Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentGreg Smith

    Police Reform White Paper

    Thames Valley is already a large police force, where our superb police officers and staff struggle to balance resources effectively, even with local command units now across rural areas like my own and the bigger cities, such as Oxford and Milton Keynes. Given that it is such a large force—and that right now it finds itself with a budget settlement £9 million lower than expected—and given the commitment from the Home Office only to fund 40% of new recruits, what confidence can we have that the Government will adequately fund bigger forces?

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    Topical Questions

    T7. In the Budget, the Chancellor froze thresholds, which brings state pensioners into paying tax. This was raised with the Chancellor, who said that she did not want that to happen and that she would create a workaround. However, only two weeks ago we voted on the Finance Bill, which the Labour party pushed through, and as it stands that means that pensioners will pay tax on their state pension. What is the DWP doing to ensure that they will not pay tax on their state pension or have to submit a tax return?

    Hansard source

  3. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    It is a surprise to see the Minister so ratty and full of bluster, so I am going to ask him a technical question that I would appreciate his answer to. We have talked about the 1966 UK-US exchange of notes; the question is whether the Government can go ahead with the Chagos deal without the US. Where do the Government stand? Does the deal have to have the US’s blessing, or can the Government do it without that blessing, and with no change or negotiation of the 1966 contract?

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentDr Andrew Murrison

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    May I first express my respect for the Minister’s ability to consistently defend the indefensible? An absolute masterclass! Is it not the case that the President of the United States now has our Prime Minister completely over a barrel after his incautious and unhelpful remarks over Greenland? Would it not have been better, along the lines of “The Art of the Deal”, to have dealt with this before the Government signed the surrender treaty, and not after?

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentDr Andrew Murrison

    Police Reform White Paper

    There are a lot of things to welcome in this statement, but police licence to practise is probably not one of them. I say this because other trades and professions that have licencing, annual appraisal, or periodic revalidation have found that it simply becomes a time-sapping industry. I am sure that is not the Home Secretary’s plan for the police, particularly since my constituents want our police to be on the frontline and dealing with online fraud, not ticking boxes.

    Hansard source

  6. ParliamentDr Andrew Murrison

    Armed Forces Bill

    The Secretary of State refers to the local connection test. Will he acknowledge that the removal of that test was initiated by the previous Government? That is not the impression he gave in his initial remarks, although it is certainly the case. Secondly, is it his intention to allocate service housing going forward on the basis primarily of rank or primarily on need?

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentDr Andrew Murrison

    Armed Forces Bill

    The truth is that there was a level of serendipity in this matter of which the current Government are the beneficiary, and that is the High Court decision on Annington Homes. My hon. Friend is being characteristically modest, because I clearly remember that he initiated this work while he was at the MOD. I am very pleased to hear that the current Government are taking it forward, which is absolutely right, but we need to lay on record the provenance of all this work and who its author is. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for that.

    Hansard source

  8. ParliamentDavid Reed

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    The former Foreign Secretary said very explicitly last year that if the United States does not like this deal, it will not go ahead. The US does not like this deal; it has been very explicit on that. Can the Minister tell us whether the now Deputy Prime Minister was telling the truth when he made those comments?

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentDavid Davis

    Police Reform White Paper

    To follow on from the previous question, the Home Secretary has strongly supported digital facial ID and artificial intelligence. As her colleague, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), has said, both of those technologies show significant error rates, particularly when it comes to racial minorities. Innocent people fear this, particularly after the Post Office scandal, which showed that courts believe computers rather than people, resulting in miscarriages of justice. I have three questions for the Home Secretary. First, what does she regard an acceptable error rate for these technologies? Secondly, does she support the provision of compensation for people who are misidentified by such technology? Thirdly, she has talked about regulations; will she put all of these reforms on a statutory basis, based on primary legislation that passes through this House?

    Hansard source

  10. ParliamentDame Harriett Baldwin

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I think it is unprecedented at such an event for only one Government Back Bencher to speak, and the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) very bravely spoke against the deal. It is very important that the sovereignty of these islands remains British. That was highlighted in the Labour manifesto, which stated: “Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories…Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.” May I suggest a gentle down ramp for the Minister, for whom I have a lot of admiration, which is simply to just not find the time in the other place to progress things and allow Prorogation to gently wash this particular piece of proposed legislation out to sea?

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentChris Philp

    Police Reform White Paper

    I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement—especially after her busy weekend chairing the national executive committee, which excluded Andy Burnham from returning to Parliament. Anyway, the Home Secretary’s statement—[Interruption.] There seems to be some concern from the Benches behind her on that. The Home Secretary’s statement is striking for what it does not say, because there was no mention—not one word—of her plans for total police officer numbers. The reason for that is simple: total police officer numbers are falling under this Labour Government, as figures due for release later this week will confirm. The last recruitment intake before the election was in March 2024, and there were 149,769 officers in post—the highest number in this country’s history. By the same time the following year, under Labour officer numbers had fallen by over a thousand, and in the current financial year, numbers are falling even further, with the Met alone saying that it will lose a staggering 1,500 officers this financial year. On officer numbers, the Government are engaged in a con trick. They are transferring officers away from crime investigation, 999 response and other teams into neighbourhood teams, so they can say neighbourhood numbers are going modestly up. But total police officer numbers are falling, so there will be fewer 999 response and investigation officers, response times will be slower and investigations will not be as effective. The Home Secretary can set targets and make announcements, but the fact is she is presiding over falling total police numbers and the public will be less safe as a result. The Home Secretary has said that she will change the structure of policing. Briefings over the weekend said the reorganisation will be complete in—I had to double check this—2034, nearly a decade away. But we have a crime crisis today. Shoplifting and phone theft are surging under this Government, with shoplifting now at its highest level ever. Knife crime in London is up by 80% under Mayor Sadiq Khan. Women are being let down, too, with sex crimes up by 9%, rape up by 6%, stalking up by 5% and harassment up by 6% under this Labour Government. That requires action today, not in 2034. The Home Secretary’s plan includes mandating the merger of police forces. Briefings over the weekend suggest a reduction from 43 down to 10 or 12, so a single police force might cover an area from Dover to Milton Keynes or from Penzance to Swindon. Such huge forces will be remote from the communities they serve, and resources will be drawn away from villages and towns towards large cities. The biggest force in the country is the Met, and yet it has the worst crime clear-up rate of any force; it fails to solve 95% of reported crimes. That goes to show that large scale does not automatically deliver better results, and therefore we will oppose the mandated merger of county forces into remote regional mega-forces. Police forces are warning that Labour’s early prisoner release scheme means more crime and more demands on policing. Most criminals will now be released after serving just one third of their prison sentence, and even rapists will serve only half of theirs. To make things even worse, Labour plans to abolish prison sentences of under one year, so even the most prolific shoplifters will never face jail. That is a recipe for disaster, cooked up by the Home Secretary in her previous role. We can agree on some things, because the Home Secretary has copied them from us. I am glad that she is continuing the roll-out of artificial intelligence and live facial recognition started under the previous Government —we fully support that. It is right for Home Secretaries to have greater powers to intervene; we announced that policy at our conference last year, and of course we support it. She now says that she will abolish non-crime hate incidents. We need to see the details, but might she explain why Labour voted against that measure when we tabled it as an amendment just last year? The simple fact is this: total police officer numbers are falling under this Home Secretary’s watch. As a result, 999 response times and crime investigations will suffer. Shoplifting, phone-snatching and sex offences are all rising under this Government. Regional mega-forces will make things worse, not better. Her grand plans will not even be fully implemented until 2034, but action is needed today. These announcements will not make our streets safer this year or next year, and the public will see that rapidly.

    Hansard source

  12. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Armed Forces Bill

    Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be directing his comments at me.

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Armed Forces Bill

    Before I call the Chair of the Defence Committee, Members might like to be aware that there are a lot of colleagues wishing to speak this evening. I am not planning to put a time limit on—yet.

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Armed Forces Bill

    Order. May I remind Members to be careful, good-tempered and moderate in their language in debate? If anyone needs any instruction, pages 496 and 497 of “Erskine May” are very helpful. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source

  15. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Armed Forces Bill

    Order. I have heard two uses of the word “you”. It is not about me.

    Hansard source

  16. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

    Armed Forces Bill

    Order. I intend to introduce a five-minute time limit after the next speaker.

    Hansard source

  17. ParliamentCaroline Nokes

  18. ParliamentBob Blackman

    Topical Questions

    People who come to this country and make it their home are welcome to work and pay their taxes. However, Ministers may have seen reports over the weekend of foreign career criminals who have been spared prison now claiming universal credit. Taxpayers are going to be outraged by this fact, so what action will the Minister take to ensure that only people who are entitled to receive universal credit do so, and that career criminals do not?

    Hansard source

  19. ParliamentBen Obese-Jecty

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Last week we had a discussion about the cost of this deal, and I asked the Minister whether he would confirm the figure of £34.7 billion from the Government Actuary’s Department. He did not give me a direct answer, but later in the debate he confirmed that it was a nominal amount, not adjusted for inflation or the social time preference rate. With that in mind, will the Minister give the House the most accurate assessment he can of the true figure for the total cost of the deal, adjusted for inflation and the social time preference rate?

    Hansard source

  20. ParliamentBen Obese-Jecty

    Police Reform White Paper

    I have raised in the House a number of times the police allocation formula and how it impacts Cambridgeshire, which is the fourth worst funded force in the country. Could the Home Secretary outline how the formula will be changed to reflect the division of tasks between the National Police Service and regional forces? I heard what she said about rural crime and neighbourhood policing. The rural crime action team in Cambridgeshire, although incredibly under-resourced, is very effective. This seems like a fantastic opportunity to try to restructure rural crime action teams to tackle hare coursing and machinery theft, rather than neighbourhood policing in rural areas. Lastly, on pay, local police officers have raised concerns with me around things like the application of overtime and the adjustment bank, and of course the south-east allowance for forces in Cambridgeshire.

    Hansard source

  21. ParliamentBen Obese-Jecty

    Armed Forces Bill

    On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentBen Obese-Jecty

    Armed Forces Bill

    Following that pledge, will the hon. Gentleman outline what the additional 30,000 troops would be roled as?

    Hansard source

  23. ParliamentBen Obese-Jecty

  24. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

    I beg to move, That this House has considered transport connectivity in the Midlands and North Wales. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and to open this debate on a subject that goes to the heart of economic opportunity, social mobility and quality of life. Connectivity determines whether people can easily get to work, get to school and get out and about. For communities such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills, the state of our transport links will decide whether young people can access opportunities and whether businesses can grow. Reliable transport and good connectivity are not nice-to-have extras; they are fundamental to how well off and connected our region is. Right now, we must do so much better. Today, I will focus on three areas where I believe ambition has been promised but delivery is falling short: buses, rail infrastructure and our roads. For many people, buses are the only form of public transport available, not least in my constituency, which still does not have a single railway station. Bus fares matter, particularly for young people. If we are serious about opportunity, we cannot price young people off the network. Other regions have recognised that and acted. In Tees Valley, the Conservative mayor, Ben Houchen, introduced a £1 bus fare for everyone aged 21 and under, and it has been a clear success. It has boosted ridership and helped young people get to work, college and their apprenticeships. Wales has followed suit by rolling out £1 single fares for 16 to 21-year-olds across the country, and there are plans to extend the scheme further. My constituents are left asking a simple question: why not the Mayor of the West Midlands? Our Labour mayor so often talks about fairness and inclusion, yet young people in our region continue to face some of the highest bus fares in the country. While other areas are cutting fares to widen opportunity, young people in my constituency are still paying full price to get to work or education.

    Hansard source

  25. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

    What I would say is that, although I am not an expert on Derbyshire bus routes, I absolutely recognise the importance of good connectivity. In the west midlands, constituents regularly ask me, “Why has this bus route changed?” or, “Why has that bus route changed?” So it absolutely matters to our constituents. On connectivity, the lack of fairness for young people is not inevitable. We have seen that targeted youth fares can work, but what is sadly missing in the west midlands is not evidence but political will. If fairness and inclusion really are priorities, a west midlands youth bus fare scheme should be delivered quickly. Alongside that, our mayor has promised a transformation of the bus network through franchising. In principle, greater local control can offer integrated routes, reasonable fares and improved standards, but the mayor needs to be honest with us about the timetable and the cost. Franchising will not deliver meaningful change for many years, and the funding currently allocated is a fraction of what will ultimately be required to deliver the scheme. Greater Manchester’s experience shows that franchising takes times and significant investment. In the meantime, our bus services remain unreliable and under-resourced. Once again, passengers are promised jam tomorrow. Transport users need buses that turn up and fares that they can afford, not more empty words.

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

    I absolutely agree; there needs to be a wide approach to make this happen. I know from casework that we sometimes need to write to companies and ask them what is happening with a specific bus service. I just want a better bus service for my constituents, so that they can get to work or education. I remember growing up in a rural area—it was not in the west midlands—where we had one bus service a week. Young people in particular need access to good transport. Going back to the issue of franchising, there is a long-term ambition, but interim action is essential. That means supporting new routes and the routes that we have now. Improving reliability is so important, as is addressing fares. We cannot pin all our hopes on reforms that are a decade away while services deteriorate in the present. The gap between promise and delivery regarding our buses must be closed as a matter of urgency. That gap is even more stark when we turn to rail. The midlands rail hub is the single most important rail project for our region—

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

    We agree on many things—alongside Aldridge train station, of course. The midlands rail hub would unlock capacity, allow more frequent services, and make new and reopened stations viable. However, when I ask Ministers whether the scheme is fully funded, the answer is always the same: £123 million has been allocated, not to deliver the project but merely to progress the next phase of development. The remainder, which is an estimated £1.75 billion, is still described as being “subject to future funding decisions.” We were told that the midlands rail hub would be delivered in full. The previous Conservative Government committed £1.75 billion in the 2023 Network North plan to deliver it. That funding has since been pulled by the Labour Government, leaving the full delivery of the project in limbo. I would be happy if the Minister could provide, in his response to this debate, the clarity that this project is fully funded to delivery, because it is critical to making sure that the west midlands, and the greater part of the region, keeps on moving, and we have that much-improved connectivity that enables new routes to be opened up and greater passenger capacity. The Government now talk about Northern Powerhouse Rail, but without the midlands rail hub there will be no midlands engine to power it. We need both, and we need them to be delivered. There is the same uncertainty when Ministers are asked about passenger services on the Sutton Park line, which remains freight-only. Any future passenger use is said to depend on additional capacity, which is the very capacity that the midlands rail hub was meant to provide. There is no timetable, no commitment, and sadly no plan. This is policy paralysis; infrastructure is not funded and then a lack of infrastructure is used as the reason why nothing can progress. The midlands rail hub either will or will not be built, but indefinite reviews and partial funding help no one, least of all residents in my constituency and across the west midlands, and our local businesses. That brings me to Aldridge train station. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I am raising this. Why? Because it matters. Aldridge is a major settlement of some 25,000 people, but it has been without a passenger railway station for decades, despite clear demand and a growing population. Under the previous Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, funding was identified, land was secured, and the project was moving towards delivery. Local people were given a timeline and told that a new station was coming. Then priorities changed. A review happened. Funding was redirected. The project was placed under review and Aldridge train station was pushed into the long grass—some might say, into the sidings. It did not fail a business case; it fell victim to political decisions, with the Government allowing the secured funding for the station to be moved to pet projects of the Labour Mayor of the West Midlands. Rest assured, I will continue to raise this issue at every opportunity, as the Leader of the House is all too aware from Thursday business questions, because it matters. When pressed on rail expansion in the north and east of the west midlands, the answer is always the same—future funding, future capacity, under review. Aldridge is told to wait. Sutton Park is told to wait. But my constituents have waited for long enough. I want to highlight the importance of open-access operators. Services such as the proposed Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway could bring new connectivity and competition, with trains running along the Sutton Park line through Aldridge—but because Aldridge still has no station, those trains will pass straight through. Open access has a role to play, but only if the infrastructure is delivered. Supporting open access must go hand in hand with delivering projects such as Aldridge station. I am hugely supportive of this project, but it must stop in Aldridge. I have focused on public transport, but roads are equally critical. In Aldridge-Brownhills, our roads remain very much the backbone of local travel. Here too, our development needs are racing ahead of infrastructure. Large-scale housing proposals—another topic I regularly raise in this House—on green-belt land around Stonnall Road and Bosty Lane would add hundreds of new homes without the road upgrades needed to support them. Those roads already feed into Chester Road, which is sadly an accident blackspot, with a tragic history of serious injuries and fatalities.

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

    As the hon. Gentleman rightly indicates, this is an issue where we share an interest. He can rest assured that I do and will continue to raise it with Walsall council. It really does matter. I know the case that he refers to. What happened was a tragedy. Local campaigners such as SCAR—Stonnall Campaign About Roads—have long called for action. I pay tribute to some of our local road safety campaigners—Jayne Preston, who will love having a mention in this place, even though it is in sad circumstances; and also Colin Roberts. They have done tremendous work and continue to raise the issue of road safety and that of the victims as well. Let me also take the opportunity to acknowledge the charity RoadPeace, a national charity for road crash victims, with which I have worked locally. For more than three decades, the charity supported bereaved families and campaigned for safer roads. Its recent closure as a charity is deeply saddening. It should remind us all of the human cost of what happens when we get road safety wrong. While I welcome some recent funding for safety measures on Chester Road near this particular blackspot, residents are rightly asking where the wider plan is. We cannot add hundreds of homes without first investing in the roads and the junctions that residents rely on every day, even before any more homes are built. This will be development without infrastructure. If housing targets are imposed, which is very much what is happening in the west midlands in my area, infrastructure funding must be part of it. Roads, junctions, traffic management and public transport links must come before houses are occupied, not years afterwards. The midlands and north Wales do not need more warm words or long-term plans that never quite materialise. We need transport that works at a price that people can afford. Across buses, rail and road, the pattern is the same: ambition without delivery; young people priced off the buses; rail schemes left half funded; towns told to wait; housing built without infrastructure. Things do not have to be this way. We know what works, but what is missing is action and delivery. I gently say to the Minister that if the Government want people to believe in their plans for growth, they must start matching ambition with delivery. Our region is ready to play its part, but it cannot do so with stalled projects and permanent delay. Our communities have waited long enough. It is time to stop reviewing and deferring, and to start delivering the transport that actually works. I genuinely look forward to hearing from the Minister about how he intends to make this happen. I will happily meet with him to discuss Aldridge station, to see what more we can do to ensure that the Mayor of the West Midlands understands why this matters, why I keep banging on about it, and why I will keep doing so until it is delivered.

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

    I cannot resist. When we were in government, we committed to the midlands rail hub in the big Network North announcement made before the general election. We also committed the funding.

    Hansard source

  30. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

    Can I come back quickly?

    Hansard source

  31. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

    Thanks very much. Again, on the point of funding, is the hon. Gentleman sure that his Government have fully committed all the moneys needed to deliver the midlands rail hub in full, not just one part of it?

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source

  33. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

    Will the Minister give way?

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

    Let us be absolutely clear that Mayor Andy Street allocated the money for Aldridge station. I questioned both the Transport Secretary and the Treasury about that money, and I had a reply explaining that this Labour Government had moved the money out of the budget for Aldridge station. Had the mayor left the money in place, Aldridge station could have been funded and delivered by 2027. The only money that Mayor Parker has allocated to Aldridge is for doing some initial groundworks. The business case is already there. This is not about funding; it is about politics, I am sad to say.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

    Can I come back on that point?

    Hansard source

  36. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

    First of all, I thank colleagues from across the House for joining the debate this afternoon. The hon. Members for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) showed that, whether they are from the east midlands, the west midlands or Staffordshire, transport connectivity absolutely matters, and absolutely matters to our communities. That is where there is a lot of cross-Chamber, cross-party consensus. We know why this matters, and why Aldridge train station absolutely matters. I have had no more answers from the Minister than I typically get from Ministers at the Dispatch Box. At one point, I was not sure if he was even going to mention Aldridge train station. I am glad he did, but the facts of the matter remain. I set out the case: Aldridge deserves better. Aldridge will keep asking what has happened to fully funding our train station, and I will continue to campaign and bang on about it. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered transport connectivity in the Midlands and North Wales.

    Hansard source

  37. ParliamentWendy Morton

    Business of the House

    The matter of West Midlands police and the Maccabi Tel Aviv football match has rightly been raised in this place, but does the Leader of the House agree that when police conduct falls well below acceptable standards, as it did in the west midlands, elected police and crime commissioners really should take full responsibility and show leadership, and must be held to account for their actions?

    Hansard source

  38. ParliamentSir John Whittingdale

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that elections in Essex are going ahead; indeed, they should have taken place a year ago. However, he will be aware that elections have also been proposed for new unitary authorities next year, although we in Essex do not even know what the unitary authorities will be. Will he say whether it is still his intention that we should have elections for the new authorities next year?

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentSir James Cleverly

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. “This Government have moved seamlessly from arrogance to incompetence, and now to cowardice. Some 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote. It was the Government who rushed through a huge programme of local government reorganisation, imposing new structures and timetables, and it is the Government who are failing to deliver them. Rather than take responsibility for their own failure, the Secretary of State has chosen to dump the consequences of their incompetence on to the laps of local councils.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 57.] That is what I said on Monday, when I dragged the Secretary of State’s Minister—the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern)—to the Dispatch Box. I say it again today, directly to him. In his statement, the Secretary of State plays heavily on what he claims is a wasteful system. He has said publicly that he thinks these elections are “pointless”, so it is clear what he thinks and it is clear what he wants. He wants to cancel all these elections, so why does he not simply say so? Why does he not have the courage of his own convictions? Why did he write to councils asking them to ask him to cancel the elections? Why, when they did not give him the answer that he wanted, did he write to them again asking basically the same question? Why was his Department putting pressure on councils to ask for cancellations as late as last night? I know why. He knows why. We all know why. It is because he wants to shift the blame. He wants to say, “I didn’t make them do it.” He wants a political gotcha. He is putting councils in an impossible position, squeezing them financially, imposing the costs and disruption of large-scale reorganisation on them, making promises about structures, timescales and funding, and then reneging on those promises. Then, to add insult to injury, he is trying to dump the consequences of his arrogance and incompetence on to the laps of the local councils. It has always been the Conservative position that these elections should go ahead. The Secretary of State tried to claim in his statement that there were precedents, as his Minister did on Monday, but the scale and scope of these cancellations is totally unprecedented. I ask him directly: what was it about the Labour party’s collapse in the opinion polls that first attracted him to the cancellation of local elections? Is he as unsurprised as I am that the vast bulk of councils asking for their elections to be scrapped are Labour-run councils? I give the Secretary of State notice that Conservative Members will vote against these proposals. Elections are the foundation stone of democracy, and when his Department puts intolerable pressure on councils, shifting the goalposts or pulling the rug from under them—whichever metaphor one chooses to use—he should have the courage to come to this House and say that it is his decision to cancel elections, rather than passing the buck to local government leaders.

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentSir Gavin Williamson

    Business of the House

    Like so many Members of this House, I am blessed with the amazing canals criss-crossing my constituency that are maintained by the Canal & River Trust. Sadly, two bridges in the villages of Brewood and Penkridge have collapsed, and local residents cannot use them or access them, which is causing a great deal of inconvenience. Could we have a debate in this House about the funding that the Canal & River Trust receives, because it quite simply does not go far enough to maintain these amazing heritage assets that are used every day?

    Hansard source