What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
As the Prime Minister made clear when he took office, we are giving pubs and community venues real breathing space through the 20% cut to their business rates, but our reform of business rates and our support for the high street does not end there. We are considering every possible opportunity to support retail, hospitality and leisure businesses on the high street, so that high streets in all our communities across the country can thrive.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for talking about the Station House in his constituency; I am sure we all have pubs in our own neighbourhoods that we feel are at the heart of the local communities that we represent. The 20% business rates cut that we announced was a down payment on further reform. We will continue to look into what we can do to support pubs, hospitality and other high street uses, because we know how much they matter to everyone in this Chamber and all the people whom we represent.
I wonder whether any other Members might say that they have the most pubs in their constituency, or whether the hon. Lady has done her research. [Interruption.] I hear her saying that hers are the best pubs, a claim that even more Members may challenge in the Chamber. Although the hon. Lady and I have some differences, I think that we share a desire to see a fairer business rates system. I know that the 20% cut for pubs and community venues was widely welcomed, and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made it clear that we want to go on looking at what we can do to support our hospitality venues, pubs and other high street uses. This is not a question of taking one policy announcement from July and thinking that that is the end of the story, because we know how important high streets are to communities across the country, and we want to see them thrive.
As part of the £600 million package the Government announced in May, there will be no rise in fuel duty this year. This means that the temporary 5p cut will be extended till the end of the year, providing certainty to motorists. In total, the decisions taken since the 2024 general election to freeze fuel duty save motorists 11p per litre, or £120 per year for the average car, compared with the plans inherited from the previous Government.
I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of providing breathing space for families, which is a priority for us as a Government, and she mentioned her plans. I have set out what we have done since the general election to reduce fuel prices by 11p per litre compared with what they would have been otherwise. As I set out in my earlier remarks, the 5p cut has been extended to the end of the year, and as she would expect, any future decisions will be taken at the Budget by the Chancellor.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the fact that international events have an impact on prices here at home. We did not want to get involved in that conflict, unlike the Conservative party. None the less, we are impacted by it, and the right thing for us to do as a Government is to make sure we are providing breathing space for families as we weather international events.
Although my hon. Friend is right that fuel duty is one cost that families face, they also face a number of other costs, including through insurance. He is a formidable campaigner on a range of issues, so I would be happy to meet him to discuss this issue, or to ask my colleague, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), to do so, if she is better placed to respond.
I thank my hon. Friend for his request of the Chancellor at the Budget. As the Chancellor set out earlier, he will take those decisions at the Budget in the normal way, but my hon. Friend has made a powerful case for his constituents and used this opportunity to ensure that all of us on the Treasury Front-Bench team have heard what he has to say.
I think the hon. Gentleman’s point is that the price of fuel is linked to international events, which, as I said earlier, I very much agree with. That is why it is important that we de-escalate the situation in the strait of Hormuz, which is the best way to bring down the cost of fuel. Meanwhile, the Government are determined to give families across the country breathing space—extending the 5p cut until the end of the year, a £2 cap on bus fares, and removing VAT from electricity bills—as we weather the impact of international events.
Fiscal decisions are taken at the Budget, but I join my hon. Friend in urging the Welsh Government to consider extending the support that we have given to English pubs to pubs in Wales.
As I said a moment ago, decisions on fiscal matters are taken at the Budget, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to urge the Scottish Government to follow the UK Government’s example by providing support to pubs in Scotland, too.
I congratulate the organisation in my hon. Friend’s constituency for successfully fundraising for two defibrillators. As she knows, decisions on fiscal matters are taken at the Budget. She makes a powerful case, but we have to evaluate whether VAT reliefs are passed on in full to consumers. That is one of the key considerations when taking decisions of this sort.
We are providing a 20% cut in business rates for pubs in England. I urge the Scottish Government to do the same for Scottish pubs.
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of removing the low-value imports relief and levelling the playing field with high streets. As she will know, my predecessor announced in June that we are bringing forward the implementation of the measure to October 2028 to benefit high streets across the country as quickly as possible.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, which will be warmly welcomed in my constituency, and also for the light he has continued to shine on Gaza. He talked about the students we have brought across, many of whom I have met—they are bright and intelligent, and any country would be proud to have them as part of its future. For there to be a future, children need to have a future. The Foreign Secretary talked about the appalling death toll of children, but there are also tens of thousands of unaccompanied children in Gaza in desperate need, particularly since the collapse of the medical system. Will he tell us what more we can do to give those children protection and medical aid, so that they have the future they deserve?
Over recess, I had the privilege of visiting the islands with Members of this House and the other place. There, we met the Falkland Islands Government and our British service personnel, and also paid tribute to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. Whatever the posturing of an Argentinian President or an Israeli Minister, the Falkland Islands remain proudly British. Will the Minister join me in thanking all those service personnel on the islands for their contribution to UK defence?
When the Bank of Scotland closed its Larkhall branch, it left the town with no high street bank. It is a problem not only for Larkhall but for nearby villages including Ashgill and Netherburn. I am grateful to Treasury Ministers for engaging with me on this issue over the last few months. What can the Government do to support towns like Larkhall and protect face-to-face banking services in rural communities?
It is great to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan; I think this is the first time I have responded to a debate with you in the Chair, so congratulations. I congratulate the new shadow Minister on what I understand is his first visit to Westminster Hall since his appointment. It has been a good visit. It is great to be having this debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing it. He is right to say that an hour is not enough for it, but I am sure we will come back to these issues on a number of occasions. As he knows, we have a Green Paper process to consider the principles behind these big issues, and we then work out the detail by asking people what they think is the best way to deliver things. I know that he is very knowledgeable about these issues and will continue to bring that knowledge and experience to the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Green Paper has some controversial proposals, but I am not sure that they are necessarily controversial. There are big questions that we have to answer in a changing media environment, and they sit alongside a number of other big issues that the Government currently have timetabled, including the BBC charter, which I will come to in a few moments. BBC charter renewal, the Green Paper and other issues of online safety are all coming together in this new environment, with the blurring between what is television and other issues. Let me set the scene for why we are doing this. When they are functioning effectively, we would all agree that our media provide the foundation for a cohesive country and a healthy democracy. They can establish shared understanding, shared facts and shared experiences. That is crucial for helping people to trust and understand one another, and for communities to be held together. However, the media are facing huge challenges. As we set out in the Green Paper, television is undergoing a profound transformation, having moved from the system of limited broadcast channels we had when we were growing up, as the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) suggests, to an environment of having content everywhere for everyone, where the largest players are the global streaming services, video-sharing platforms and social media companies. Our domestic broadcasters, which are the best in the world, including our public service media providers, are battling to be seen in an increasingly competitive and fragmented market in which audiences are seeking their entertainment and news. As we know, people—particularly the young—increasingly access news online, rather than through more regulated spaces such as their TV sets, so there is a disparity: if someone is sitting in front of a piece of content on television, it is regulated, whereas if they watch the same or similar content online, it is not regulated. That is the kind of big issue that the Green Paper is trying to draw out. That weakens the ability of trustworthy news providers to reach audiences and shape and inform public debate. The Government believe that we need to do more to adequately equip younger generations with access to high-quality media. That is why we are acting. In the light of those challenges, for the “Watch this space” Green Paper we consulted on a variety of proposals to ensure that media, and television in particular, can continue to play a vital role in our society and our democracy by making high-quality UK content and trustworthy news accessible and sustainable for the next generation and beyond. I welcome this debate and the many thousands of responses to the consultation that we received—many tens of thousands, I believe—which help us scrutinise every measure properly to ensure it is as robust and forward-looking as possible. Let me come to some of the issues that Members raised. First, the right hon. Member for Maldon raised prominence. Public service media content needs to be easy to find on the platforms on which people watch TV or TV-like content. The Green Paper therefore examines the need for increased discoverability on third-party platforms such as video-sharing platforms. The Government have been very clear that our strong preference remains an industry-led voluntary agreement to achieve that in a sustainable and robust way that satisfies all parties. I pay particular tribute to YouTube for the way in which it has engaged with us. However, should those partnerships not go far enough in delivering our objectives, we will need to consider legislation. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk said that content on YouTube is delivered by the user or by user preference. It is not, really; it is delivered by the algorithm. What is delivered to users is fed to them by whatever the algorithm suggests. If it were purely user-driven, that would deal with prominence, because people would be looking for the stuff that they want to see.
Absolutely. The international comparisons are not there, because nobody in other regimes has done this before for prominence. If we look at the entire online world, we see that Australia has been the cheerleader for an under-16s social media ban and for functionality changes to social media, but nobody has really looked at the algorithms, how people digest their entertainment and where it comes from, so we would be the first movers. One of the key issues that we have to unpick is that we want a UK solution for UK audiences and users, but west coast American companies dominate the marketplace. That is one of the key things that we are trying to work through with this Green Paper and the big issues that have been raised. I will not go into the various ways of improving discoverability today, but they will be looked at in the coming weeks and months as a result of the Green Paper consultation. We want a thriving public service media sector, which would have massive spill-over effects for the entirety of the rest of the economy. If we crack prominence and get it right on a voluntary basis, we will not need legislation. The right hon. Member for Maldon said that YouTube is all user-generated and not mainstream, so we should not give public service media prominence in it. I am sure he shares that very strong view with others. YouTube may once have been the home of cat videos and other things, but it is changing. In December 2025, YouTube had higher monthly viewing figures than the BBC for the very first time, so people are digesting that content, and I am not quite sure whether those users are aware of the differences between it and television. I know that if I sit my six-year-old daughter down in front of the television, she can watch something that is heavily regulated and safe. I would never sit her down in front of YouTube and just let her watch stuff, for the simple reason that she should probably not be doing that at six—and it is unregulated. I want to talk briefly about the BBC, because it sits alongside the issues of public service media and prominence. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) raised a number of issues about the BBC. We will have a permanent charter. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk raised that issue as well, but the Secretary of State has been very clear that we will have a permanent charter. That is a great outcome for the charter renewal period, I think. On under-75s, we have no plans to change the position. It is now the preserve of the BBC to make those decisions, and it has done so. Under-75s on pension credit do receive a free television licence. I say to the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) that the charter review has a very clear commitment to supporting minority language broadcasting, including Welsh and indeed Gaelic, as Members can tell from my accent. We are actively exploring ways to ensure that S4C in particular and minority-language broadcasting continue to be sustainably funded. Of course, one of the key questions for the BBC in relation to renewal is about the issue of sustainable funding, which the White Paper will address.
In the interests of time, I will take that as a lobby and will add it to the consultation responses. I want to deal very briefly with two big issues that have been raised a lot. The first is about what trustworthy news is; that is what the Green Paper is trying to address, and we will come back with proposals relatively shortly. I welcome the debate across the Chamber. The second issue is the future of television distribution. I think we all agree that we have dealt with the “if”—we will move from DTT to internet-only television at some point—but we have to deal with the “when”. Is it 2034? Is it 2044? I accept the big arguments around payments and around connectivity, the quality of connectivity and digital inclusion, but none of those should be a reason not to go forward in 2034 if that is what we decide. It should be the beacon that we aim for to deliver on digital inclusion and high-quality broadband in every part of the country and make sure that people are included. As a Government, as a Parliament and as constituency Members of Parliament, we should not just accept that broadband might not be good enough and that therefore we should not make these decisions. We should use it as a key driver to make sure that we can deliver on connecting everyone and on the benefits not just of television, but of everything that comes with being digitally included and digitally connected. We have not made a decision on 2034 or 2044, which is why both dates are in the Green Paper. Other issues have been raised, but in the interests of time I will conclude. No doubt we will come back to this debate. We have the Green Paper and the consultation closed on 31 August, so the next steps are to go through the process of analysing all the responses that many Members and their constituents have inputted. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon for bringing forward this debate; I look forward to his securing further debates on the Green Paper as the process works through.
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both the substance and the moral clarity of his statement today? Last weekend, Mike Huckabee, the United States ambassador to Israel, condemned Israeli settler violence as terrorism. Does my right hon. Friend therefore share the widespread concern that the IDF, rather than taking action to arrest these terrorists, is all too often to be seen watching—or even facilitating, as has been widely reported—while Palestinians’ homes are attacked and their properties seized?
I am speaking today in support of new clauses 113 and 114, which stand in the name of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and to which I have added my name. I say at the outset that I am in full support of this Government’s ambitions on cancer. I welcome the recent investment in radiotherapy equipment, and I sincerely want the national cancer plan, which was published in February, to succeed. But I speak as someone who worked in the health service, who is a cancer survivor and who has taken a particular interest in this issue, not least as vice chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy. It is in that capacity, and as a supporter of what the Government are trying to achieve, that I respectfully ask Ministers to accept one or both of these new clauses. By way of brief explanation, new clause 113 requires the Secretary of State to publish and maintain a national framework of agreed metrics for radiotherapy, requires integrated care boards to report annually against those targets and requires a report to this House once a year. New clause 114 asks very straightforwardly for a single review of access to radiotherapy and radiotherapy waiting times to be laid before Parliament within six months.
This is a huge issue that should concern everyone. I believe there is cross-party consensus on the issue of health inequalities and huge variation in access depending on which part of the country people live in. That is an absolutely valid point. We know the international consensus is that around half of all cancer patients have an evidence-based indication for radiotherapy at some point in their treatment. We should be aware that here in the United Kingdom in 2021, the last date for which figures were available, only 35% of cancer patients received it as part of their primary treatment.
The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head—that is perfectly put. I believe there is cross-party consensus that this is the way forward. Over the last 16 years that I have been a Member, along with the hon. Gentleman, I have presented the case to a whole succession of Ministers from various parties, all of whom seemed to be in agreement. We definitely have an opportunity to restore what was once a world-class cancer service and get us back to where the international benchmarks say that we should be. As I am sure Members are aware, responsibility for commissioning radiotherapies was devolved to the integrated care boards. I can understand the logic of moving commissioning closer to local populations. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who tabled the new clause, and I do not seek to undo that. However, we wish to stress to the House that radiotherapy is not an ordinary local service, and it should not be considered as one. It is delivered from a very limited number of highly specialised centres dependent on capital equipment with long replacement cycles. It relies on a small, highly skilled workforce of about 6,000 people, all of whom take years to train, all the while relying on physical infrastructure that cannot be commissioned at short notice. Patients routinely cross integrated care board boundaries to reach these specialist centres. Many boards, entirely understandably, do not have dedicated radiotherapy expertise in house. In August 2023, 70% of integrated care boards had no named person responsible for ensuring sufficient radiotherapy treatment capacity at all. I am willing to work with Ministers to seek a resolution with the solutions that we propose.
I was pleased and privileged to join my hon. Friend on the delegation to Egypt. At the event at which we met Sudanese refugees, what most struck me was the scale of medical need. Almost every participant at the roundtable was in need of a doctor or medical support, or had family similarly in need. Does my hon. Friend agree that the aid we are providing to the conflict is not just about what is happening in Sudan, but about the people who leave Sudan for Egypt and elsewhere, and the medical need that they have in those countries?
The Minister is making an important point, and I completely agree. My question is quite simple. Every nation around the world is grappling with this problem, although we have the BBC, which is a phenomenal and unique achievement. Has he looked at other jurisdictions and countries to gather international best practice? Every nation is dealing with the fact that all of our media now takes place on platforms that are mostly owned by big American tech firms.
20. What discussions he has had with representatives of hospitality businesses on the potential impact of business rates relief on the sector.
Like our new Prime Minister, many of us on the north Wales coast love the pubs and music venues of the north-west. The boost to them from business rates relief is really welcome, but we love our pubs and venues too. Pubs such as the Bay Hop and the Mayquay face the same challenges as our north-west neighbours, and we want to attract more live music to north Wales too. Decisions on business rates in Wales are of course the responsibility of the Welsh Government, but does the Minister agree that the need for support does not stop at the border, and that a 20% cut to business rates in Wales would be a welcome boost for us too?
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s speech, particularly her reference to what happened at Kenton synagogue, which partly serves the people of Harrow. She referred to many of the physical manifestations of antisemitism. May I draw her attention to online antisemitism? We increasingly expect Ofcom to police the very worst of social media. Is it not time that we had some clear measures of success by which we can hold the Online Safety Act 2023 and Ofcom to account, so that if we still see no reduction in antisemitism online we can consider what further steps are necessary to crack down on that source of antisemitism?
When the Labour party went through a terrible time with our own antisemitism crisis, the hon. Gentleman was a staunch friend of the Jewish members of my party, and I know that many of them remember him fondly for that. He is highlighting most starkly that this is not about Jewish people living less Jewish lives; it is about Jewish people living less public lives because of the constant fear of what questions they will be asked about geopolitical issues far outside their own sphere of influence or interest. We therefore have a less rich society, because those who can make contributions do not participate. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that we need religious freedom and a diverse culture, and that if people retreat from public spaces, they are left vacant for those with nefarious intent.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on making a wonderful speech. He will know, because he is from Leeds, that one of the people spending most of their time propagating that sort of virulent antisemitism is the deputy leader of the Green party in Leeds, who once posted a list of British people—some Jewish—saying “bought and sold by Israel”, purely because of their politics.
May I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on securing the debate and thank him for his kind remarks on my appointment? I have fond memories of shadowing him when I was in opposition. I know that he has a breadth of knowledge across housing, communities and local government, and that this issue is close to his heart. I also thank the other Members for their contributions. I want to start by reassuring the hon. Gentleman that although this area sits with my colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning, I have been looking at it and will feed back to him on the key issues. The contributions have highlighted a really important area: the many challenges that leaseholders across the country, and especially elderly leaseholders, are facing with management companies, with flagrant disregard for people who have worked so hard to secure their property and live independently. The hon. Gentleman highlighted the key areas where management companies continue to let people down, including issues with transparency, accountability, communication, responding to issues, raising complaints and unaudited accounts. Those are basic things that management companies should be doing. I think about elderly leaseholders and how, for many of them, if they do not have a network of family support helping them to navigate this, it can feel predatory, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) highlighted. When someone receives those letters with demands, it can be quite scary. We recognise the hugely important role that the older people’s housing sector plays—I do think there is a role for it—in ensuring people have independence in later life. We want to be able to make sure of that. We are keeping people out of hospital, and that can only happen if they have a safe and secure home of their own to go back to. The Government are committed to enhancing provisions and choice across the residential market, including for older people, and that means both increasing the supply of homes to older people and, most importantly, improving their experience in their own homes. Many residents of retirement homes have made a significant financial and, in some cases, personal contribution to their homes, and they should have the confidence that when they raise valid concerns, those should be addressed promptly and in a timely manner. When they challenge bad practice, they should get a response and they should not have to come to their Members of Parliament. Yet we are seeing so many people resorting to raising issues and parliamentarians having to name and shame management companies until any action is taken. That should not be the way that things are happening.
I hope the Select Committee is going very well. The hon. Gentleman will know that this is an issue that we championed on the Committee to the point that, if he recalls, in many senses I harassed the former Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing, saying “When will we see the Bill? The Bill has to come before the House. It is an issue that comes into many parliamentarians’ inboxes, it is a cross-party issue and we want to see the Government act on that and make good on that commitment.” I want to highlight that there are many good managing agents out there. This is not about saying that the issue of managing agents is all bad. There are good ones who are responsible, who respond on time and who are responsible for providing safe and secure homes for their residents. However, we know that far too often, the poor and unscrupulous managing agents let the sector down. Managing agents play an important role in the maintenance of a wide range of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates. Their importance will only increase as we transition towards a commonhold future, so it is essential that we take action to drive up the standards within the sector. As the hon. Member for North Dorset and other hon. Members will know, the previous Government committed to regulating managing agents in 2018 and asked a working group chaired by Lord Best to advise them on how to do that. Yet, they failed to respond to the group’s final report, which was published in July 2019. We have moved on from that. It is about how we now take those recommendations and bring an outcome for so many people, and the Government are ready to take forward a number of those recommendations. The retirement sector has some specific arrangements in place. Many retirement housing managing agents already operate under the Association of Retirement Housing Managers’ code of practice, which sets the standards on transparency and complaints handling, but as we have heard this evening that does not seem to be working and it is about how we ensure that we are enforcing some of those key areas. Elsewhere in the sector, similar consumer protection standards are promoted through the Associated Retirement Community Operators’ consumer code for its members. I stress again: we recognise the concerns that remain in parts of the sector and are considering how we can protect consumers and residents to strengthen that and have a consistent approach. In the recent consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services, we consulted on powers to appoint a manager or to replace a managing agent, as well as on mandatory professional qualifications for managing agents in England. The Government will consult on the introduction of qualifications for estate and letting agents next year. We have also made it clear that we plan to introduce a code of practice this year setting out the minimum standards expected of all residential property agents. This includes estate, letting and managing agents. The Government are considering Lord Best’s report in full, and we will set out our overarching position on the regulation of estate, letting and managing agents in due course, but this has to come at a timely pace.
Nearly right! My apologies. That is an issue that I will definitely be forwarding. I have taken a note of it and I will forward it to the Housing Minister so that the hon. Gentleman can get a proper response.
I can reassure the hon. Lady that FirstPort continues to come up regularly. I had the pleasure, in my former role as Chair of the Select Committee, of scrutinising and questioning the managing director and chief exec of FirstPort, and the hon. Lady will be aware that the Housing Minister has also held important meetings with FirstPort. There are other managing agents that we should not let off the hook, but FirstPort has a large share of properties across the country. The hon. Member for North Dorset mentioned the consultation on section 20, and this is a key issue that the Government have been looking at. The Government consulted on that last year, and my understanding is that they will be setting out the response in due course. Again, this is something that I will push the Housing Minister on, on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, to ensure we come back to this in a timely manner. I also want to highlight the experiences that other hon. Members have raised on behalf of their constituents. It is important that we continue to share these really valid examples to show why we need to move at pace in regulating this important area. We recognise that the pre-legislative scrutiny report into the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill recommended that a number of measures should be extended to retirement providers, and we will consider that as part of our work. I am happy to say that it was a good Member of Parliament who led on that pre-legislative scrutiny. I am grateful to the many hon. Members who have come to the House this evening to debate this important issue. I thank them for sharing their insights and, most importantly, sharing the lived examples and concerns that many residents continue to face. We continue to see people who are worried, when another bill or letter comes through the door, about what will be demanded from them. We see them worry that, when they do not respond to those letters, they could be issued with court and threatening letters. It is really important that we address this emotional, physical and mental impact; it is not just about the financial impact it is having on vulnerable residents. I want to thank all Members for engaging with this, and I look forward to working with them. I know that the Minister for Housing and Planning will also be engaging further with Members. Question put and agreed to.
I stood in a farm in the west bank and saw all the olive trees burnt and all the families in the village turfed out at knifepoint, so I really welcome this statement and the step-up of action on the settlements. I welcome the action on the sanctions, on arms sales and on justice. Will the Foreign Secretary elaborate a bit more on the crucial demand that Israel releases the revenues—the tax paid by Palestinian people to Israel—that are being withheld and cannot be spent on schools, hospitals and rebuilding? Can he say a bit more about what he will be doing on that?
I welcome the Government’s fuel duty freeze for working families, alongside the road tax holiday for hauliers and the diesel fuel duty cut. Fuel costs for businesses in my constituency, such as Northfield quarry near Dunipace, have nearly tripled due to the Iran war and the previous Government’s tightening of eligibility for red diesel. In the Budget, will the Chancellor consider extending fuel duty reductions for industries such as quarrying, which is essential for house construction and provides good local jobs for working families?
The Government will support good growth in every postcode, including in Cornwall and Gloucester. We have already established No. 10 North to work in partnership with local leaders, businesses and communities, and at the Budget next month we will publish plans for further fiscal devolution, including greater retention of business rates revenue for local councils and strategic authorities.
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituency. The Cabinet statement on devolution set out the Government’s ambitions to accelerate devolution across the country by establishing a strategic authority for every area in England that wants one by the end of 2028. All strategic authorities, including those without a mayor, will benefit from greater powers over skills, transport and housing.
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his area. As he said, the Prime Minister has been engaging with Cornwall—including, importantly, with its six MPs, including my hon. Friend—on a devolution agreement. This will support the Cornish economy through stronger statutory powers on transport and housing, and the ability to introduce an overnight visitor levy, which can be invested in projects that drive growth in the region. As he will know, the Government are already investing in Cornwall’s high potential sectors with the £30 million Kernow industrial growth fund.