5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
The Prime Minister boasted to ITV at the weekend that he had strengthened the ministerial code and the powers of the ethics adviser, and that any Minister who makes a mistake must refer themselves to the adviser. The former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), was referred for breaching the ministerial code, so why has the Prime Minister not referred himself? It this just more Labour double standards?
Does the Minister agree that the information that came to light over the weekend seems to suggest that a very worrying bias has entered the decision-making process, and that this has cast a stain on Birmingham’s reputation as a welcoming city as well as raising serious questions about the senior leadership of West Midlands police ?
T3. The Planning Inspectorate recently overturned a decision by North East Lincolnshire council for a development of 200 houses in New Waltham in my constituency. The objections centred on highway capacity. In his report, the inspector acknowledged that the nearby roundabout was over capacity, but said that an increase from 100% to 107% capacity would make very little difference. Clearly, local residents disagree. Would the Minister acknowledge that public confidence in the process—
The independent adviser on ministerial standards is currently appointed by the Prime Minister, and it is a genuine question for the whole House whether that model is still fit for purpose. If the adviser were incapacitated or ill—it is to be hoped that will not happen to the current one—what would happen? Would we all wait for many months? Might a new model involve bringing together three ministerial advisers to the Prime Minister on ministerial standards, so that if one were incapacitated, the other two could step in, or if there were deadlock in reaching any agreement, there would be a casting vote? Clearly, having the Prime Minister appointing the individual who oversees the highest standards of integrity in public life is not longer fir for purpose.
I suspect the name of this statutory instrument is probably longer than my speech will be. I am grateful to the Minister for his words about the details of this instrument. Its intention is to bring more people who are not saving into pensions into the pension schemes. In that respect, it builds on work done by the previous Conservative Government, which I think we would all agree were 14 years of strong and stable Government [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you very much. We are 100% behind this. It continues the work of the previous Government. It has the intention that we always had—to get more people saving into pension schemes. In the broader sense, it follows the intentions of the Pension Schemes Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, and on which we disagree with one or two things. But we are in agreement on the overall thrust of this statutory instrument, so I will not trouble the Committee any longer.
I will try to speak really slowly and ask not multiple questions but just the one. How much cash did David Kogan give the Prime Minister?
I support several new clauses and amendments to the Bill, but, frankly, I am fundamentally opposed to the changes it would impose on our constituents. That is why amendments 104 to 106 are so important, as well as new clause 1, which is due to be discussed tomorrow. Before strategic authorities or any other new bodies are created, the amendments would ensure that local people have the power to decide the future in their area. In Committee, the Minister for Devolution used some very creative language to ensure that councils were not being forced into reorganisation. The Minister spoke of “inviting councils” and “having a conversation” with residents, but that is doublespeak. If the Government really wanted to give councils and local people a proper say, they would pass these amendments, but I fear they will not. That refusal strikes at the heart of the contradiction of devolution. There have been lots of warm words from the Government about giving people a stake in the place where they live and in their life and transferring power out of Westminster. But this Bill, and what we are already seeing in the priority areas, keeps real decisions with Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall. In Surrey, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), we have seen the Secretary of State decree at the stroke of a pen that there will be two new unitary authorities, probably with a strategic authority on top of that, rather than three unitaries, which most councils have supported. For all the talk from this Labour Government about a bottom-up process, it is clear that no matter what existing councils decide following extensive public consultations such as we have had in Hertfordshire, new local government structures will be whatever best suits the Minister and civil servants in Whitehall.
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done on the Floor of the House putting forward our case on where the Government have got it wrong on devolution. He raised an important point about the Government having instructed local councils to come up with proposals for devolution and unitarisation. There has been no choice in that, as I know from speaking to my fantastic councillors at Broxbourne council, which is Conservative led under Councillor Corina Gander. She does not want to reorganise, does not want devolution and does not want it forced on the areas that she and I represent. When I go out on the doorstep, no one has ever said to me, “You know what, Lewis? This is what we need to do in our area—we need to reorganise. We need to have an elected mayor, a strategic authority and a new massive unitary council representing up to half a million people.” No one has ever raised that with me on the doorstep, and it just goes to show that this Government are not listening to the priorities of the British people.
The council leader has fed that back to Government and the answer has been, “Tough—get on with it. This is what we are doing, and this is what we propose to happen. You have to come up with a proposal that you think works in your area, regardless of whether you want to do it.” I have spoken to many councils and council leaders across the country, and that is the message they have given us loud and clear, and that is the message I have received locally from my local council leader.
I can take the hon. Member to my constituency if he wants to see a pro-growth local council that has delivered a local plan and delivered housing. What has held us back is the fact that we do not have the infrastructure in place because of that. We have been punished; we have been a good local council and met our housing targets, yet this Labour Government are forcing more housing on us with no powers to get the infrastructure that people need. My constituency borders London, and when the Bill came out, my constituents said to me on the doorstep, “I do not want to be part of the Greater London area and to be under the Mayor of London”. We have seen the disastrous effect that devolution has had on London, and my constituents definitely do not want to be a part of that. I gently push back on the hon. Member that I do not agree with his analogy of the current state of play. If the Government really wanted to empower councils—I stray a tiny bit away from the topic—to help them improve town centres and create economic growth, they could give powers to the councils we already have. They could get on and do that tomorrow, rather than waiting for this Bill to go through the House, with all the amendments the Government put down, because this Bill is clearly not ready to receive Royal Assent. We tabled a number of amendments in Committee. It just shows that the Government have got this wrong and should go back to the drawing board.
I do not think that the Bill does that. It enables Ministers to force councils to reorganise. It keeps power in Whitehall. It does not devolve powers to councils. I have mentioned a number of times in questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that my council is crying out for more powers over the houses in multiple occupation that are affecting our town centre. As I said in Committee, a tiny part of the Bill is good and deals with the licensing of e-scooters. We all know what a scourge e-scooters represent across our constituencies up and down the country. That is the tiny good thing in the Bill, but the Government do not need a Bill to do that; they could legislate very quickly to give councils the powers to deal with that issue. Instead, we have to wait for months on end to solve a small issue through this Bill.
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his constituents. We had a long discussion about that issue in Committee. I completely agree that “Isle of Wight” should be in the name of that combined mayoral authority. The Isle of Wight has a good local identity. It is important, when we create these new strategic authorities, that we take local people with us. We will not take the people of the Isle of Wight with us if we do not include such a significant community in the name of that combined authority.
As he is a Hampshire MP, I will give way to the shadow Minister.
I agree. We tabled a number of constructive amendments in Committee, and we worked across parties, with Members of all stripes, to improve the Bill and get these powers out into the community, where they can best be used. As my hon. Friend quite rightly points out, the Government would not even listen to logical arguments about how the Bill could empower local communities. As I have said, “community empowerment” might be in the Bill’s name, but it is not what is in the Bill.
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point with which I have great sympathy. We have to try to take different communities together, but we should not compare the rural county of Hertfordshire with a significant number of large towns that are not interlinked naturally by roads and railways or by people’s jobs. Lots of my constituents work in London and would never, or hardly ever, make the journey of about an hour along the A414 to Watford or Hemel Hempstead. The situation is very different. I can understand how devolution works when there is a single city centre and why in some respects it works in our towns and city regions where there is a single space, but I do not understand how it will work in practice when there are a number of towns all of the same size.
I was talking about the physical aspects of the transport currently in place, and the transport in Hertfordshire makes it very difficult for such interlinking services. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point around shared services of councils. The Government have said on a number of occasions that they have brought forward this community empowerment Bill and devolution in order to make councils more efficient and save loads of money. I do not believe it will save lots of money, for the reasons the hon. Lady has rightly pointed out: many councils already have those shared services. There are lots of councils with shared planning departments or shared audit, and indeed combined authorities also have shared back-office functions.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government must come forward on that, as we are yet to hear solutions for councils with large amounts of debt. Councils are being forced into reorganisation and to have conversations about who they want to be joined with, but some of them have no choice, because it is a matter of geography, and sometimes they might not be able to join with the partners with which they have strategic and shared services. In summary—
I will not take any more interventions, as I have been more than generous—
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I signed his amendment, as that issue is important. It goes back to what I said at the beginning of this debate: the Bill is not ready to go any further. The Government should have thought about this. The amendment is logical and seeks to achieve what the Government want to achieve on, for example, buses; it seeks to achieve lots of the same things around other strategic transport and other active travel routes, so it should be in the Bill. It has cross-party support from both Members representing the Isle of Wight, and goes back to the cross-party working on the Bill Committee, where we put forward logical amendments that seek to benefit the strategic authority that the Government want to create in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The new mayor who is elected for that authority is going to have one hand tied behind their back, because he or she will not have the powers to join those communities together and really create the economic growth. I am against the principle of what the Government are trying to do in this Bill; just because they have “community empowerment” written at the top of the Bill does not mean that it will empower local communities, and I urge the Government to think again.
The last Labour Government, which was elected in 1997, established devolution and moved powers away from Westminster under the premise of a referendum result. However, this Labour Government are choosing not to undertake such a referendum. Which does the hon. Gentleman support: having a referendum or not having a referendum?
The hon. Gentleman says that the Conservatives did not have referendums on structural political changes, but we did have a referendum to change the voting system; I voted against a change. That is a prime example of the Conservatives seeking the consent of the British people for a political change.
Does the hon. Member support my proposal that councils, particularly local district councils that currently have planning powers, need more powers over the licensing of houses in multiple occupation? They cause terrible antisocial behaviour issues and parking issues right across the country, and we need more powers to stop HMOs where they are not wanted. What are his views on giving local powers to councils to stop HMOs?
Does my hon. Friend understand why my Isle of Wight constituents reject the idea of a new mayor being imposed upon them under the name of “Hampshire and Solent”, with the Isle of Wight name disappearing? My constituents do not live in the Solent. Indeed, nobody lives in the Solent other than fish.
My hon. Friend is very kind to give way, perhaps with a little pressure from more senior Members sitting just in front of him. He poses the question of whether there is a combined area where all the unified communities link well together. Sadly, I can give an example of a forthcoming area where they do not: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The only link between the Isle of Wight and Hampshire is through the ferry companies which are entirely privatised, unregulated and controlled by private equity groups. This was the perfect opportunity for the Government to ensure that fare regulation was given to the mayor, so the mayor had that strategic transport authority across the whole area, but the Government have so far failed to do that, which is why I brought forward an amendment that I will speak to later. Does my hon. Friend have a view on this missed opportunity to bring ferry companies within the regulatory framework of, say, rail and buses, which is perfectly consensual among parties in this country?
My constituency is popular with tourists. In the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), I invite him to visit my constituency; I think he missed our Health and Social Care Committee visit last year. Airbnbs are a big challenge, and are detrimental to the business of some small hoteliers, who are really struggling to keep their businesses going. Can the hon. Gentleman offer a small thought on that?
The hon. Member is speaking about an important issue—that of utility companies seemingly closing roads without due consideration. Indeed, Southern Water tried to close the main road into Bembridge in my constituency from 1 December to 21 December; it did not consult with the local community, and only backed down after I intervened in my role as a Member of Parliament. It is the same for Ventnor on the Isle of Wight, so the hon. Member is speaking about a very important issue that probably affects every constituency, or nearly every constituency.
The hon. Member speaks very eloquently, and many of the issues that he is raising resonate with me and with my constituents on the Isle of Wight. We are being forced into a union with Hampshire, where 93% of the new electorate in the new combined authority will live and where some powers currently exercised by our unitary council, Isle of Wight council, will instead be exercised by someone whose largest responsibility rests with the 93% of the population who do not live on the Island. If the hon. Member cannot achieve what he seeks to achieve on the Government Benches I worry about what I might be able to achieve, but it is good to hear another voice speaking about those same issues.
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in that I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor. I want to speak to new clause 48 in my name and new clause 39 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). The two new clauses seek to do similar things. I thank Members across the House who have signed new clause 48, not only Opposition Members but those on the Government Benches, as well as from the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. It is my position that this support shows that new clause 48 is an objectively reasonable amendment to seek. It is about the principle of fairness: it ensures that the ferry services that connect communities all over this country of islands connect those islands, and the communities that live close to bodies of water, including rivers, under the same fare framework that trains and buses operate under. New clause 48 sits in the following context: for generations, for decades, there has been a political consensus that train operators, whether they be state providers or private businesses, operate under a framework of regulation and licensing, and that Government have a say in how train fares and timetables are structured. The same goes for bus services. Indeed, even trains and buses in the private sector have, to a greater or lesser extent, been subsidised by the public purse. Ferry providers in this country sit outside that consensus of regulation and licensing in public transport, so there is no comprehensive regulation that sets down how ferry operators may work. That has led to my constituents on the Isle of Wight relying on privatised, unregulated, unlicensed, foreign-owned, debt-laden companies for essential travel. Those companies are so profitable that they are regularly exchanged from private equity group to private equity group, including the Canadian pension fund. That is because private equity understands that it is a predictable form of income generation, as the service users—Isle of Wight residents—have no alternative but to use the ferry companies they control. There is no effective market, as the private sector operates properly only when there is competition. However, the bar to entry into the ferry services market is so high—a company would need to buy land and ferries, and ensure compliance with all maritime law—that there is no alternative to the existing providers. I use my constituency as an example. One provider, now called Wightlink, used to be part of British Rail, when British Rail was a public service; the provider was unfortunately sold off without any obligation on it, and it is private equity investment that has benefited from that.
It absolutely does provide that incentive. I thank the shadow Minister for remarking on my tone; I have always tried to work with the Government on this matter. I acknowledge again that this is more than a campaign—it is a core issue for my constituents, and for constituents on the other side of the island that I share with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West. Indeed, we are working jointly on it. The measure would achieve unity around the idea of a mayor having responsibility for integrated transport locally. After all, local transport powers are a key plank of the Government’s plans for devolution. However, when the Government consulted my constituents—among the wider residents of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight—on transport, the consultation document that they put out to spark debate and consultation returns devoted 1,000 words to transport for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight on trains, buses, taxis, pavements, cycling and walking, but it did not include ferries or any mention of crossing the Solent, which every single one of my constituents needs to do at some point to access health services and educational opportunities that are not provided on the island, and to access employment and see friends and family, as everyone on the UK mainland would expect to do. I remind the House that in order to do those routine daily things, my constituents are reliant on the private equity groups that own and control ferry companies, and that have no obligation whatsoever to the residents of the Isle of Wight. They have no democratic accountability at all, and no responsibility to Government.
My hon. Friend mentioned two key words: democratic accountability. That is fundamentally what underpins this issue, and it is a principle that we expect to apply to all forms of public transport—except ferries. I urge the Government to use this opportunity to create regulation and devolve it down. That way, they will not have ongoing responsibility for administering this issue, and the decision making will be made as close as possible to the individuals affected by the decisions. I am speaking for my constituents, but I could also be speaking for those elsewhere in the country. This is also about the economic wellbeing of the area. My constituents are heavily reliant on tourism. Indeed, the benefits of tourism are felt by 38% of our economy, but to visit the Isle of Wight, tourists must pay the price of the ferry. That is on top of everything else that they might want to spend when they are on the island. Let us remember that the money paid to the ferry companies goes off to private equity investors, many of which are abroad, and some of which are foreign pension funds. Not only does that mean less money to spend in my area on businesses that employ local people, but it will put some people off travelling to the Isle of Wight at all. The Minister may want to see ferry prices as a large tax that people can avoid by simply visiting other places for their holidays. That is the tragedy of this situation. Indeed, tourist footfall has fallen on the Isle of Wight more than it has for anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Before I end, I will back up my argument with facts. Earlier this year, the highest price somebody paid to bring a car back and forth to the Isle of Wight was £400. That is £400 for a sea crossing of 5 miles. The timetables have diminished since private equity took control. Once there were half-hourly services, but it is now more than an hour between services. Ordinarily, a company would not get away with doing this, because the consumer—the passenger—would go elsewhere, but the only “elsewhere” option is another ferry company that is also controlled and owned by private equity. It is no wonder that one of those companies was sold last month from private equity to private equity. The website of the new controlling group does not talk about the uncompromising pursuit of passenger experience. It boasts about the uncompromising pursuit of capital investment. That is capital investment for people who want to invest in that holding company. I thank again all those who have supported this proposal. It was a particularly significant moment to hear the shadow Minister confirm that His Majesty’s official Opposition backs the regulation of ferry companies through my amendment.
Many of us agree with the concept of genuine devolution and bringing power to communities, but is the real problem not that the measures in the Bill will mean a power grab away from communities, and that Whitehall will be giving directions to local government? That basic contradiction at the heart of the Bill causes so much trouble.
The Prime Minister agreed with the independent adviser on ministerial interests to recuse himself from the appointment of the football regulator in autumn 2024. Then, in April, as the report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments makes clear, he confirmed Mr Kogan’s appointment, breaking that undertaking. How much did the Prime Minister receive in donations from Mr Kogan, and when did he declare them?
4. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of his Department’s funding for Buckinghamshire council.
That is a curious answer, because modelling by the County Councils Network indicates that, assuming there is a punishing 5% annual council tax increase, core spending for Buckinghamshire council will go up by only a below-inflation 2.2%—a real-terms cut. What assurance can the Minister give Buckinghamshire council that it will not find itself with a real-terms cut in spending power as it delivers essential services to my constituents?
We just want the transparency that was promised to be delivered. The Minister has been given an impossible task as a junior Minister, but the House surely deserves to know how much cash was transferred to the Prime Minister by someone who has been given a £130,000-a-year part-time sinecure. [Interruption.] If the Minister will not answer today because he is being told not to do so by the chair of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), will he undertake to come back and give the House an answer? We are entitled, on behalf of the whole country, to be given an honest answer by the Government, who are supposedly committed to transparency.
10. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the floods resilience taskforce on future planning considerations.
In areas like Mid Norfolk, planning is the key to avoiding developments that cause and exacerbate flooding. In Attleborough, a recent planning application for 350 houses on a floodplain was turned down by the council on the basis that it would cause flooding, but fast-tracked by the Planning Inspectorate on the basis of the Government’s house building targets. The Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill contained nothing on flooding, which is why I am introducing a Bill. Will the Minister meet me and cross-party campaigners from affected constituencies—some of my constituents are now wading through sewage after the development I mentioned—to talk about how we can integrate planning with flood prevention?
Ministers are claiming that this is a record amount of funding for affordable housing in South Shields and across the rest of England, but why are they consistently refusing to publish a breakdown of the annual funding under their 10-year programme? Is it because the majority of the cash is backloaded into future Parliaments and then exaggerated by inflation? The small-print prospectus says that the homes must be completed by 2039. That is 14 years away. As with Labour’s house building target, is this not just an exercise in hoodwinking people by promising homes that are never going to see the light of day in this Parliament?
I remind hon. Members that, should they wish to speak in this debate, they need to bob. I know there are a lot of Members wishing to speak, but I believe there will be enough time for everybody.
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about his constituents’ need for joined-up transport. He spoke about the ferries, and about buses and trains. This is not just an economic argument; he talked about the importance of people being able to move around and connect with each other, and that has huge impacts for their mental health. I urge my hon. Friend to talk about the importance of democratic accountability, and getting strategic transport plans for our constituents across the country.