system for mayoral elections—a key feature of this important Bill—is welcome, and I associate myself with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) on the wider issues of proportional representation.

The Bill places particular emphasis on neighbourhood working by recognising the importance of neighbourhoods and the grassroots organisations that sustain them. Equally important are the measures to strengthen community right to buy, which empowers residents to take ownership of the places that matter to them most, ensuring they can be preserved and improved for future generations. I pay tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister for her clarity in purpose in driving these changes. She understands that local government is not an obstacle to progress, but the engine of it.

Although the Bill is about empowerment, we must ensure that it does not undermine the principle of local choice, however inadvertently. Since the announcement of the Bill, I have had tens of emails and more than 100 letters on this subject. In May 2021, the people of Sheffield went to the polls in a city-wide referendum. They voted decisively—by 65%—to move to a modern committee system of government, replacing the old leader and cabinet model. That was a clear democratic decision. It was also guaranteed in law for at least 10 years, with the principle that any further change could be made only by referendum.

The provisions currently in the Bill would overturn that choice, forcing Sheffield back into a governance model that its citizens have explicitly rejected. That cannot be right. It would break faith with local voters, undermine the spirit of empowerment that runs through the Bill and send the wrong message about how seriously we take democratic decisions. If this legislation is to achieve its full potential, councils that have already chosen to have a committee system via referendum should be allowed to retain that system, just as with mayoral models. I know that local leaders agree with me on this, and I appreciate that Ministers have been meeting local leaders.

This is a bold Bill; it is one that we should be proud of and that I am proud to support. It rightly enshrines the central role of councils in shaping and delivering devolution. I just hope that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater on the issue of allowing local councils to maintain their chosen model. \p Nick Timothy: The Government talk about devolution, but that is not what is going on with the Bill, or with local government reform. Power is not being handed down by central Government, but being sucked up from district councils to unitaries and from councils to mayoralties, governing enormous and very diverse territories from distant towns and cities.

In West Suffolk, we face a Suffolk and Norfolk mayoralty —probably run from Norwich—and a new unitary council structure, with either one council run from Ipswich or three different councils. Given our place on the map, Cambridge is more important to us than Norwich or Ipswich, yet there is little in these proposals to help us to exploit the economic opportunities presented by better transport connections and business opportunities coming out of one of the most dynamic cities in the country.

Of course, questions about the tax burden and distribution of revenues are fundamental. Given the state of the public finances, any savings made through local government reform might be snaffled by the Treasury. Services provided by district councils might be cut to subsidise services funded by the county council, such as adult social care.

Council debt across Suffolk stands at £1.1 billion, but there is huge variation between the councils; in Ipswich, debt per person is nearly £1,800, while in West Suffolk, it is less than £50. There is a similar story with tax. Ipswich charges the highest council tax of any shire district in the country. To equalise tax across a single Suffolk unitary council would mean massive tax rises for people living in West Suffolk, tax cuts for people in Ipswich, which would retain services unavailable to my constituents, or a worst-of-both-worlds combination.

Suffolk’s councils have their different proposals, but ultimately it will be Whitehall that decides. I am pressing Ministers and those advocating a particular model for us locally for the clear answers that we in West Suffolk need and deserve. First, will all the money saved stay in Suffolk? Secondly, will people in West Suffolk pay more in council tax as a result of this change? Will we end up funding services for Ipswich that we do not get? Thirdly, will town and parish councils be given a greater say in the planning process? Fourthly, will town and parish councils have greater powers over things such as road safety and speed limits? Fifthly, will we get an absolute guarantee that there will be no merger between Suffolk and Norfolk police forces?

This whole process is too rushed and completely unsatisfactory. It was wrong to postpone our local elections this year. The proposed reforms have not been thought through and the consequences are not clear. There may be some upsides to reform and there may even be some upsides in principle to unitary councils, but unless we get convincing answers, I will oppose not just this Bill, but the changes to local government in Suffolk. \p Beccy Cooper: This devolution debate today is a continuation of the conversation that has been doing the rounds in Sussex since the announcement that we will be in the first wave of new regions to begin the devolution process. The Bill will allow us to unlock resources at a regional level and to use them to best serve the needs of our communities. It provides the framework for cohesive, strategic planning across Sussex for the housing and services that we need, generating good employment and the freedom to travel easily. Done right, it is an opportunity for greater democratic engagement and participation.

Let me turn to a couple of the issues that have been doing the rounds in this conversation in Sussex. The first is planning and transport. Businesses in Worthing West and across Sussex are currently gridlocked by failing east-to-west travel routes and by public transport that is too often unaffordable, unreliable or absent outside of our town centres. A regional transport authority with legal responsibility for buses, trains and active travel will be able to leverage investment and design services that actually meet the needs of our communities. We want travel planning that connects people and businesses,  enables eco-tourism to flourish in our beautiful South Downs and lets residents move across Sussex without relying on a crumbling 20th-century system that is built around cars and that no longer serves us.

On housing and infrastructure, with this Bill we can align housing, planning and infrastructure finally to deliver the right homes in the right places across the region. In my constituency, almost one in four residents are now aged 65 or above, yet much of our housing stock is not fit for older age. The shortage of suitable homes limits our ability to attract working-age people to the area. Along with so many other areas, we face a dire lack of rented and affordable social housing. Only at a regional level can we plan housing that meets our needs now and into the future: homes that are accessible for our older population, affordable for young families, and supported by infrastructure to create thriving, mixed communities, networked and easily accessible across Sussex.

Finally, I will focus on the new duty on health inequalities. I welcome the Bill’s introduction of this duty, which is crucial for the rural and coastal communities in my constituency and across Sussex. The chief medical officer’s 2021 report was clear: coastal areas suffer a persistent “coastal excess” of ill health even after accounting for age and deprivation. Rural areas also face hidden deprivation that regional averages fail to capture: limited services, high fuel poverty, isolation and inadequate access to care. These are lives cut short and opportunities denied. The Bill will compel leaders in Sussex to consider health in every policy—transport, housing and skills—embedding public health in all decisions, and that is something that we can learn from at a national level too. \p James MacCleary: The Bill brands itself as “devolution by default”, but in practice it could be seen as centralisation by stealth. Real devolution shifts power out of Westminster and Whitehall to the people in local communities, but the Bill risks doing the opposite. For instance, clause 4 lets Ministers draw and redraw local maps in order for areas to have a mayor. Clause 50 lets them bolt on new functions by regulation with minimal scrutiny, and clause 9 creates seven unelected commissioners answerable only to a mayor. It also fails to explain how it will all be paid for. Let us be clear, local government is in serious financial difficulty. East Sussex county council is on course to exhaust its reserves by 2029. Councils across East Sussex carry £500 million-worth of debt. Our inboxes are full of cases that should be handled by councils that no longer have the staff or the funding. Reshuffling deck chairs on a sinking ship will not save it. Without a sustainable settlement for social care and children’s services, structural changes will fail.

Some powers are welcome, if they are funded. Bus franchising can reconnect towns and villages but not on an empty budget. Requiring key route networks and local growth plans adds duties but at the moment without giving resources. A new local audit office could help clear the audit backlog, but it cannot be both regulator and auditor—no one should mark their own homework.

I was particularly alarmed to read clause 55; this issue has affected my community particularly heavily. The clause enables forced mergers into new unitary councils. In my area, Brighton and Hove city council has launched a surprise consultation to push its boundary east to absorb Newhaven, Kingston and nearby villages in my constituency. Newhaven is a distinct port town 10 miles from Brighton. Kingston, Iford, Rodmell and Southease are rural communities in the South Downs national park. I have already written to a Minister on this subject. They are not Brighton neighbourhoods, and residents do not want decisions made for them at Hove town hall.

The Government say that they want pace. The East Sussex proposal, supported by the county council and all five districts and boroughs, keeps the county boundary intact and lets East Sussex move forward together. Brighton’s farcical counter-proposal risks delay and confusion, not least by proposing to cut across the boundaries of two county divisions and a parliamentary constituency. Its consultation does not even consider a westward expansion where the urban area of Brighton and Hove naturally continues; it goes straight into cutting up East Sussex.

Here is the test for the Bill overall: does it move power and resources to people and places, or does it pull more strings into the Secretary of State’s hands? Does it strengthen scrutiny or sidestep it? Does it fix the finances or dodge them? At the moment, it falls short on all these counts. I hope the Minister can explain the answers to those challenges. Devolution should feel like power in people’s hands, not something being done to them. \p Josh Simons: Our politics is not working. Too many people feel that what we do here has little relevance to their lives. They feel that their vote is less a source of power and a decision about our common future, and more an expression—the only way they have to demonstrate how bad the status quo has become. Often my constituents ask me, “Who is in charge of this? Who do I hold responsible for fixing it?”, and so often it is shockingly hard to know or even find out.

Our state and our political system have become so confused and centralised, with so many competing boundaries of responsibility, that power slips through the cracks and evades the grasp of elected politicians. To fix that, we must go back to first principles. This Bill is motivated by a fundamental principle: that in our democracy sovereignty flows up from the people to Parliament, not down from Parliament to the people. The people are sovereign, so the way we govern ourselves—our constitution—is not the unique property of Members in this Chamber. It is something that all of us own as citizens; we are represented as well as representatives.

That matters, because it changes how we should think about the Bill. The control that the Bill aims to give people is not new, and it is not something that this place has the unique authority to give or withhold. The Bill aims to restore a kind of local control that has for too long been gradually eroded, and its motivating principle is that, through voting, people should be able to change our political system. The right-to-request powers enshrine this principle in law, enabling strategic authorities to be ambitious in requesting the powers that the people who live in those areas need to thrive.

I know that Andy Burnham, mayor of the towns I represent in Wigan, will be ambitious in using that power for technical education, tourist taxes and employment support. As the Bill develops, I hope that consideration will be given to the responsibility to treat the requests with the seriousness that they deserve. Greater Manchester is a shining example of how this works, and it is the fastest-growing local economy in the UK, at double the UK rate. In taxi licensing, we also have an example of how power can drain from elected officials, as local people cannot hold to account the authorities and police forces responsible for their safety.

The Bill is part of a broader agenda that I strongly support: restoring power to people chosen by the public, instead of independent agencies, experts or bodies of rights and treaties. To my mind, when our politics is not working, we politicians have a responsibility to think boldly about how to make it work better. What we need is nothing less than a moment of constitutional change and fresh and creative thinking about how to reform our system. That is what I hope the Bill begins to do. \p Robbie Moore: Bringing decision making closer to local people and making it more accountable and more reflective of local needs is a laudable aim, but that is not what the Bill will do. Rather than bringing decision making closer to hard-working local people, it will cement the damaging present system of oversized unitary authorities and dubiously useful mayoralties. If we want our communities to have responsive local government with easily accessible political leaders who deliver on the desires of residents and are accountable at the ballot box, we should not be pushing for larger local government boundaries. If anything, we should be reducing their size. \p John Lamont: In Scotland, we have so-called devolution, but the reality on the ground is that the Scottish Government are centralising more and more power. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Bill creates the potential risk of that? \p Robbie Moore: I absolutely share that concern, and I will give my hon. Friend an example of what we face across the Bradford district; the people across Keighley and Ilkley have long known the dangers to smaller communities when such amalgamations occur. In 1974, their well liked and well remembered councils were abolished and absorbed into a larger Bradford council unitary authority, which is one of the largest in the country with a population of 565,000; the average size of a unitary authority is about 250,000 people. Since then, Bradford council has consistently prioritised its namesake, extracting ever higher council tax and costs from outlying areas such as my constituency and neighbouring Shipley and funnelling them into city centre projects of no benefit to the people who have paid for them. \p Andrew Rosindell: My friend is making some excellent points. The best example, which is from when this started, is the creation of Greater London in 1965. Ever since then, areas like Romford have been paying money into central London and losing our local control, local  identity and local democracy, and it has been costing us an absolute fortune. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is a lot of red tape and bureaucracy and the wrong direction to go in? \p Robbie Moore: I absolutely agree. The Bill is not about local democracy; it is about taking the power for decision making away from local people on where their council tax should be spent. That is why I am advocating that the Government should stop the Bill from progressing.

Bradford council is made up of 90 councillors, with Bradford having a greater number of councillors on the council than Keighley and Ilkley combined. That may be reflective of their rural population, but it is completely airbrushing out the distinctly different needs, desires and priorities of areas such as mine. That is why I will advocate continuously for us in Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley—and indeed the Shipley constituency—to have our own unitary authority outside that of Bradford.

Mayoralties have been arguably a greater challenge. When a constituent has an issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, you and other Members of the House know that they should not have any difficulty in contacting their parliamentarians as our constituency offices are on the high streets and our emails are always open. We have personal and deep connections to the local communities we represent and are familiar with the businesses and the people that make up those communities. But mayoralties operate over regions with hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of residents within them. If a constituent tries to contact their mayor, it is highly likely that the correspondence will never cross the mayor’s desk. Mayoral regions are simply too large for one person to seriously represent the community level.

Aggregating decision making at the strategic authority level makes exactly the same mistake. If a community wants to make an objection, it will have to do so no longer to its local council but to a strategic authority: a body not tied by history, sentiment or even geographical area to those communities, but instead under direction sent by the Government.

If we were serious about devolution, we would follow the lessons experienced by Keighley and Ilkley and make local government work at a community level. We would empower not administrative monstrosities but parish, town and smaller, more regional councils. That is why I will continue to advocate for my area to be taken out of the Bradford unitary authority and to create our own unitary authority. I advocate reversing the local government amalgamations made in the 1970s, not doubling down on them. The Bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and should not be supported. \p Maya Ellis: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have always been, and I remain, a vocal advocate for devolution and reorganisation. I got to witness the type of joy and hope I want every community to feel when I worked in Greater Manchester during the establishment of the first devolved mayoralty. I have had robust debates with councils and residents of all political persuasions on how local government reorganisation should best work in Lancashire, particularly when a sense of place  and home is so important to most of us. The prospect of what we know to be our place changing somehow can be unsettling, but if we are brought along and engaged throughout, we can usually start to see the opportunities too.

I will focus my comments on the most local level of our democratic structure: the role of town and parish councils, which I believe should be used to even greater effect if we let it. My constituency of Ribble Valley is significantly parished in its rural areas, with parishes such as Broughton and Balderstone, while more suburban areas such as Lostock Hall are not but have active community groups such as the Lostock Hall Village Team. I therefore see the strength of both formal and informal community leadership.

In clause 58, the Bill rightly creates a clearer requirement for local authorities to create neighbourhood governance structures. In a statement to this House in June, it was suggested that those could be called neighbourhood area committees, led by ward councillors. However, I am concerned that the Bill does not fully appreciate the role that town and parish councils currently play and that the accountability of such neighbourhood area committees does not seem to be enshrined.

I will cover a couple of my concerns. First, if the committees are led by ward councillors, such councillors are political in their nature whereas parish councillors are usually apolitical. We therefore need to consider the ramifications of changing the focus of those local committees. Secondly, how do we ensure that every area is advocated for by a committed representative? How do we tangibly protect areas whose ward councillors are not active or who do not create a neighbourhood governance structure? Does that remove the ability for involved residents to form groups outside that? We all know of councillors—rare as they are, I hope—who stand for political reasons or otherwise and then do not drive things locally.

Even though parish and town councils only cover 36% of the population in England, they cover some 90% of its geographical area. Some may feel that such a distinction means that parish councils are not so influential and significant in our country’s governance, but that view does a disservice to the land that we live in and on and are sustained by. As politicians, and as residents in a democracy, we are responsible for the land around us and its resources. Indeed, some of the biggest roles for parish and town councils are around planning, the environment, flooding and ensuring that local areas—the buildings, the fields, the roads and not just the people—are managed well.

Although to some this section of the Bill may feel small and fairly niche, if we do not pay attention to the conversations happening in the pub or the community centre and to the people there who understand their local area better than anyone, we will struggle to understand what people want and need. Let me be clear: this Bill is monumental. But let us build on our fantastic existing structures, especially those town and parish councils that cover 90% of our great country, as has always been— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. I call Siân Berry. \p Siân Berry: There are ideas in this Bill that devolve powers that we Greens can support. A layer of strategic government with funding and fundraising powers could empower areas of the country, such as Sussex, to improve daily life for our citizens and could strengthen democracy. However, it is worrying that the process for doing that so far and the ways in which decisions are moving forward on the reorganisation of local government have not listened to people who want to maintain their district and borough councils and have not properly engaged local people in devising new proposals rather than just commenting on them. If this is done without consent or respect for local areas, it will not be democratic or empowering.

Clause 57 is very unfair in grandfathering in existing mayoral arrangements for local councils but not preserving any committee systems—not even those chosen recently by referendum. On fair voting, the Bill is inadequate. For the new elected mayors, the Bill specifies a supplementary voting system that is better than first-past-the-post, but, as other Members have pointed out, that should be used next year in Sussex. Also, for the new authorities where new councillors are being elected, there is a genuine missed chance to have a fairer voting system for councils too.

The Bill is dangerously light on the democratic scrutiny of new mayors and combined authorities, and poor on standards in public life. There should be transparency duties on mayors to disclose their lobbying meetings, as Ministers do and all MPs should. Mayors will also be able to appoint commissioners for different areas of their powers, which will be powerful positions that are likely to be well remunerated. Yet the Bill appears to be silent on any higher standards of accountability, transparency or conduct for such people. Mayors and commissioners should all come under the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, as other people in this place do. There are big missed chances in the Bill in terms of new duties for poverty and inequality, climate, nature, healthy air, land and water pollution and health, particularly in relation to the impacts of transport and housing policy. On health determinants, the Bill mentions prosperity but not poverty or inequality; nor does it mention the huge chance to improve health by cleaning up filthy air pollution. Why not?

Greens will be arguing for all these goals and duties and more to be put in place firmly and clearly in the Bill, and for them to be matched with powers, funding and the ability to raise and use investment for homes, transport, education, justice, social justice, public health and all these other things to close the gaps that have so shamefully grown under successive Governments and continued Labour austerity. This Bill could help to deliver great things, but it will take many big changes, much work and much listening to good ideas from this part of the House for the Government to achieve that. \p Bayo Alaba: I also welcome the shadow Secretary of State to his new role. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill presents a great opportunity for Southend East and Rochford and for Greater Essex. The Bill is about giving local people the right to make decisions about the  place they call home. At its heart, it is about empowering our communities. Community does not just happen. When I was growing up, we had youth clubs, football teams and thriving heritage buildings. We had a strong sense of community. Over the past 14 years, many of these institutions have been forced to close. Devolution has already brought so many opportunities to areas that have seen more devolved power. Families in Southend East and Rochford and in Essex deserve that same level of opportunity. \p Andrew Rosindell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Bayo Alaba: I will make a bit of progress.

Widening devolution is a chance to finally reverse this trend. It introduces a new community right to buy, giving community groups a formal right of first refusal to purchase assets of community value, and it extends the time period to 12 months for communities to raise funds and negotiate a purchase price for said assets. It protects grassroots sporting facilities as assets of community value, which they are. It ends upward-only rent review clauses in commercial leases. This will allow rent to increase and decrease at the rent review, based on the current market rate. This will prevent vacant shops and help to regenerate high streets. Finally, it provides measures for accountability to ensure that mayors from all parties deliver the houses, transport and infrastructure that communities need.

The Essex economy has been held back by powers stored in Westminster. If Greater Essex had the same levels of productivity as the south-east, our local economies would be 17% bigger. It is time to unlock this economic potential and for Greater Essex to carve out its own industrial strategy and finally become the economic powerhouse I know it can be. \p Manuela Perteghella: Devolution should mean giving power back to people and communities. Decisions ought to be taken as close as possible to those they affect, but this Bill imposes a top-down model from Whitehall with sweeping new powers for the Secretary of State, mayors and their unelected commissioners, rather than the real empowerment of councils and residents. My own constituency of Stratford-on-Avon is a good example of why this matters. In rural south Warwickshire, our needs are very different from the urban north. We face unique challenges such as unreliable public transport, which leaves local residents with poor access to key services. Our fire and rescue services have been reduced. That is why I support the two-unitary council solution for Warwickshire, reflecting the reality of our place and respecting the local identities.

Further, we must not overlook the vital role that parish and town councils play in communities such as mine across Stratford-on-Avon. From creating neighbourhood development plans to supporting local groups and looking after our village greens and recreation grounds, they do outstanding work, and with the right backing, many stand ready to deliver more for their communities. Councils are already stretched to breaking point, with deficits running into the billions. For those authorities already in the deepest difficulty, devolution without proper funding is little more than rearranging the deck  chairs on the Titanic. Unless Ministers face up to the scale of the challenge and provide sustainable resources, no new governance structure will succeed.

Although bringing back the supplementary vote is a move in the right direction, the Government have missed a real opportunity to restore trust in politics through fairer elections. If the Government recognise that first past the post is not fit for mayoral elections, why is it fit for parliamentary and council elections?

I welcome the strengthening of the community right to buy scheme, which will help safeguard valued local assets, particularly in rural areas, where protecting much-loved assets and community hubs, such as our pubs, is so important. The Government must go further on this, especially when assets are kept empty and derelict by landlords.

In conclusion, the Bill could have been the moment to show that national Government are willing to put power in the hands of communities. Instead, by centralising rather than devolving, the Government have let the moment pass. \p Terry Jermy: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am in my 18th year as a member of Thetford town council and I serve as a director on the Charles Burrell Centre committee, a community benefit society in my hometown. I have served on the town council, the district council and the county council—all three tiers of local government—so Members will understand why I have a keen interest in the Bill, but it was my background in community that led me to get involved in politics in the first place. The clauses in the Bill specifically around community empowerment are exciting and long overdue.

In my constituency of South West Norfolk, where I was born and raised, I have seen the impact of community power at first hand. When my former school, Charles Burrell high school, closed in 2013, we were devastated. It was partly the emotions that come from losing a school of more than 60 years, but it was also that the physical building had been home to so many community groups and other organisations. For many, it was so much more than just a school. As a community, we set about working to save the building. At some 85,000 square feet of former secondary school with 12 acres of land, it was no easy undertaking.

Few thought it would work, but on Saturday just gone, myself and hundreds of local residents celebrated the Charles Burrell Centre’s 10th birthday. Over those 10 years, we have witnessed local people take responsibility for the site, turning it into a thriving community hub of more than 60 organisations, charities, statutory bodies and small businesses. It now creates jobs, supports families and acts as a vital anchor for the community, with an annual turnover of half a million pounds. None of that would have been possible without trust in local people.

On strategic authorities, I wonder if the Minister could speak to my concerns about opportunities for rural communities. Strategic authorities draw on metropolitan, large urban areas, but I have three market towns and 72 villages in my constituency. Although individually their economic potential would be small by comparison,  collectively our rural communities have so much potential and could significantly support the Government’s growth agenda, but they need support. How those rural communities link up and obtain that support as part of devolution, and how they work with the strategic authorities, is key. I hope the Minister can highlight how rural areas will fit in.

I want Narborough in my constituency to have as much focus as Norwich. I want Ickburgh to be on the page when we are talking about Ipswich. I particularly welcome community right to buy, giving local people the strong say they need on community issues. Sadly, for too many community projects, getting good ideas off the drawing board is still far too difficult, and I hope these priorities and others can support projects like the Charles Burrell Centre, which is now under the excellent management of Nicola Welham, supported by a fantastic staff and volunteer team in Thetford. \p Clive Jones: This Bill has missed the opportunity to introduce a fair voting system. The outdated first-past-the-post system distorts the will of the people while ignoring millions of voices across the country. It is no wonder that so many people feel disconnected from politics. This Bill could have been an opportunity to restore the disconnect, but it fails. Devolution must go hand in hand with reform that ensures that every vote counts and every community has a voice.

The Bill will not result in that ambitious shift of power from Westminster and Whitehall to communities and individuals. Sadly, it is a missed opportunity for reform. Will the Minister ask the Deputy Prime Minister to commit to considering PR more carefully? You never know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it might help the Labour party to hold on to a few more seats at the next general election. \p Mike Reader: I cannot understand how anyone could speak against the Bill. It presents a real opportunity to do something different in our local communities. Northampton has been under a unitary system for five years now, after the Conservatives bankrupted our county council, and no one there has ever said to me, “I wish we had more councils and councillors.” People want simplicity, and that is what the Bill delivers.

The Bill also delivers accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) talked about the personal accountability of councillors. In my area, the former Conservative leader had to stand down because of domestic abuse charges, and a former Conservative cabinet member is in court on abuse charges alongside men who are charged with abusing children, so I would say that more accountability for our local councillors and politicians is very important.

The Bill drives growth. I speak to investors who want to come to the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. They have heard the Chancellor talking about the opportunities in our region and think, “There is no single voice that I can speak to, but I can go to West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire or anywhere else around the country with a big mayoral authority and find someone who is championing growth.” \p Andrew Rosindell: Not in Greater London. \p Mike Reader: They may well come to London. Meanwhile, in the Ox-Cam corridor and the south midlands region, we are struggling for a single voice that is speaking out for our area. That is what devolution will deliver for us.

Devolution also saves costs. I am sure that all Members have read the detailed analysis in the Library briefings, but PwC also estimates that it will save between £500 million and £700 million a year for taxpayers. It would be absolutely bananas to vote against something that would reduce people’s tax bills.

There are some great local benefits for Northampton. I will not talk about devolution, because the Minister knows my strong views on the issues that I face. One that I will not let slip through here is e-scooter licensing. We have had a long-running e-scooter trial in Northampton. Every single month, people complain to me about scooter-litter. It is important that local authorities be able to better control those licensing agreements and hold the scooter companies to account for ensuring that scooters are in the right place. \p Deirdre Costigan: We in London also face a proliferation of e-scooters and e-bikes. The last Conservative Government absolutely failed to take any action on that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will make a huge difference to Londoners that Transport for London will now have the power to hold those companies to account and clear the pavements? \p Mike Reader: I could not agree more. I cannot imagine how anyone can deal with the myriad companies working across London. Having just one in Northampton is challenge enough—although it is a good company.

Local ownership is central to the Bill, and community right to buy will be fantastic. People have talked about pubs, but a number of different community organisations that have come to see me in the past year—the Nigerian Community Association, the Albanian Cultural Association and our local Ukrainian school—are looking to take derelict local properties and turn them into great community hubs. The Bill would give them more powers to take on those community assets and create great places in Northampton.

The Bill protects small businesses. For retail businesses on Wellingborough Road, Kettering Road in the town centre or one of the shopping parades, the removal of upward-only rent reviews will mean that shop owners have more security and protection under this Government.

Overall, I am very excited about moving power out of Whitehall and into local communities. Honestly, having listened to the debate for a good three hours, I cannot understand how anyone could possibly vote against the measures. \p Wera Hobhouse: It might surprise the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader), but in my constituency people want good local councillors —particularly the Liberal Democrat ones, who are working hard.

We Liberal Democrats passionately believe that power belongs in local communities, not concentrated in Whitehall. Although we welcome the drive for further devolution,  the Bill sidelines local councils by handing yet more authority to regional mayors. Bath council knows all too well the frustration of having a regional mayor who does not listen to all the local authorities they represent. For years, Bath council wanted to bring buses under local control, but we were stuck with a Labour mayor who refused to listen and spent millions on a birthday bus vanity project, rather than delivering the change my constituents were crying out for.

The Bill will enable mayors of strategic authorities to nominate up to seven unelected commissioners to deliver policy, accountable only to the mayor. These unelected officials add a layer of unaccountable bureaucracy that communities do not want and councils do not need. Real devolution means local communities at the heart of decision making, working collaboratively with the mayor. Clauses 21 and 22 do not even clarify on which “relevant local matters” mayors must convene with local partners—surely that cannot be right.

Also absent from the Bill are visitor levy powers for local authorities. Bath council has long been advocating for the ability to introduce a modest visitor levy. We in Bath are proud of the role we play in supporting the visitor economy, but the system needs to be fairer, recognising the costs as well as the benefits of such high levels of tourism. The Government should give local authorities these powers through the Bill, to safeguard our hugely important and valuable tourism industry.

Also missing from the Bill is the introduction of public accounts committees to oversee and hold mayoral strategic authorities accountable, much like the Public Accounts Committee does with Government expenditure. Robust local scrutiny would reduce the dependence on upward accountability to central Government and represent real progress in the existing local council and mayoral scrutiny arrangements. If the Government do support the principle of local public accounts committees, the Bill should provide a timescale for their implementation.

We Liberal Democrats support the aims of the Bill, but it clearly falls short of real devolution. What we have is a Bill that misunderstands the whole point of devolution—namely, decision making from the bottom up, not the top down. \p Darren Paffey: I really welcome this pivotal Bill. When I was deputy leader of Southampton city council, I saw at first hand how local decisions made by local people were transformative for the community, but I also saw over 14 long years of Conservative government how we were held back by a broken system that turned councils into supplicants, in constant competition with our neighbours, forced to put our begging bowl out for crumbs from Whitehall’s table. That ends with this Bill, and I really welcome the change that it represents and the measures it contains. I also welcome the fact that Southampton, along with other councils in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, is part of the devolution priority programme, allowing us to take advantage of these powers from next May.

The political benefits are clear, and the promise in our manifesto is being delivered, but the process matters, so we have to get this right. What I am interested in is how these powers improve the life chances of my constituents. My message to all council leaders, including  in Southampton, is that we must be clear about what we want to do with these powers. I note that the Conservative police and crime commissioner, who is now running to be Mayor of Hampshire, has said that her big priorities are closing hotels for asylum seekers and stopping houses being built to avoid upsetting Tory district councils. That is certainly a vision, but it is disappointingly narrower than what this moment requires.

For me, there are three basic tests that regional devolution must meet to make this worth it: first, it improves employment and skills prospects, particularly for those most marginalised from the labour market; secondly, it progresses investment in and integration of our transport network, specifically low-polluting public transport that is well connected and affordable; and thirdly, it galvanises house building, so that working people can afford to live and work locally—that is especially vital in the south, where housing demand is acute and nimby Tory and Lib Dem-led councils are failing to deliver for local people. As an aside, I also welcome the return to the more representative supplementary vote system.

I appreciate that local government reorganisation is a separate process, but in Hampshire our local leaders are being asked to endorse new council areas alongside a mayoral authority. I support the proposal backed by 12 out of the 15 councils in Hampshire—run by all parties—to establish five unitary authorities across the area and have signed a joint letter to support that. I urge Ministers to not simply take the easy option and stitch together pre-existing organisations. \p Amanda Martin: As someone who also represents a constituency in Hampshire, I agree with my hon. Friend. In terms of the letter we have sent, would it not make more sense for boundary changes to be part of the process, as opposed to an add-on at the end? \p Darren Paffey: I thank my hon. Friend and near neighbour for making that point. Absolutely, boundary changes must be looked at sympathetically by Ministers. I hope to get that reassurance in their comments, because what we stand to gain in the short term from a quick and easy decision, we will lose in the long term if councils find themselves saddled with nonsensical boundaries.

I have two other quick requests, the first of which is on mayoral councils. Giving mayoral councils a statutory footing would provide a powerful forum for central Government to meet devolved government and iron out policy issues. Secondly, will the Minister set out the Government’s ambitions and timescales for local public accounts committees? A lot of colleagues have talked about restoring trust in politics, and I think that openness, in particular on public moneys, can be delivered in that way.

In closing, there is a lot to be excited about in the Bill. I am pleased to see this Labour Government fulfilling another manifesto commitment and bringing real change for our communities. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I have cut my six-minute speech down to three. I am a supporter of devolution and devolved power, community empowerment and local decision making. In my seat,  we have a combined authority and, as I mentioned earlier, the benefits brought by the West Yorkshire Mayor in transport, with a new bus station, and in crime and policing. However, my community, even after being part of the combined authority for so long, is still not clear on where exactly the responsibilities of the council stop and those of the mayor start, or how they work together. I therefore stand here with some deep concerns.

Instead of empowering communities, the Bill risks recentralising power and bypassing local ward councillors and local actors who truly represent our diverse communities. In Kirklees, we have a cabinet system: eight councillors, none of whom is from Dewsbury and Batley, make major decisions that have an impact on every single resident and constituent in my constituency. Moving to a mandated cabinet system across the country is short-sighted, undemocratic, biased and discriminatory.

The Bill’s design places sweeping strategic powers in the hands of elected mayors and their appointed commissioners, who are often unelected. That is not genuine devolution; it is deception dressed up as localism.

The second issue is a lack of funding and financial transparency. A core failing of the Bill lies in its fiscal ambiguity. There is little detail on sustainable funding. Strategic authorities may depend heavily on mayoral precepts, levies or council contributions, risking instability and underfunded local services. On transparency, while the creation of a local audit office is welcome, this reactive measure attempts to patch a broken audit system where hundreds of authorities still face unaudited accounts, without addressing underlying systemic weaknesses such as wasteful procurement practices, a lack of transparency and unequal distribution of spend across wards.

Community voices are too often marginalised. The Bill does not prevent councils from letting vital community buildings be deliberately left in disrepair, then deciding to close the buildings because they do not have the funds to repair or run them.

In conclusion, this Bill is not devolution; it is a shift of power from local councils to centrally influenced mayors, with an opaque financial model and tokenistic community tools. The Bill must be updated to restore genuine local leadership; to guarantee long-term, transparent funding; to ensure that procurement and audit practices remain accountable and community-informed; and to embed real neighbourhood-level governance with proper funding and citizen engagement, planning and influence. \p Jonathan Brash: English devolution is a mess. It is a postcode patchwork of opaque systems, varying powers and unclear lines of accountability. That is not just an historical failure, but profoundly dangerous, because when the public cannot navigate their democracy or do not know who holds the pen on planning, transport, housing or skills, they understandably disengage. Accountability is lost, and in that vacuum politicians can get away with anything.

I will give the House one clear example: in Hartlepool, the Tees Valley Mayor has imposed a mayoral development corporation with very little consultation—certainly not with the public. Planning powers were stripped from the  council for large areas of the town, supposedly to be exercised by an appointed board. We fought hard to secure some form of democratic representation on that board, yet of its 14 members, only four hold elected office and only one is there because they have elected office. In any event, the mayor quickly outsourced the majority of those powers to a private company in Manchester, so people who have never walked our streets are now making the majority of the decisions shaping them. \p Andrew Cooper: Does my hon. Friend agree that mayoral development corporations need to be brought under the remit of the new local audit offices that are proposed in the Bill, placing the power to audit them beyond reasonable doubt? \p Jonathan Brash: I agree that far greater powers are required to hold mayoral development corporations to account, and that may be one way of doing it.

The changes are not just about planning powers: publicly owned assets are being transferred from the council and other public bodies. When Labour councillors demanded that those assets, which include Hartlepool’s civic centre, would be returned to public ownership if they were not developed or if the corporation was wound up, that demand was refused. When we asked whether the council could resist this change, the advice was stark: we could not, there was no veto and it could not be stopped by the council. When the council voted against a mayoral development corporation just down the road in Middlesbrough, it was imposed on the town anyway.

Let me be clear that I am not opposed to the principle of development corporations. I was willing to support the one in Hartlepool in the spirit of cross-party co-operation, but the outcome has become confused, with zero accountability and residents left unclear about who to turn to, especially as more and more houses in multiple occupation pop up across our town centre, put there by an unelected, unaccountable company. This is not power in the hands of the people.

Devolution was supposed to mean decisions made closer to communities, but too often the reality is the opposite: power hoarded and pushed further away from the very neighbourhoods that are supposed to be empowered. That is why I support the We’re Right Here campaign, which asks that power does not stop at the mayor’s office but flows to the people themselves. It is championed by Hartlepool’s own community leader, Sacha Bedding. It is a way forward and I hope that Ministers are listening. We must ensure that there is accountability for mayors. They can be the vehicle for delivering for the public, but the power itself can lie only in one place: with the people. \p Caroline Nokes: That brings us to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call David Simmonds. \p David Simmonds: It has been a wide-ranging debate. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Broxbourne  (Lewis Cocking), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) for their contributions. The range of issues that they and other Members covered starkly highlighted the wholesale inadequacy of the Bill in relation to the scale of the challenges that our country and our communities face.

There are big issues facing local government, which deals with some of the most difficult tasks faced by any of our public services. We know that the cost of social care is rapidly growing and will consume a greater share of the available resources. Since this Government took office, there has been a collapse in the delivery of new housing. It is down 17% in the country as a whole and there has been a 66% drop by large social landlords under Mayor Khan here in London. As we have seen in the news today, the Government’s chums in the unions have voted to extend their strikes until March 2026. The people of our second city are left with their waste uncollected and populations of rats. \p Wendy Morton: As an MP for a constituency neighbouring Birmingham, I see all too often the impact of the strikes. Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is absolutely shocking? The one thing that residents expect from their local council is a regular collection of their household waste, and often garden waste and recycling as well. Birmingham city council is failing the residents. \p David Simmonds: I thank my right hon. Friend for highlighting that issue; she has been a champion for the voices of those affected by it. While I understand that Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box time and again and said that they must wash their hands of it, the unions said in their statement today that there was “no point” negotiating with the council, because it lacked the authority to resolve the issue. The Government need to roll up their sleeves and get involved.

While our second city struggles with these challenges, here we have a piece of legislation about tinkering with structures. Not only that, but, as we learned just a week ago, it is an entirely uncosted plan. The Department has not undertaken any assessment of the cost-benefit of the measures contained in this legislation. That comes against the backdrop of the decisions of this Government which, as we know, are making the financial situation of our country more perilous by the day. In the first few months of this financial year alone, the Government borrowed £60 billion more than they raised in taxes. Borrowing costs have hit a 27-year high—a level seen only in the early days of the last Labour Government in 1998.

This Bill opens the door to a host of tax-raising powers. As we go through the pages and pages of new powers for Ministers and the Secretary of State to direct local authorities in one way or another and to instruct communities to accept this or that, we see the prospect of local authorities, which are already left a net £1.5 billion worse off by the Government’s rise in national insurance contributions, facing the maxing out of parking charges, huge increases in borrowing and big rises in business rates and council tax.

The £60 billion black hole that this Government have created just in this financial year will need to be bridged somehow. The Chancellor will be back to tell us how in a few weeks’ or months’ time, but I think we can see a clue already that local communities and local authorities  will be the route by which those costs are raised. When we read what this Bill has to say about neighbourhood governance, the threat is very clear even at parish council level. Those parishes—the smallest unit of local government, but one with precepting powers—will be one of the local kitties that the Government expect to raid to finance the consequences of their economic mismanagement.

When we think of Sir Humphrey’s famous advice that it was always best to

“dispose of the difficult bit in the title”

of the Bill, because it did a lot less harm there than in the text, we can see that when this Bill talks about devolution, it devolves to the local level the responsibility for those tax rises and service cuts. Can the Minister tell the House how many libraries will close to pay for this Bill? How many road projects will be set aside? How many more communities, such as those referred to by the Labour leader of Shrewsbury, will lose their regular recycling and bin collections to pay for it? How high will council tax go?

What is the limit that Ministers will set on the tax rises that the Bill will drive? What is the maximum parking charge or fine that Ministers think it is reasonable for councils to have? What level of costs will local businesses have to face? When we debated the Bill on business rates that sits behind many of the financial elements of this Bill, Ministers said that they wanted to tax Amazon, but they ended up taxing our local high street stores and our pubs. On average, local pubs alone have to pay £6,500 extra a year, and that was before the £60 billion that this Government have borrowed in the last few months.

I am going to finish with a direct plea to the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect. He led his party in local government—he was its champion—and for many years, he was a local councillor too, earning a huge degree of respect in this House and in that wider family as a result of the work he did. At the Government’s favoured population level for new unitary authorities, this Bill abolishes 90% of all the councillors in England’s shires at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. That is 90% of the voices of those local communities—people such as Chris Whitbread, who stood up for his community against this Government over the Bell Hotel in Epping. These people have been the voices of their communities on migrant hotels, on protecting their green belt and on air quality. They are the people who stood up for their local communities on issues such as the grooming gangs, which we heard so much about earlier from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips).

This Bill could have been transformational—a chance to step up that voice of local communities. I am sorry that the Minister lost his battle to let those communities keep their voices, but he still has time to change course, to support our reasoned amendment, start again, and build a cross-party consensus on the future of local government. Let this not be the funeral oration for local democracy in England. \p Jim McMahon: I thank hon. Members from across the House for their contributions to today’s important debate. The sheer number of Members who  wanted to speak demonstrates how important these issues are, and the passion and enthusiasm shown by Members of this House makes absolutely clear their care for their communities, as well as their desire to see local economies thrive and for the benefits of growth to be felt by every community across the country.

This Bill represents a generational shift in power that will see community empowerment enshrined in law and local leaders and mayors with skin in the game, trusted to get on and do the job they have been elected to do in a new relationship of equals with central Government—one built on a shared commitment to people and place, mutual respect and co-operation. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill does exactly what its title says. It effects a top-to-bottom redistribution of power in this country, putting decision making in the hands of our regions, towns, cities and communities and delivering real change for working people in the places they call home, bringing growth and opportunity and empowering local leaders and our mayors to make the right decisions alongside their local communities. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said at the start of the debate, this is a landmark Bill that will help us build a modern state based on a fairer, stronger partnership between central and local government.

For too long, power and opportunity has been centralised in Westminster and Whitehall, holding back growth across the country and denying millions of people the opportunity to realise the potential they have within them. Our new approach to devolution and empowerment begins the work of fixing that—powering up our regions through devolution by default and the right to request, as well as new powers, resources and freedoms, and introducing measures to fix local government and its fragile audit regime through sustainable structures and governance. It also gives real power to communities through the community right to buy local assets, rooted in our high streets, neighbourhoods and sporting grounds, and it gives them a greater say in local issues, with frontline ward councillors given the respect, power and tools they need to make a difference in their communities through neighbourhood working arrangements in every council across the country. When we said this was a top-to-bottom transfer of power, we meant it.

Before I turn to the main issues raised in the debate, I will first address the reasoned amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), and also maybe touch on some of the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). Anybody would think that the Conservatives had not been in government for 14 years, absolutely smashing local government to the core. Anybody would believe that councils were not falling over like dominoes, going bust on their watch, and that the fragmented, deal-by-deal, backroom-negotiated devolution we have had so far did not take place on their watch over 14 years. Let us forget the past, though, and look to the future.

The reasoned amendment raises concerns about local government reorganisation, which—as we have heard from Members across the House—is a big and important issue. It also talks about housing delivery and claims that the Bill means higher bills for local residents. I can assure the House that those concerns are misplaced,  and frankly, the Opposition know that. First, the Bill will not affect the process for the 21 areas already undergoing reorganisation. Those 21 areas have responded to their invitation to reorganise already. \p Kevin Hollinrake: They had no choice! \p Jim McMahon: They absolutely had a choice. It was an invitation that 21 counties have responded to, demonstrating without a doubt that the appetite and interest for reorganisation was there within communities, and they responded in that way.

This process will deliver strong, sustainable unitaries, capable of leading their communities, shaping neighbourhoods and convening local public services to deliver better outcomes for local residents. This process is separate from the Bill. In fact, the devolution priority programme areas of local government reorganisation will be submitting their final proposals to Government on 26 September. All other areas will submit their final proposals on 28 November. Before this Bill even gets out of Committee, local government reorganisation will have final proposals for the 21 counties in the two-tier area. The idea that the Bill is bringing an end to the two-tier system is for the birds. By the time it reaches Royal Assent, the work will have been done and the consultations will be taking place and well under way. The Opposition know that, of course, because they used exactly the same process of reorganisation so many times when they were in government to reduce the number of councillors, reduce the number of councils and end the two-tier system in counties across the country.

To the Opposition’s credit, ending the two-tier system is a proven model, because once local government reorganisation has taken place in an area—by the way, I have not heard anybody calling realistically for a return to the old system—savings can be made. There is a world of difference between those and the savings that Government will take, as central Government is making no savings from local councils. That change gives the freedom to move money up and down that two-tier system to where the real pressures are being faced: adult social care and SEND in particular. If we do not take action after 14 years of inaction, the system will fall over, and we will not allow it to fall over on our watch, however bad the inheritance might have been. The Opposition know all that, because they laid the groundwork and were the architects of the current system.

This Bill also gives ambitious planning powers for mayors to unlock housing and infrastructure, working alongside parliamentarians and local councillors, with powers to intervene in major strategic planning applications and to grant mayoral development orders. \p Wendy Morton: Will the Minister give way? \p Jim McMahon: I am afraid that with the time we have, I need to canter through.

The Bill also allows mayoral development corporations to be established and for a mayoral community infrastructure levy to be charged, so that we can unlock much-needed housing and infrastructure to get Britain building once again.

Thirdly, the Opposition claim that this Bill introduces a new precept and will raise bills for working people. I remind them that the mayoral precept has been in law since 2017. In fact, it was a Conservative Government who brought it into law, giving all mayors the power to introduce a precept, so we will not take lectures from them on those powers. I will say this, because I believe in devolution: pound for pound, local people—through their local councils, their local mayors and their combined authorities—see the benefit of that investment in a real way in their neighbourhoods, their communities and their towns. For large parts of Government spending, for different reasons, they do not get that in a tangible way. The accountability that then comes alongside it is important.

Finally, the reasoned amendment tabled by the Conservatives claims that this Bill fails to empower local people. As the House has heard, that is far from the case. This is a generational change, moving power away from Whitehall, with the tools needed at a local level to get things going through community right to buy, neighbourhood governance and all the things that were being asked for. We urge all colleagues to vote against the reasoned amendment in a few moments.

This Bill sees the system of devolution move away from an ad hoc, inconsistent and deal-by-deal model, replacing it with a model that is clear about what places can access, when they can access it, and under what conditions. Our new system confers functions on classes of strategic authority to allow us to deliver our commitment for devolution by default and to streamline those functions, so that all parts of England can be clear about what powers they can access.

Members have raised the supplementary vote a number of times. The Government have no plans to change the electoral system for the UK Parliament or for local council elections in England. The Government believe that while the first-past-the-post system has its place, the SV system is the right thing to do for those executive positions where an individual holds that executive power, and the mandate from local people is important. That has been raised a number of times, and I hope that puts that to bed.

On local authorities, this Government have been clear that we will fix the foundations of local government and create a system that is fit, legal and decent. Changes to governance arrangements are one way that we are simplifying local government. Alongside our intention to strengthen the role of frontline ward councillors, this will provide the tools that will make it possible to act on the local issues that people believe are important.

By abolishing the committee system, we will simplify local authority governance arrangements and ensure that all councils operate an executive form of governance. I have heard the representations from Sheffield Members and others, and meetings will take place to discuss that further, but abolishing the committee system will provide clarity and accountability for local people, and importantly will strengthen that direct line of democratic accountability. We have accepted the continuation of the 13 legacy directly elected council mayors, while introducing measures to prevent the creation of any new ones.

The subject of neighbourhood governance has also been raised. The Bill sets out a clear ambition for all local authorities to hardwire community engagement   and neighbourhood working into their governance. I do, of course, hear the calls on behalf of town and parish councils, and I share Members’ commitment to that local level, but if all we have are town and parish councils operating at a local level and no neighbourhood governance in the principal councils, we will miss the opportunity to hardwire localism in everything that councils do. We believe that we must have that hardwiring so that local people feel genuinely empowered. That is the only difference, however: this is completely compatible with town and parish councils working in partnership. When that is effective, they work in unison for the benefit of the local community, which is what we want to see from now on.

A significant amount of attention has rightly been paid to the subject of assets of community value. As we have all seen, community spaces such as pubs, cultural venues and places of worship are the life of our communities. They bring people together, foster a sense of community pride and support local economies. However, 14 years of the previous Government saw a total dismantling of that social infrastructure. People will be far too familiar with the sight of high streets being boarded up one by one, and with community centres being sold off, libraries being lost and parks being forgotten. Places that once defined a locality have been stripped away by 14 lost years. Too many of those critical assets are being lost, which is leading to soulless high streets and less vibrant local communities.

That is not because of a lack of will in local communities. It is because they do not have the tools and the powers to protect those assets and take them on. With the Bill we are starting the work to build back strong communities, which is due in no small part to the significant campaigning of the co-operative movement and the MPs here in the House who have made the case clearly that, in the end, ownership matters. We will give communities the tools and the real power to take on the assets that they love, because that is the right thing to do.

On all these issues the previous Government could have done far more, but what did we hear over the course of today’s debate? We heard Opposition Members say, “You are going too far—it is a power grab”, and in the same breath, “You are not going far enough, and you could have done more.” The truth is that this is a generational shift in power which will see a break-up of the stranglehold that Westminster and Whitehall have retained for far too long against communities across the country. This will be done with local communities, not to them, and indeed that is what has happened so far. Whether we are talking about our approach to fair funding and repairing the foundations, our approach to local government reorganisation or even our approach to devolution, this has all been done in genuine partnership with local leaders who are working together.

What I find so astonishing—and there is a night-and-day difference here—is the almost soulless response from Opposition Front Benchers who decry all these measures, omitting to say that their own local councillors are leading the charge at a local level. The leadership that has been shown, even by Conservative council leaders, puts those Opposition Front Benchers to shame. I do not know how many visits they make around the country, but I cannot imagine that their local representatives value the interpretation that has been presented from the Conservative   Front Bench, whether it is about elections, devolution or reorganisation. We are not asking Conservatives Members to be as good as the Government, but we are asking them to be at least as good as their own councillors, and to stand with them instead of standing against them. I urge all Members to support this landmark Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 367.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 365, Noes 164.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Wednesday 12 November 2025.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Chris Elmore.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: King’s recommendation signified.

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

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Keir Mather.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the charging of fees under or by virtue of the Act, and

(b) the charging of Community Infrastructure Levy by mayors for the areas of combined authorities or combined county authorities.—(Keir Mather.)

Question agreed to. \p Nusrat Ghani: With the leave of the House, I will put motions 6 to 11 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Legislative Reform (Disclosure of Adult Social Care Data) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 21 May, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) (Amendment) (Extension to the Social Rented Sector) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 25 June, be approved.

That the draft Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 25 June, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 25 June, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Local Audit (Amendment of Definition of Smaller Authority) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 16 June, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 1 July, be approved.—(Keir Mather.)

Question agreed to. \p Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to be able to present this petition, which has been organised by Mr and Mrs Mackenzie-Cook of Burton in Christchurch, who, along with thousands of other local residents, have been campaigning for the reopening of Burton’s only GP surgery, which prior to its closure in August last year had served the people of Burton for over 40 years. With local encouragement, another GP practice bought the premises earlier this year and everyone assumed that its application to reopen the branch surgery would be a formality. But in April, Dorset’s integrated care board rejected that application, and we now need the Government to overrule the unelected ICB and show everyone that they were being genuine at the general election when they promised to increase access to GP services rather than to reduce it.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the village of Burton in the constituency of Christchurch

Declares that the petitioners and other residents of the village of Burton in the constituency of Christchurch had the benefit of a local accessible GP practice on Burton Green for over 40 years prior to its closure in August 2024; are delighted that earlier this year South Coast Medical acquired the premises for the purpose of opening a new branch of the Grove Practice following a  welcome refusal by the local planning authority to permit a change of use on the grounds of loss of community benefit; and are outraged that the Dorset Integrated Care Board has since refused permission for the re-opening of the surgery.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to overrule the Dorset Integrated Care Board’s decision to refuse permission for the re-opening of a GP surgery in Burton, which ignores, inter alia, the needs and wishes of the people of Burton and the fact that new housing already in receipt of planning permission will generate demand from an additional 2,000 patients for local GP services.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003107] \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Keir Mather.) \p Robert Jenrick: Madam Deputy Speaker, can I begin by thanking you—and, through you, Mr Speaker—for granting me this Adjournment debate? It is unusual to allocate Adjournment debates to members of the shadow Cabinet, but I want to raise this important matter on behalf of my constituents. I have written to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on a number of occasions asking him to meet me, but he declined to do so.

I want to speak about the three proposed solar farms in my constituency: the One Earth project, the Great North Road solar farm and the Steeple renewables scheme. Taken together, these projects would be of continental scale. Between them, they would cover at least 10,000 acres of land, making them collectively the largest solar installation in Europe. To put that in perspective, my constituency is a large and rural one that stretches nearly 60 miles from north to south, and at least 9% of its entire land mass would be turned into a single industrial complex—an industrial farm of black glass, metal fencing, substations and, inevitably, vast battery storage plants.

This is not just about Newark. Across the Trent valley, in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire, the cumulative impact is immense. In my constituency, the figure is 9%; in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) it is 7%; and in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) it is 5 %. This is not a scattering of panels across this part of the county; it is the concentration of a vast burden on one small corner of England’s countryside. \p Jim Shannon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Nusrat Ghani: I call Jim Shannon to intervene, on large-scale solar development in the Newark constituency. \p Jim Shannon: This is not just about Newark; it affects its neighbours as well. It is an issue across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and these large-scale plans will definitely affect us all. I understand the need for renewable energy, but our farmers and their needs, and the food security of this nation, must come first. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, when it comes to ensuring that we have food security, the same rules must apply across the whole of the United Kingdom? On a side note, I see that he has been active in putting flags up. I have some 60 years’ experience of putting flags up and I would be happy to help him. \p Robert Jenrick: The hon. Member is always welcome to come up a ladder with me in Newark. Perhaps I will pay him a visit as well to fix some Union flags.

The hon. Member is right to say that these projects affect constituencies the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Many of them—all three projects I  am raising today—are treated as nationally significant infrastructure projects. That means the final decision will land not with local communities or district or county councils, but squarely on the desks of Ministers in Whitehall. It is right that debates like this occur and elected Members such as myself have the opportunity to raise the arguments with Ministers before they ultimately make these crucial decisions.

Let me make one point crystal clear at the outset: this is not about nimbyism. When I was Housing Secretary, I heard Members of this House begin speeches with those words time and again, and my heart used to sink because invariably they would go on to make an argument that was at its heart nimbyism. However, I do not recall ever, in my 11 years in Parliament, raising in this House a campaign against a housing development in my constituency—not once. Newark has accepted thousands of new homes and new estates, and I have supported those developments. We have also accepted our share of energy projects. We host small-scale solar farms, which I have not objected to. We host battery storage facilities and have absorbed significant disruption from new and potentially exciting energy projects, such as the West Burton fusion project on the site of a former coal-fired power station. This is not a constituency that resists change. It is not a part of the country that is immune to energy projects. The entire history of north Nottinghamshire has been one of energy generation—it is in the blood of my constituents. My constituents are pragmatic, reasonable and patriotic people who want to share a part of the nation’s burden in meeting its energy needs, as they have done for generations, but what is being proposed now is on an extraordinary scale. It is disproportionate and damaging and it cannot be justified.

This has become a David and Goliath struggle. On one side are small villages, sometimes not even parish councils but parish meetings, and hamlets where neighbours have had to mobilise and join forces to get their views heard. On the other side are international companies with deep pockets, slick PR machines and armies of consultants. I pay tribute here in the House to those parish councils, parish meetings and campaign groups who have fought with such courage and determination. They have had to master planning law, pore over technical surveys and produce community responses, all with minimal resources. Contrast that with the developers: I have found them at times aggressive, loose with the facts and willing to submit surveys that are frankly absurd, so it is a David and Goliath situation.

Why are we opposing this development? First, I have never known an issue to arouse such opposition in my constituency. I surveyed residents, and 90% say no. The community is speaking with one voice, and let me say why. First, these solar panels are presented as clean and green, but as we all know in this House, the reality is murkier. Most panels sold in the UK contain materials sourced in China, often from regions such as Xinjiang where there is compelling evidence of forced labour. Britain should take a lead against exploitation, not collude with it in our supply chains.

Secondly, there are dangers from flooding and fire. These projects inevitably require vast battery storage installations. Around the world, we have seen that those batteries can ignite and that catastrophic fires can occur,  sometimes releasing toxic smoke that is challenging to extinguish. Several such fires have already occurred here in Britain, as they have abroad. In the flood-prone Trent valley, the risks are greater. Putting panels, substations and batteries in areas liable to flooding presents a serious danger to life and property.

Thirdly, even if one supports solar, it should be put on rooftops and brownfield land first. Across Britain, there are 600,000 acres of south-facing industrial rooftops— warehouses, supermarkets, car parks—yet they stand largely empty. Why are we sacrificing our finest farmland when those spaces are still unused? \p Llinos Medi: Communities in Newark are affected like communities on Ynys Môn. Productive land on Ynys Môn creates good agricultural outcomes and means a good rural economy. Productivity on Ynys Môn is £4,000 below the Welsh average, and building new large-scale solar will have an impact on that. Does the right hon. Member agree that the Government should reject projects such as Maen Hir and undertake economic impact assessments on such developments to safeguard rural economies? \p Robert Jenrick: The hon. Lady makes an important point. We should think about the impact on rural communities. Larger projects such as those that I am speaking about will have a profound impact on rural communities.

To go back to the point I was making, why are we not using every incentive possible to ensure that such projects are placed on warehouses or factories rather than on beautiful and important countryside? It makes no sense.

Fourthly, let me address the impact on the countryside itself. These are some of the finest landscapes in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. They will be scarred for generations. Some families will find solar farms just metres from their gardens. Imagine walking the dog not along a hedgerow, but between two 3.5-metre-high metal fences bristling with CCTV cameras. Imagine going for a run, flanked for miles not by rolling British countryside but by 4-metre-high walls of black glass. That is not the rural England that my constituents cherish.

Fifthly, there will be a massive impact on rural life. I believe in house building, but if we encircle villages with solar farms, we will make it nigh-on impossible to have organic housing growth in those villages in the years to come, at a time when our country needs new houses in rural communities. \p Richard Fuller: I know that there are rules about shadow Ministers speaking in Adjournment debates, but with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make an intervention. My right hon. Friend has made an important point about the impact on the local economy and the options of farming and new housing. If 10% of the land area of Newark is being covered in one thing, that limits lots of other opportunities. Does he feel that the Government have got the right balance in their push for net zero? \p Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The answer is no. If we want to pursue net zero— even with the zealotry of some in the Government—we have to strike a balance. It is not being pursued in a proportionate and sensible way. It is alienating people—  thousands of people in my constituency—many of whom feel passionately about this issue but do not want to see their countryside destroyed and their quality of life ruined. \p Tom Gordon: My constituency has a similar situation to the one the right hon. Gentleman is describing. The village of Scotton, which is home to the house where Guy Fawkes grew up, risks being encircled by a similar sort of development. People on the ground are pragmatic, but the issue comes down to planning rules and laws. It is simply not pragmatic or possible to get emergency vehicles or heavy goods vehicles through those communities. Does he agree that there needs to be a more common-sense approach to tackling these issues in rural communities? \p Robert Jenrick: I certainly do. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Imagine the disruption, even just for a couple of years, of constructing 10,000 acres of solar farms in small rural areas with country lanes. It will be absolutely immense.

Sixthly, on food security, the land that I am speaking about is not scrubland, but some of the best and most versatile farmland in England. To take it out of production for 25 years is reckless. A 2023 report for the Welsh Government found that solar farms risk causing soil compaction and permanent damage, reducing yields long after the panels are gone. In Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire, 99.1% of solar installations already sit on our best farmland. Developers’ soil tests conveniently downgrade land quality, but those are surveys they commission themselves. Once farmland is lost, we become dependent on imports, which are often produced to lower standards, with greater carbon cost and from countries where we have no control. That undermines not just food security but national security. \p Lincoln Jopp: It is a pleasure to come in on the side of David versus Goliath. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 10,000 acres being proposed in his constituency could be replaced by 5,000 acres of floating solar on the reservoirs of this country? In my constituency, I have 2,000 acres of raised reservoirs. They are all closed sites; we cannot see the top of them. They are twice as efficient as land-based systems, and they reduce evaporation by 70%. Would that not be a better way of striking a balance than plastering them all over Newark? \p Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I know he has spoken about this before. Let us do exactly that—let us have floating solar panels, if there is the appetite for them. Let us have solar panels on our factories and warehouses, above our multi-storey car parks and on homes, frankly, but let us not destroy the countryside for a generation or more. \p James Naish: I should note my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a landowner, and I should also acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman is my Member of Parliament. I will make a helpful contribution in a moment, but I wonder what his views are on landowner choice in this. One of the solar applications he is referencing is from a single landowner who has made the choice to put the land forward for this purpose because he lives a long way away. How does that fit into the arguments he is making as, presumably, a free market economist? \p Robert Jenrick: I am not clear from the hon. Gentleman’s comments whether he supports or opposes the vast number of solar farms being built in Nottinghamshire. Of course, it is a free market in which landowners can choose to do as they wish. I personally would not do it, because I care more about food security and the countryside and would hope to be more concerned for my neighbours than some of these large landowners are, but what is driving this are the economics of it. The economics are set by Government policy, and the Government have the ability to change the economics and change the planning rules, so that this becomes difficult, if not impossible. \p Christopher Chope: Will my right hon. Friend give way? \p Robert Jenrick: I will, briefly, and then I should conclude. \p Christopher Chope: One way of dealing with that would be for the Government to prohibit the import of solar panels and insist that, as a condition of such solar farms, panels must be produced within the United Kingdom. Would that not be a sensible policy? \p Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend makes a very good point indeed. The suggestion we have heard over a generation that green jobs will come to the UK has turned out to largely be a mirage, because so much green technology is, in fact, produced overseas. Solar panels are almost exclusively made overseas, often in China, and that is a grave mistake.

Let me close by making two final points. The first is on the cumulative impact. As I said in my opening remarks, this is not about a small solar farm of 100 or 200 acres. This is about almost 10% of the entire land mass of my constituency being covered in solar panels. If these applications are nodded through by the Secretary of State, more will follow. Where does this end? Will we have a situation in five, 10 or 15 years where 20% or a third of the countryside in my constituency is covered in solar panels? That does not seem in any way impossible to me. Enough is enough, and my constituents are sick to death of it. We have to ensure that their concerns are heard and the cumulative effect is taken into account.

This matters not just to my constituents; it matters to the country, because the loss of food security in places like Nottinghamshire or Lincolnshire will affect all of us. Let me give an example. The three Newark projects covering 10,000 acres amount to land that could support more than 73,000 sheep, or produce 20 million loaves of bread or 700 million Weetabix. That is food production on a massive scale that we cannot afford to sacrifice. Every solar farm will beget more: a new substation leads to more applications; then come the battery storage plants; and soon the cumulative effect is devastating.

That is why my constituents oppose the three schemes with such passion. That is why I am in the Chamber this evening, to ask the Minister to give the applications due consideration when they land on her desk, or that of the Secretary of State, in time. I appreciate that she may be limited in what she can say, because of the planning process, but in due course I ask her to put herself in the shoes of my constituents, to think how she would feel if a 3.5-metre solar panel was built next to her house or if  the village that she loved was ruined, and how she feels about the future of our country if our food security is to be sacrificed in this way. \p Kerry McCarthy: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on securing a debate on this important issue on behalf of his constituents. As he has acknowledged, I am limited in what I can say about specific projects within the planning system, but before I move on to address some of the detail that he has mentioned in his speech, I will explain why solar is so important to our energy security, to lower bills, and for climate action.

More than three years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, our energy system remains at the mercy of price fluctuations on the international fossil fuel markets. Wholesale gas prices remain high—75% higher than before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The simple fact is that the only way to get energy bills down for good is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. That is why one of the Government’s guiding missions is to achieve clean power by 2030. Solar, as the cheapest and most easily deployable renewable energy source, is right at the heart of that mission.

Our clean power action plan, published last December, set out that 45 GW to 47 GW of solar power are required by 2030, up from about 19 GW at present. Thankfully, our vastly experienced UK solar sector stands ready to deploy at pace and at scale. One of the first things that we did on getting into government last year was to consent to several major solar projects that had been stuck in the in-tray. Solar is overwhelmingly popular with the British public. Our recent public attitudes survey found that solar energy is supported by 86% of the public—that figure has never dropped below 80%.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Newark, however, that if we want to keep support for solar that high, it must be rolled out in a way that provides communities with a say and with a direct benefit if they host clean power projects. First, that means protecting local communities and ensuring that only the right projects get the green light from the planning system. All projects are subject to a rigorous planning process in which the views and interests of local communities are considered. That includes things such as the potential impact on biodiversity, the local economy, visual amenity, protected landscapes and land use.

Secondly, it is essential that communities feel involved in the decision making on projects. Developers of projects larger than 50 MW, which qualify as nationally significant infrastructure, must complete considerable community engagement before any decision is taken. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are about to return control over a greater number of those projects to local authorities by doubling the threshold to 100 MW. That will come into force at the end of this year. For projects of all sizes, however, the level and quality of community engagement by developers is taken into account by decision makers.

The right hon. Member for Newark expressed concern about the use of agricultural land. The planning guidance makes it clear that, whenever possible, developers should  utilise brownfield, industrial, contaminated or previously developed land. Where the development of agricultural land is shown to be necessary, lower-quality land should be preferred to higher-quality land, but it is important that we do not overstate the amount of land that is used for solar developments. In the solar road map, which was published in June, we set out our expectation that, even in the most ambitious scenarios, only up to 0.4% of UK land would be devoted to solar—significantly less, as Members may be aware, than is currently covered by golf courses. I will come on to the issue of clustering and concentration in a moment.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned food security. We do not accept that there is a trade-off between solar deployment and food security. In fact, the chief climate adviser to the National Farmers Union stated recently that there is no threat to national food security from solar.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned biodiversity. There is evidence that solar can improve biodiversity when it is installed on agricultural land—he talked about sheep and mentioned sheep grazing under solar panels. Under biodiversity net gain, projects smaller than 50 MW are required to increase biodiversity by 10%, and we are investigating the possibility of extended BNG to nationally significant projects as well. I do not know if he has read the recent study by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the University of Cambridge that found that solar farms in East Anglia have up to three times more birds than surrounding arable farmland.

When local communities do their country a great service, as the right hon. Gentleman said, by hosting solar farms, it is important that they enjoy a share of the benefits. In a recent working paper, we proposed that it should be mandatory for developers to provide community benefit funds. The working paper included a call for evidence seeking views on facilitating shared ownership and on whether the Government should consider expanding shared ownership, and we are currently working to get that framework right. \p James Naish: Having worked in the energy industry, I am a strong proponent of local area energy plans that would empower communities to plan their energy needs. One of the big issues for constituents is that energy planning feels very reactive and is based on what landowners choose to do. It would be far more empowering to encourage communities to look at the land within their local authority or a bigger area and to proactively plan, just as we do with housing. Will the Minister consider thinking about how she can work with other Departments to encourage local area energy plans to have a statutory basis? \p Kerry McCarthy: I am pretty sure that my hon. Friend has raised that issue at Energy Security and Net Zero questions before. I will remind the Minister for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), to engage further with him about that.

On clustering, and coming to the nub of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, some communities feel that what they are being asked to host is excessive. I have a few responses to that issue. First, the planning system includes provisions to assess cumulative impacts under  such circumstances, so that should be a part of the process. Secondly, we will be changing the way that we allocate energy infrastructure around the country. To date, developers have been incentivised to build projects where there is spare grid capacity and in industrial areas, such as the midlands. That is why there is that attraction and that can lead to clustering.

In the future, we will take a completely different approach to the one that we inherited from the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. We have commissioned the National Energy System Operator to create a strategic spatial energy plan that will set out a strategy for how new infrastructure should be spread across the country. By investing in our electricity networks and our grid, we can ensure that the grid will go where the projects are, rather than the other way around.

I wish I had time to answer all the other points that the right hon. Gentleman raised about storage and safety, but I will be happy to do so in writing. Finally, I want to focus on what we are doing to accelerate solar deployment on rooftops. We will encourage the installation of solar on new-build housing and on commercial buildings through new building standards. The vast majority of new homes built under these standards will have rooftop solar fitted. We have permitted development rights to allow most rooftop projects to proceed without an application for planning permission, and we have just conducted a call for evidence about adding solar canopies in car parks.

Great British Energy is putting solar on 200 schools and on 200 NHS sites to bring down bills and build more local clean power. Next month, we will launch our   ambitious warm homes plan, with £13.2 billion available to support people with the upfront costs of installing green technology, including rooftop solar, insulation of homes, heat pumps and so on. We are unleashing a rooftop revolution because we think that rooftop is so important, but the scale of the challenge facing us, to get to clean power by 2030 and to ramp up renewables, means that ground-mounted solar and floating solar, which the Government also support, have to be a part of the plan.

To sum up, we take the concerns raised by the right hon. Gentleman very seriously. We want to take people with us on our clean power mission, which will work only if we do so. We are putting measures in place to get the planning process right, to ensure that communities benefit from hosting clean energy, and to support the strategic spread of projects across the country, including in urban areas, through our rooftop revolution. I am glad that the British people agree with us that solar is a vital part of our future energy mix, but we are never complacent about retaining that support. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to set out—in brief, at least—our position, and he will appreciate why we cannot be too specific about some of the points he raises.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.