Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

   Palliative Care Strategy

   There has been cross-party and cross-charity campaigning for this strategy, so I welcome the fact that the Minister has announced it. However, hospices across the country and especially in my constituency are telling me that their biggest problem is the national insurance rise. For example, a children’s hospice that covers my constituency tells me that the £90,000 extra it has to pay in national insurance could have funded three nurses. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor ahead of tomorrow’s Budget to ensure that hospices, and indeed other health and social care organisations, are exempt from any national insurance rises, either in the past or in the future?

   Hansard source
2. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

   Hear, hear!

   Hansard source
3. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

   COP30

   What commitments were secured at COP30 from the countries responsible for the highest carbon emissions—China, the US and India—to reduce their emissions, given that their leaders, Xi, Trump and Modi, could not even be bothered to attend? Or did those countries fail to commit to reducing their carbon emissions and to phasing out their use of fossil fuels, instead allowing the Secretary of State to walk his ideological path of net zero, which is destroying the UK’s industrial and manufacturing base and pushing our population into poverty with ever-higher energy bills?

   Hansard source
4. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

   New Hospital Programme

   7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the time taken to deliver the new hospital programme on maintenance costs across the NHS estate.

   Hansard source
5. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

   New Hospital Programme

   As my constituency neighbour, the Health Secretary will know that both his constituents and mine rely heavily on the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow and Whipps Cross in Leytonstone. Before the election, he promised the rebuild of the Princess Alexandra hospital and he supported the Whipps Won’t Wait campaign, yet under Labour it appears that both Princess Alexandra and Whipps must wait. Whipps Cross now faces an estimated £170 million in backlog maintenance, one of the highest figures in the country. Does the Health Secretary agree with me that rising maintenance costs must be taken into account when prioritising the new hospital programme?

   Hansard source
6. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   NHS Waiting Lists

   What’s the answer?

   Hansard source
7. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   New Hospital Programme

   When it comes to hospital provision, the Conservatives believe that we should continue to use private providers to improve access and reduce waiting times. We believe the Government should not let spare capacity go to waste on ideological grounds; we should continue to make use of private-sector capacity to treat NHS patients where available. Does the Minister agree?

   Hansard source
8. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   New Hospital Programme

   I am pleased to hear that the Minister does, given that it is her current policy. The last time the Government brought in private finance, they brought in the private finance initiative, which brought in £13 billion of investment. The problem was that it cost the taxpayer a whopping £80 billion, and hospitals are still paying decades on. This time around, will the Government give a cast-iron guarantee and complete confidence to the public that this is not Labour’s version of PFI mark 2?

   Hansard source
9. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

   Access to GPs

   There are a number of exciting opportunities for extended GP premises in my constituency—in places like Martins Oak in Battle, Little Common and Old Town, and Oldwood in Robertsbridge. One major challenge is the rates that the NHS district valuer is willing to offer for construction sites; they have just not kept up with the inflation we have seen across all sectors of construction. I did have a meeting with the Minister for Care and it was helpful to start those discussions, but we have not made the progress that we need to. Can we have a further meeting, and will the Secretary of State outline what he will do to ensure that district valuers are offering rates that can allow construction to go ahead?

   Hansard source
10. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    NHS Waiting Lists

    I would first like to say I am sorry that the Minister for Public Health and Prevention is unwell and convey to her the best wishes of the Opposition. I would like the Secretary of State to consider a patient who has waited a year for a procedure and then, after three waiting list validation calls, finally sees the consultant to check that the procedure is still necessary. If the consultant agrees that it is, do the Government figures show that patient as waiting for a year or a much shorter period?

    Hansard source
11. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    NHS Waiting Lists

    The Secretary of State does not seem entirely sure, so perhaps he can write to us with an answer—

    Hansard source
12. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Caroline Johnson

    NHS Waiting Lists

    As someone who is on the waiting list myself, I do hope that the Secretary of State is correct. Waiting lists for procedures and operations requiring day care or overnight admission are both rising and higher than they were a year ago. Orthopaedic surgery waiting lists are up, yet this Government scrapped our major conditions strategy and say that they have no plans for a musculoskeletal conditions framework. Gynaecology surgery waiting lists are up, yet the Government scrapped and are now reviewing the women’s health strategy. Waits for procedures and operations in ophthalmology, general surgery, neurology and gastroenterology are going up too. When is the Secretary of State going to get a grip of the surgical waiting lists?

    Hansard source
13. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    My constituency is on the outskirts of London—we are not in London; we are very much in Surrey—but we suffer from the fact that many decisions that affect my constituents on a daily basis are made in London, often to our detriment, and we have absolutely no control over them. I recognise the strong point my hon. Friend is making, but even if he is able to withdraw from the administrative unit of London, he will not escape negative decision making by the current Mayor of London.

    Hansard source
14. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    Yesterday, my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), asked the Minister whether Surrey will get a mayor. He did not get much of an answer—we can only imagine what has led the Government over the past year to get cold feet on the election of mayors going forwards. I want to talk about new clause 1 and amendment 2, on consent for change, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on behalf of the official Opposition. Surrey and others have been working with the Government to maximise the opportunities of devolution locally. As part of that, there has been quite a debate over the unitary model and whether there should be two, three or one unitary authorities. On the face of it, ideally, going for one unitary would mean savings, but the Government have decided that is not possible, so, through various processes, the decision has been made to have two unitaries. That has all been done in pursuit of a mayor. A mayor would make a big difference in ensuring that Surrey can, as the Government put it, unlock devolution. It is frustrating that we have got to this stage—all this work has been done—but there has still been no firm commitment that Surrey will get a mayor, particularly when a unitary model is being adopted purely to seek a mayor when, actually, a better model locally would be a single unitary. I see the Minister nodding; I am sure she can see that conundrum and how there is frustration about the fact that a mayor has not yet been announced. A mayor would bring huge benefits in leading on strategic projects such as the River Thames scheme that I have been trying to push to be built as soon as possible. It would also bring benefits in health, with accountability for integrated care boards—again, I have been calling for that—and on transport locally. I have been calling for a duty to co-ordinate, which I think a mayor with powers would also be able to deliver for Surrey. In housing, I am calling for the prevention of inappropriate local development, which is blighting areas across Runnymede and Weybridge and which will affect both the east and west unitaries when they are set up. In policing, given that the Government have announced that they will wrap up the police and crime commissioners, we need a mayor to take on the role at the cut-off date of 2028. I beg the Minister to announce, either in winding up, via a written ministerial statement or otherwise the confirmation of a mayor for Surrey and a guarantee that next year’s elections will go ahead. Will she also explain how my constituents can be shielded from other councils’ debt as part of the unitary reforms that are going ahead?

    Hansard source
15. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Waste Incinerators

    I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the carrying out of construction work in respect of new waste incinerators, other than in cases where substantial construction has already begun; to make provision about the taxation of waste disposed of by way of incineration; to prohibit local authorities from entering into any contract for the incineration of waste which requires them to pay financial penalties if a minimum amount of waste is not delivered for incineration; and for connected purposes. I begin by paying tribute to colleagues from across the House who have spoken out against waste incinerators. My commendations go too to the United Kingdom Without Incineration Network and local campaign groups, including Westbury Gasification Action Group, which have been a thorn in the side of the incinerator industry. For too long, too many of our constituents have lived in the shadow of waste burners that pollute the air that we breathe. This Bill puts the reduction, reuse and recycling principles of the waste hierarchy back into waste management. Since the landfill tax was introduced in 1996, consecutive Administrations—Labour, coalition and Conservative—have encouraged incineration and discouraged landfill. They have been helped by the burner industry, which has greenwashed its operations as “energy from waste”. The generation of a few tepid calories and a feeble stream of electrons has convinced Whitehall that waste burners are part of a transition to a green future and to net zero. They are not. We are allergic to putting waste in the ground, but happy to consign it to the landfill in the sky—out of sight, out of mind and straight into the lungs of those living downwind and on to the nation’s carbon ledger. Not only does the incineration of plastic produce 175 times as much CO2 as landfill, but the emissions per unit of energy produced from burning mixed waste is the same as coal and nearly double that of gas. It is the dirtiest way we generate electricity in this country by far. We have to change course. We tax oil and gas, we have turned our back on coal entirely, we are turning off the taps in the North sea, we refrain from exploiting shale deposits while importing liquefied natural gas and our share of global emissions is less than 1% and falling. We are more than doing our bit, at considerable cost—in the short to medium term at least—to our economy and the people we serve, yet we do not tax incineration, which gives off the most world-warming, health-harming emissions, in return for a paltry amount of energy. A welcome inclusion of incineration in the UK emissions trading scheme is necessary, but it is not sufficient. The time has come to use the same infrastructure that raises the landfill tax to levy an incineration waste tax at rates that will promote the handling of rubbish in a way that puts it at the top of the waste hierarchy, not at the bottom. Unfortunately, an incineration tax has not been among the kites flown in advance of the Budget, but I will gladly pull my Bill if the Chancellor pulls this rabbit out of the hat tomorrow. She knows that we have too many waste incinerators already. The Government’s own analysis, published in December last year, confirms that. With the 50 waste burners already operational in England and Wales, we already have more capacity today than we will need in 2035. In other words, the 12 plants being built and the 41 that had been granted planning permission as of last December were already surplus to requirements. Why do we need to almost double our capacity to burn waste when the Government know that it is already excessive? Where is the social justice in the way we consign the nation’s waste to the atmosphere? Unsurprisingly, incinerators are sited disproportionately in poorer, densely populated places with a heavy burden of ill health. The growing monster at Edmonton, for example, which already takes waste from leafier, more favoured districts to burn in the capital, is belching a cocktail of gases and ultrafine particles with uncertain health consequences across a huge swathe of north London. Having too many incinerators for the residual waste available might be tolerable if it were not for the clauses in contracts between local authorities and incinerator operators that demand councils consign a minimum amount of waste for burning to avoid financial penalties—so-called “deliver or pay” contracts. What happens if a council that is reducing, reusing and recycling waste, as it should, turns out not to have enough waste to feed the monstrous burner that has been foisted on its community? Waste will be imported—of course it will—because the monster must be fed. Geneva, of all places, trucks in waste from Milan to keep running a burner that, once built, failed to secure enough rubbish locally. The more households reduce their waste and local authorities recycle, the less waste councils will have to send for incineration. That triggers penalties under “deliver or pay” that they cannot afford. It is little wonder that recycling has stalled for the last 15 years, and that where incineration rates are higher, recycling rates are lower, as Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs figures have made abundantly clear. It gets worse. Transitional arrangements laid last year will allow 31 waste collection authorities, including Wiltshire, to defer the separate food waste collections required from March next year under the otherwise excellent Environment Act 2021, in some cases to the 2040s. This means sending compostable waste to the burner. We have a ludicrous situation in which councils are being actively encouraged to recycle less and even import waste just to keep running a set of wholly unnecessary incinerators that pollute far more than they power. This Bill will outlaw the importation of waste for burning, terminate “deliver or pay” contracts and rescind the Environment Act 2021 (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2024. We must revoke planning permission for those 41 pending sites, including the monstrosity planned for Westbury in my constituency, where preliminary work has recently begun. We must immediately prohibit any more permissions and permits. The last Government paused the issuing of environmental permits to new burners—the only attempt by any Government to alter course in the last three decades. My party’s manifesto last year contained a firm commitment to put a stop to them. The Welsh Labour Government wisely placed a moratorium on new burners in 2021. The Scottish Government did so the following year after a review highlighted the risks that incineration posed to human health and the environment. The review went on to say: “Scotland should not construct more capacity than it needs and only some of the currently planned capacity should be built.” The Government’s in-principle acceptance of this Bill, perhaps by launching a consultation on the future of incineration like the 2022 Scottish review, might be enough, because it would signal to investors that the incineration game is up. It would say that if they want to be in the waste business, they must stop burning and start operating higher up the waste hierarchy. My Bill calls time on one of our biggest polluters, one that is hidden in plain sight. It would begin to lower the curtain on a filthy enterprise cynically passing itself off as green because it generates a few calories, a trickle of electrons and the promise of carbon capture at some point in the distant future. As the Government’s own figures show, we are already at overcapacity. Without the measures in this Bill, the industry will almost double its capacity in the decade to 2035. That means the hierarchy of waste will be inverted to soak up the excess capacity. This Bill would end Whitehall’s obsession with incineration. It would direct the UK waste industry to start operating much higher up the waste hierarchy. We must tax incineration, ban “deliver or pay” contracts, outlaw waste imports and, above all, build no more incinerators. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Dr Andrew Murrison, Steve Barclay, Brian Mathew, John Glen, Danny Kruger, Euan Stainbank, Ben Obese-Jecty, Lee Barron, Lloyd Hatton and Robbie Moore present the Bill. Dr Andrew Murrison accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 336).

    Hansard source
16. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I know that this issue has been exercising Mr Speaker. Yesterday, at topical questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) about a tourism tax, we were told by the Secretary of State: “My hon. Friend tempts me to venture into terrain that is properly within the decision-making jurisdiction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She only has to wait 48 hours to find out what the Chancellor has decided. I suggest that she ask the Chancellor on Wednesday, rather than me this afternoon.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 19.] During debate on the Bill yesterday, when asked the same question by the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), replied: “They have made an impassioned and effective case, but as I said in my opening remarks, I will not pre-empt the Chancellor. Tax decisions are for the Chancellor, and we will have a Budget in 48 hours.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 155.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you and Mr Speaker have been very exercised by the number of leaks, which the former chief economist at the Bank of England described as “the single biggest reason why growth has flatlined”. You will therefore be concerned, as the Conservatives are, that a short while ago the Government put out a press release on their website saying that mayors will be given these new powers, before that was briefed to the House and after repeated comments to the House that Ministers would not answer that question. What further measures are open to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker to ensure that these kinds of damaging leaks, which are undermining our economy and particularly hitting our tourism and hospitality businesses hard, can stop?

    Hansard source
17. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    I open by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I hold some voluntary roles in local government. I place on record my particular thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who served with such distinction on the Bill Committee. Local government is the most efficient part of the public sector. It is uniquely democratically accountable among our public services. It is also uniquely financial constrained by the requirement for council budgets to balance in-year. We know that the average local authority delivers over 800 different services, which range from public health and child protection to housing the most vulnerable, trading standards, markets, parking and road maintenance. Councils empty the bins, recycle the waste, lend books and care for the elderly, but Governments rarely rise or fall based on what happens in the local government sector. It is not the most dramatic or glamorous part of our state, but day to day, as contributions from right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber have reflected, it probably has the most important impact in our constituents’ lives. As we heard in Committee, and as we have heard in the amendments and in this debate, our local government is under unprecedented pressure due to this Government’s poor decisions. On the track record of my party in office, we saw local authorities using their discretion but for the most part seeking to keep council tax low, with the additional revenue from projects such as the new homes bonus, council tax freeze grant and the approach to business rate grant being implemented to support local businesses and local communities. Today, with few exceptions across the sector, we see local authorities facing the maximum possible council tax rises, the maximum possible business rate increases and the maximum possible increases in fees and charges, against a backdrop where housing delivery, supposedly the Government’s top priority, has collapsed, despite a legacy of 1.5 million new homes—their target for the whole of the Parliament—with planning permission already granted. All this green belt-grey belt nonsense, which has caused such concern and anxiety to Members and our constituents, is entirely irrelevant. They already have an entire Parliament’s supply of homes with planning consent ready to build. The jobs tax has left our local authorities worse off by £1.5 billion net. It has driven up the cost of almost every local government service, from the care of the elderly and vulnerable children to the day-to-day maintenance of our roads and our environment. Tonight, what we have before us is this Government’s botched and incoherent restructuring, with no clear vision of what local government in England is even for. When we consider the matters that we will press to a Division, new clause 69 on election cancellations and new clause 80 on statutory notices are among a very extensive list of options. We have heard from one or two Members that the retention of the committee system was democratically approved locally. Although measures adopting the Opposition’s proposals on councillors’ addresses make some minor improvements to the Bill, the cancellation of local elections is a clear example of a mess of the Government’s making.We support our local colleagues in making the best of the very difficult set of decisions that they have to take. However, having been told by Ministers—as the Opposition did when in office—that elections to local authorities that were due to be abolished would be cancelled, that was not what the Government then did. They simply deferred those elections for 12 months, making the waste of taxpayers’ money and the concern of local residents even greater, while raising the prospect of a lack of accountability as this important process goes through.

    Hansard source
18. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    The hon. Member puts to me whether it was simply a failure to get the Chancellor’s attention, but clearly the Chancellor has been busy at every possible opportunity briefing the press about things that may or may not be in the upcoming Budget. We have seen the impact that that has had: driving up Government borrowing costs; driving down business confidence; and driving unemployment up, every single month since this Government took office. Those political briefings have real-world consequences for our constituents’ livelihoods. For all of those businessowners in the hospitality and tourism sector who have been seeking to make decisions, relying on what they have heard Minsters tell the House, to discover in a press release that this new tax is due to be imposed on them despite the previous assurances of the Tourism Minister, is just one of the many nails in the coffin of the British economy represented by the Bill and this Government’s actions. In conclusion, when we look at the Bill, we see legislation that makes a complete mess of local democracy: elections cancelled and then deferred; announcements of new mayors that do not make it through to the final announcements about new structures. The Bill takes powers away from communities and gives them to mayors who, as we heard earlier in the case of Surrey, may not materialise at all. It devolves nothing of any significance closer to our constituents and seeks to make our elected local councillor brethren simply the hosts of talking shops, rather than decision makers for their local community. Worst of all, despite the Government’s occasionally lofty rhetoric, the Bill abolishes 90% of the representation of shire England at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. Where is the voice for our constituents in local government under this centralising Labour Government?

    Hansard source
19. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    I will speak briefly. There is a high degree of consensus on some of the objectives that the Government have set out. We share the ambition to deliver more homes, and we share the ambition on economic growth and devolution. However, the alternative stimulants that the Government have chosen essentially involve more bureaucracy, more centralisation and new taxes, all of which will stand in the way of the delivery of those ambitions. We, as an Opposition, are very clear about this. The things that our communities, our constituents and our local businesses want and need are not contained in the Bill. It cancels elections, it reduces local democracy, it centralises power with a swathe of new ministerial diktats, it raises taxes through an unwanted, unbriefed new tourism tax, and it opens the door to new unlimited mayoral levies that can be used at ministerial fiat, not on the say-so of local residents. It is a let-down for those who hoped to support it and a betrayal of the ambition of those who support our local democracy. We will oppose the Bill’s Third Reading. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

    Hansard source
20. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Topical Questions

    The Secretary of State will be aware that since the law change, the number of children who have received NHS prescriptions for medical cannabis for severe epilepsy has been pitifully low. Families and campaigners believe that part of the reason is that the Home Office still has large responsibility for those products. Will the Secretary of State meet me and other interested MPs to discuss whether his Department could take more responsibility?

    Hansard source
21. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    G20 and Ukraine

    I was very pleased that the Prime Minister mentioned Sudan; we cannot be blind to Russia’s malign interest there or across the Sahel. What discussions has he had with Prime Minister Modi about his approach to Russian oil and what appear to be his overly friendly social media posts towards President Putin?

    Hansard source
22. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

    Cancer Care

    A constituent of mine recently had successful high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment for prostate cancer, which was at Charing Cross hospital because it is not even offered to men at Portsmouth hospitals, despite being a less invasive treatment with fewer long-term health implications. As if to underline that inequality, imagine his surprise when he turned up at the hospital and found that the same doctor who had diagnosed him in Portsmouth was actually carrying out the procedure in London. What more are the Government doing to ensure that there is no postcode lottery when it comes to HIFU, and what will the Minister do to ensure that more men can access it?

    Hansard source
23. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

    COP30

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Let us be clear: when this Secretary of State resumed office, he decided to impose the most punishing climate policies at home, because according to his argument, if we lead, others will follow. That is why we are the only country in the world to be shutting down our domestic energy supply in the North sea, and why he is forcing us into ever higher energy bills. He has taken the most hair-shirt, ideological approach to climate policy, with thousands of jobs lost and high bills for decades. We are not setting an example to the rest of the world; what he has created is a warning. It is now the renewables advocates at home who are raising the alarm about the folly of the Secretary of State’s plans to shut down the North sea. [Hon. Members: “Who?”] They say, “Who?” Let me name them. Scottish Renewables, Octopus Energy and—they may have heard of this one—the chair of his very own Great British Energy have all said that we have to continue to drill in the North sea, because they know that there is no just transition by pulling the plug as thoughtlessly as the Government are doing. This is student politics, yet thousands of Britons—[Interruption.] Labour Members laugh. I might remind them that it was their Minister who got booed when we went to Aberdeen, because thousands of Britons are paying the price with their jobs. Secondly, while the Secretary of State has been gone, it has become even clearer that his plans are raising energy bills at home. Martin Lewis and all our country’s biggest energy suppliers have publicly made it clear that the Secretary of State’s costs are now raising bills. The truth is that he promised the public lower bills and more jobs, when in fact his policies are destroying jobs and signing us up to higher bills for decades. That is not what the public were promised. The real path to lower emissions is cheaper electricity. If we want people to choose electric cars or electric heating, we need to make electricity cheap, and our cheap power plan would cut the cost of electricity for everyone by 20%. We have some of the cleanest but most expensive electricity in the world. Our plan would address that, and even the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), has said that it merits consideration. Let me return to COP to see what the Secretary of State did achieve. How many countries joined his new Global Clean Power Alliance? We did not hear about that in the statement because the answer is, “Not a single one.”. Perhaps the terrible outcomes that he is achieving at home have put them off. Worst of all, despite this conference cutting down acres of the Amazon rainforest, the Secretary of State chose not to support this conference’s flagship forest fund. Every Conservative Government since 2021 have supported global funds on deforestation, but he made sure that Britain, for the first time in four years, did not contribute. Is this not the height of hypocrisy? When people say they support environmental policy, first and foremost they mean protecting the natural world that we all cherish. Does this not show up his green ideology for what it is— bureaucratic, punitive and ultimately ineffective? The Secretary of State’s plans are completely counterproductive, so he should answer these fundamental questions. First, what do his plans mean for electricity bills, when everyone from Martin Lewis to Ofgem have made it clear that his policies are raising bills? What assessment has he made of how damaging those higher electricity bills are for electrification? Here is the rub: he is making electricity more expensive, and expecting people to use it for their heating. As a plan, it is simply absurd. Secondly, how many more emissions will the UK account for if it is increasing its imports of liquefied natural gas, which has four times the emissions of North sea? The Secretary of State is driving away British jobs to import gas with higher emissions, and he should explain to the House what the environmental benefit of that is. Thirdly, how will it help climate change if AI firms that want to use gas power set up shop in some other country rather than Britain? Those data centres will still exist, just not here in Britain, thanks to his policies. Fourthly, what does he say to Martin Lewis, who has made it very clear that the problem pushing up bills is not gas, but his plans? Here is the problem: from our electricity price to the North sea and AI, the Secretary of State is impoverishing Britain for no benefit to global emissions. This is student politics. We have become a warning, not an example, to the rest of the world. Here is what he should remember: no country is going to be convinced by a moral lecture from this Secretary of State. They are persuaded by prosperity, and his hair-shirt approach is the biggest blocker to British prosperity.

    Hansard source
24. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Points of Order

    I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. It is disappointing to hear that he has not received a more substantive response to the concerns raised by his constituents. Ministers themselves are responsible for their own correspondence, and the Government’s ministerial code states: “Ministers should, where possible, provide full and timely responses” to such correspondence. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his concerns, but he may also wish to raise his concerns with the Leader of the House.

    Hansard source
25. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Points of Order

    I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He will have heard my previous response and will know that Ministers are responsible for the accuracy of their remarks in the House. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his concerns and if a correction is needed, I am sure one will be forthcoming. On the issue of briefings to the media, as has been said on numerous occasions from the Chair in recent weeks, major announcements should be made in this House in the first instance and not to the media. We had an urgent question on this issue just yesterday. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has been conducting an inquiry into ministerial statements and the ministerial code, and I look forward to seeing its report in due course.

    Hansard source
26. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Points of Order

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I have not had any indication that a Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement, but he has put his point on the record and the Table Office can advise him on how to pursue the matter further.

    Hansard source
27. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 46—Extension of general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority. Government new clause 49—“National minimum standard” and “regulated licence”. Government new clause 50—Standards relating to the grant of a regulated licence. Government new clause 51—Standards relating to the suspension or revocation of a regulated licence. Government new clause 52—Standards relating to the renewal of a regulated licence. Government new clause 53—Further provision about standards. Government new clause 54—Guidance. Government new clause 55—Relationship with existing licensing legislation. Government new clause 56—Regulations. Government new clause 57—Interpretation. New clause 1—Consent for local government restructuring— ‘(1) The Secretary of State may only make an order or regulations to create, change, or dissolve a strategic authority with the consent of all 6 constituent councils. (2) The “constituent councils” are any county council, district council, town council or parish council.’ This new clause would mean local government restructuring could not take place without the consent of the constituent councils. New clause 6—Local authority oversight over management of land of community value— ‘(1) A local authority is responsible for overseeing the management of land of community value in their area. (2) If the relevant local authority identifies deliberate neglect or mismanagement of land of community value by its owner, the authority may— (a) exercise compulsory purchase powers, or (b) refuse planning changes in relation to the land.’ This new clause would require local authorities to oversee the management of land of community value in their area and enable them to exercise compulsory purchase powers in instances of mismanagement. New clause 10—Community ownership fund— ‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which establish a community ownership fund within six months of the passage of this Act. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative procedure. (3) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for any strategic authority to apply for funding of up to £2 million to support any— (a) voluntary and community organisation, or (b) parish or town council, to purchase of an assets of community value they determine is at risk in their area.’ This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Community Ownership Fund to which strategic authorities may apply for funding. Amendment (a) to new clause 10, at end insert— ‘(4) On the day on which regulations are first made under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out— (a) how a strategic authority can apply to the community ownership fund; (b) how the community ownership fund is governed and administered; (c) any other information which in the opinion of the Secretary of State assists strategic authorities and other persons in understanding the purposes of and application process for the community ownership fund; and (d) a timetable for when applications to the fund may be submitted, and by when they should be responded to.’ New clause 11—Local public accounts committees— ‘(1) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment of a public accounts committee in each mayoral strategic authority area (“a local public accounts committee”). (2) Regulations made under this section must— (a) make provision relating to the membership of local public accounts committees, including appointment; tenure; and arrangements for chairing of committees; (b) make provision about support for local public accounts committees by the relevant local audit services; (c) empower local public accounts committees to require the provision of information from all providers of public services in the mayoral strategic authority area; (d) make provision about the functions of local public accounts committees, including the power of the committees to report on— (i) the effectiveness with which mayoral strategic authorities exercise any of their functions; (ii) the effectiveness with which any local partners exercise functions on behalf of the strategic mayoral authority. (iii) the effectiveness with which any local partners collaborate with the mayoral strategic authority. (3) For the purposes of this section, “local partner” has the meaning given in section 17B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (as inserted by section 21 of this Act).”’ This new clause would require the introduction of Local Public Accounts Committees within one year of this Act coming into force. LPACs would ensure scrutiny and accountability across the whole of the local public service spending and activity. New clause 12—Assets of negative community value— ‘In the Localism Act 2011, after section 92 insert— “92A Assets of negative community value (1) A building or other land in a local authority’s area is of negative community value if, in the opinion of the authority, the asset— (a) has been the subject of a measurable and sustained increase in anti-social behaviour in the locality, (b) has caused material disruption or harm to the amenity, cohesion, or wellbeing of the local community, or (c) has been vacant or derelict for a continuous period of not less than three years, and during that period no meaningful attempt has been made by the owner of the asset to restore it to use. (2) A local authority may maintain and publish a list of assets of negative community value in its area. (3) Where a local authority has listed an asset of negative community value, the authority may— (a) take such steps as may be prescribed by regulations to secure temporary management or community stewardship of the asset; (b) invite community groups, charities, or other qualifying organisations to bring forward proposals for its use or stewardship; (c) exercise such enforcement or compulsory acquisition powers as may be made available by regulations made pursuant to subsection (5). (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations— (a) make provision as to the procedure for listing an asset of negative community value; (b) confer rights of appeal on owners or occupiers of listed assets; (c) provide for safeguards to ensure proportionality and fairness in the designation and management of such assets; (d) make further provision for the disposal, management, or transfer of listed assets to qualifying community groups. (5) For the purposes of this paragraph “community group” has the same meaning as in section 86D of this Act (as inserted by schedule 19 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025).”’ This new clause would create a parallel category to “assets of community value” by enabling local authorities to designate “assets of negative community value” (ANCVs). Designation would trigger a framework for temporary community stewardship or pathways to transfer into community use. Further provision would be made via secondary legislation. New clause 13—Duty relating to community empowerment— ‘(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, and each year thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report assessing the effectiveness of Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 (Community empowerment). (2) The report must— (a) consider the effectiveness of the provisions in Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 against the criteria in subsection (3), and (b) set out a plan for better meeting those criteria, including potential legislative provision. (3) The criteria are, in relation to people in England— (a) access to a clean and healthy environment; (b) access to land or space to play, roam, and swim; (c) access to land for food growing; (d) the ability to contribute to and challenge decisions made at a local level; (e) access to, use of, and ability to propose acquisition of assets of community value. (4) Within the period of 21 days beginning on the day in which a Report under this section, a Minister of the Crown must move a motion in the House of Commons that the House has considered the Report. (5) In reckoning any period of 21 days under subsection (4), no account is taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than four days.’ This new clause would require the Government to report annually on the effectiveness of community empowerment measures under the Localism Act 2011. It requires that Ministers assess how well communities can access land, green space, and local decision-making mechanisms. The report must include plans to strengthen these rights, including potential new legislation. New clause 16—Funding for local authority governance reorganisation— ‘The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded for any purposes relating to the reorganisation of cabinet governance structures that are required or enabled by this Act.’ This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure funding is available for any rearranging of councils’ governance models. New clause 17—Resource and support for local authority implementation of the Act— ‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that relevant authorities are provided with the resources and support necessary in order to carry out any functions conferred on, or required of, them by virtue of this Act. (2) Any resources and support provided by the Secretary of State must be sufficient to ensure that there is no delay to the holding of any future local elections resulting from the implementation of, or delay to the implementation of, this Act.’ This new clause would ensure local authorities are provided with the resources and support they need to deliver the content of this legislation with specific regard to preventing any further delays to future local elections. New clause 18—Councillors: proportional representation vote system— ‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a proportional representation vote system in elections of local authority councillors. (2) The regulations in subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.’ This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to introduce a proportional representation voting system for local authority councillors. New clause 19—Mayors and Police and Crime Commissioners: alternative vote system— ‘(1) Within three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the use of the alternative vote system in elections of mayors and police and crime commissioners. (2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’ This new clause would require the introduction of the Alternative Vote system for elections of mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections within three months. New clause 20—Training for councillors— ‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations which require a strategic authority to provide training for councillors following the designation, creation, or merger of any class of strategic authority. (2) Regulations under this section must— (a) make provision for training within six months of any designation, creation or merger, and every four years thereafter. (b) make provision for training to apply to all levels of local government within the area of the newly designated strategic authority, (c) provide that training under addresses any changes to the strategic authority’s governance practice, and (d) specify a period during which councillors must complete the training under subsection (2)(a). (3) The Secretary of State may create guidance for strategic authorities regarding the content of the training in subsection (2)(a).’ This new clause would create a requirement for councillors to receive training following the designation, creation or merging of any class of strategic authority. It allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the content of this training. New clause 26—Local authority acquisition of dormant assets— ‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument enable a local authority to carry out functions relating to compulsory acquisition of land under section 226A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by Schedule 15 of this Act) where the local authority is satisfied that any land of community value to be purchased within the authority area is dormant. (2) Land of community value is considered dormant if— (a) the land has been included in the authority’s list of assets of community value under section 86A for five years continuously, (b) a notice of relevant disposal under section 86M was issued at least once during the five year period under sub-paragraph (a), (c) there has been a preferred community buyer whose offer was rejected despite the buyer offering the value price determined under section 86T or an agreed price with the owner by the end of the negotiation period (see section 86S(4)), and (d) the owner has not entered into a relevant disposal of the land with any other buyer during the permitted sale period under section 86M(6). (3) Regulations made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.’ This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to authorise a local authority to engage the compulsory acquisition function under Schedule 15 of this Act if the land is considered dormant. New clause 27—Community right to challenge: duty to undertake joint reviews— ‘(1) In Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011, omit Chapter 2 and insert— “80A Duty to undertake joint reviews (1) A relevant authority must conduct a joint review if a request is submitted by a relevant body. (2) A joint review under subsection (1) must— (a) enable the relevant body to shape the provision, commissioning, or design of the service through a set period of consultation with the relevant authority; (b) be concluded within a reasonable timeframe, as prescribed in statutory guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State following consultation with community organisations and public bodies; (c) produce outcomes that, following the conclusion of the review, should be enacted by the relevant authority through any necessary changes to the provision, commissioning or design of the service. (3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about the form and conduct of consultation under paragraph (2)(a), which must include measures to ensure that a relevant body can participate meaningfully in the decision-making process. (4) For the purposes of this section— “relevant authority” means any public body responsible for delivering a local service; “relevant body” means— (a) a voluntary or community body; (b) a body, person, or trust which is established solely for a charitable purpose; (c) a parish council; (d) a group of at least ten users of a local service; (e) two or more persons who are employed by a relevant authority; (f) such other persons as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.” (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section. (3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’ This new clause replaces the duty to consider an expression of interest in the Localism Act 2011 with a duty triggering a joint review and requiring local authorities to work collaboratively with communities and service users to shape local services. New clause 34—Councillor standards— ‘(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to establish a recall process for councillors who have been found to have breached their council’s code of conduct. (2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’ This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a recall process for Councillors who have been found to have breached their council’s code of conduct. New clause 35—Consideration of impact on local elections— ‘(1) The Secretary of State must take steps to ensure a relevant activity does not— (a) delay, (b) postpone, or (c) lead to the cancellation of, any election of members to any local authority affected by the relevant activity. (2) For the purposes of this section, “relevant activity” means the making of an order or regulations, or any other exercise of power, relating to the reorganisation or restructuring of one or more local authorities under this Act.’ New clause 38—Land quality assessments— ‘(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to enable a local authority to facilitate an assessment of the quality of an area of land within its area where the conditions in subsection (2) apply. (2) The conditions are that— (a) an application has been made to a local planning authority for planning permission for development on the area of land, (b) the area of land has not been allocated for development in a local plan or any Land Use Framework, (c) the area of land has been used for agricultural purposes, (d) two or more Agricultural Land Classification assessments have been undertaken in the last 10 years, and (e) the planning applicant and the current owner of the area of land are in disagreement regarding the quality of the area of land. (3) An assessment under subsection (1) must— (a) be conducted by an independent surveying organisation, and (b) determine the area of land’s suitability for development. (4) The costs of an assessment under subsection (1) must be divided equally between the planning applicant and current owner of the area of land. (5) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’ New clause 42—Procedure relating to postponement of elections— ‘(1) Section 105 (Orders and regulations) of the Local Government Act 2000 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (6), after “9N” insert “87”.’. This new clause would require any order postponing a local election to be subject to affirmative resolution procedure. New clause 47—Rutland: status as ceremonial county— (1) The Lieutenancies Act 1997 is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 1, in the Table, after “Nottingham” insert as a new row— Rutland Rutland This new clause will preserve Rutland's lord lieutenancy and ceremonial county status. New clause 59—Disclosure of members’/co-opted members’ addresses— ‘(1) In section 100G of LGA 1972, for subsection (5) substitute— “(5) But the information open to inspection under subsection (4) must not include a member’s address included in the register maintained under subsection (1) unless, in relation to a principal council in England, that member gives their consent.” (2) In section 29 of the Localism Act 2011, after subsection (8), insert— “(8A) But the information open to inspection or published on the principal authority or parish council website under subsections (5) to (7) must not include the residential address of the member or co-opted member (“M”), or that of M’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom M is living as if they were a married couple or civil partners, where the address is the same as M’s, unless M requests that the address be published. (8B) If an address is entered into the authority’s register which is being withheld under subsection (8A) from public versions of the register, the public register should state that the member or co-opted member has an interest, the details of which are withheld under subsection (8A). (8C) If section 31(2) applies in relation to the interest, the provision is to be read as requiring the member or co-opted member to disclose not the interest but merely the fact that the member or co-opted member has a disclosable pecuniary interest in the matter concerned.”’ This new clause requires local authorities not to publish the address of member or coopted member or that of their spouse, civil partner or person with home they are living as partners on the registers of members and interests unless the member or coopted member requests that it be published. New clause 63—Parishing of all areas of England— ‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to achieve the objective in subsection (2). (2) The objective is that, within five years of the passage of this Act, there must be no part of England for which there is not a parish or town council. (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision that is consequential on this section. (4) In pursuance of subsection (3), the regulations may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by or under an Act passed— (a) before this Act, or (b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.’ New clause 67—Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing national standards— ‘(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations set national minimum standards for the licensing by strategic authorities of operators of private hire vehicles and taxis whose operating address is located within the area of a strategic authority. (2) The national minimum standards must include, but not be limited to, vetting, training and safety standards. (3) The regulations must include provision for strategic authorities to deny licensing permissions to operators of private hire vehicles and taxis within their strategic authority who do not meet the national minimum standards. (4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’ This new clause ensures that locally licensed operators are subject to national minimum standards. New clause 68—Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing regulations— ‘(1) Within one year beginning on the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations meet the objective set out in subsection (2). (2) Regulations made under this section must provide that a person licensed to operate a private hire vehicle or taxi whose operating address is located within the area of a strategic authority must only accept and fulfil bookings for journeys that either start or end within that area, with specific exceptions for NHS patient transport, school transport, and chauffeur services. (3) The regulations must include provision for a regime by which strategic authorities can enforce the requirement set out in subsection (2). (4) The regime must include provision for strategic authorities to impose sanctions on any licensed operator of a private hire vehicle or taxi who breaches this requirement. (5) The regime must ensure that sanctions exercisable by a strategic authority include— (a) financial penalties, (b) suspension of licensing permissions, and (c) revocation of licensing permissions. (6) The regime must provide that money recouped by strategic authorities from any financial penalties is used by strategic authorities to fund future enforcement of this requirement. (7) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’ This new clause ensures that locally licensed operators only fulfil journeys that either start or end within their strategic authority area. It makes provision for sanctions for breaching this requirement. New clause 69—Limitation on delay to elections resulting from local government reorganisation— ‘(1) The Secretary of State may not make any order or regulations to delay the ordinary elections of councillors of any specified authority if— (a) the order or regulations result from any change to local government organisation under or by virtue of this Act, (b) the effect of the order or regulations is to delay any such election by a period exceeding 53 weeks from the date on which it was originally scheduled to be held. (2) For the purposes of this section, “any order or regulations” includes— (a) an order under section 87 (Power to change years in which elections held) of the Local Government Act 2000; (b) an order under sections 7 (Implementation of proposals by order), 10 (Implementation of recommendations by order of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007; or (c) any other delegated power exercisable by order or by regulations in relation to the scheduling of ordinary elections of councillors.’ This new clause would prevent the Secretary of State from delaying by more than one year any local government election, if the delay results from local government reorganisation under this Act. New clause 73—Duty of local public service partners to co-operate— ‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations designate certain persons or bodies as “local public service partners” for the purposes of this section. (2) These regulations must include, at a minimum— (a) NHS bodies; (b) police and fire authorities; and (c) any other public service providers exercising functions in the area of a Strategic Authority, in addition to the principal councils in that area. (3) A local public service partner operating (in whole or in part) in the area of a Strategic Authority must, in exercising its functions so far as they affect that area, co-operate with— (a) the Strategic Authority; and (b) the principal councils for that area. (4) The duty to co-operate under subsection (3) includes, in particular— (a) a duty to attend any meeting reasonably convened by the mayor of the Strategic Authority under section 21 (or by the Strategic Authority acting collectively), when given due notice; (b) a duty to provide information and assistance to the Strategic Authority and to principal councils, insofar as reasonably required to facilitate the exercise of their functions or any joint planning of services for that area; and (c) a duty to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with the Strategic Authority and principal councils when formulating or implementing policies, plans and services that affect the area. (5) In performing the duty in subsection (3), a local public service partner must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State on the implementation of whole-area public service collaboration. (6) In this section, “principal councils” means the county, district or London borough councils (including the Common Council of the City of London) whose territories lie within the area of the Strategic Authority.’ This new clause introduces a statutory duty on local public service partners—such as NHS bodies, police, and fire authorities—to co-operate with Strategic Authorities and principal councils. New clause 75—Duty to provide professional planning support— ‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to provide appropriate professional planning support to town and parish councils in accordance with this section. (2) Support provided under subsection (1) is for the purposes of enabling a town or parish council to— (a) involve communities within the authority area with development of a neighbourhood plan, and (b) engage communities with the content and delivery of the plan following its development. (3) For the purposes of this section “communities” means— (a) any person or group of persons who live in the town or parish council area; (b) any group who in the opinion of the town or parish council can reasonably demonstrate a connection to the area.’ This new clause requires the Secretary of State to provide professional planning support to town and parish councils for the purposes of developing, and involving communities in, neighbourhood plans. New clause 79—Local accounting officers and local public accounts committees— ‘(1) Within one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment, in each mayoral strategic authority area, of— (a) a local accounting officer; and (b) a local public accounts committee. (2) Regulations under this section must— (a) make provision about the membership of local public accounts committees, including appointment, tenure and arrangements for chairing of committees; (b) make provision for local public accounts committees to be supported by the relevant local audit services; (c) empower local public accounts committees to require the provision of information from all providers of public services operating in the mayoral strategic authority area; (d) specify the functions of local public accounts committees, including the power to report on— (i) the effectiveness with which mayoral strategic authorities exercise any of their functions; (ii) the effectiveness with which any local partners exercise functions on behalf of the mayoral strategic authority; and (iii) the effectiveness with which any local partners collaborate with the mayoral strategic authority. (e) provide that the Head of Paid Service of a mayoral strategic authority is the local accounting officer, responsible to the local public accounts committee for the value for money of the authority’s expenditure, including any monies provided by the Secretary of State. (3) For the purposes of this section, “local partner” has the meaning given in section 17B of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 (as inserted by section 21 of this Act).’ This new clause would require the Secretary of State, within one year, to establish Local Public Accounts Committees in every mayoral strategic authority area. The clause also designates the Head of Paid Service in each mayoral strategic authority as the local accounting officer. New clause 80—Consultation on publication of local authority resolutions and referendum proposals— ‘(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a consultation on updating requirements about the publication of notices under the following sections of the Local Government Act 2000— (a) subsection (2) of section 9KC (resolution of local authority), and (b) subsection (7) of section 9MA (referendum: proposals by local authority). (2) The consultation must consider the impact of requirements for the publication of notices, and of proposed changes to arrangements for the publication of notices, on the following matters— (a) the economic viability of local newspapers, (b) access to information for local authority residents, and (c) local democracy and accountability. (3) The consultation must be opened within six months of the passage of this Act.’ New clause 81—Consideration of the cancellation of local elections— ‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to achieve the objective in subsection (2). (2) The objective is that any local elections scheduled for 2025 which subsequently did not take place, are held no later than 53 weeks from the date for which they were originally scheduled. (3) The regulations in subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.” This new clause would ensure that the local elections scheduled for May 2025 take place no later than May 2026. New clause 82—Public consultation on the provisions of this Act— ‘(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a consultation on the provisions of this Act. (2) The consultation must seek the public’s view on the measures set out in each Part of the Act. (3) The consultation must seek views on the impact on— (a) combined authorities; (b) combined county authorities; (c) local authorities; and (d) town and parish councils. (4) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the findings of the consultation.’ New clause 83—Private hire vehicle licensing— ‘(1) The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is amended as follows. (2) In section 55A (sub-contracting by operators), in subsection (1)(b), after “in that district” insert “except where section 55AB applies”. (3) After section 55A (sub-contracting by operators), insert— “55AB Restrictions on licensing under section 55 (1) A person (“A”) licensed under section 55 who has accepted a booking for a private hire vehicle in a controlled district may only arrange for a person licensed outside of the same controlled district (“B”) to provide a vehicle to carry out the booking where the following conditions apply. (2) The first condition is that B is licenced in a controlled district within the same strategic authority area. (3) The second condition is that the booking is for a journey that— (a) starts, or (b) ends, within the strategic authority area. (4) The third condition is that an order under section 55C is in effect.” (4) After section 55B (Sub-contracting by operators: criminal liability), insert— “55C Mayoral strategic authority power to regulate bookings (1) A mayoral strategic authority may make an order to provide that only a person licenced under section 55 whose operating address is located within its area may accept and fulfil bookings for journeys that both start and end within that same area. (2) An order under subsection (1) may only be made if the relevant mayoral strategic authority — (a) has consulted— (i) any district council— (A) within the mayoral strategic authority area, or (B) that shares a border with the mayoral strategic authority area, which grants licences under section 55; (ii) such persons licenced under— (A) section 55, or (B) section 51, as the mayoral strategic authority considers appropriate; (iii) people living or working within the mayoral strategic authority area; and (b) has had regard to any response received to consultation under paragraph (a). (3) An order under this section must include such transitional arrangements and conditions about licensing as the mayoral strategic authority considers are appropriate. (4) When an order is made under this section, the relevant mayoral strategic authority must— (a) publish the order, (b) publish such information relating to the content and application of the order as the mayoral strategic authority considers appropriate; (c) notify the Secretary of State that the order has been made. (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision as to the procedure to be followed in connection with the making of an order under this section. (6) In this section, an “operating address” is the address at which a person licensed under section 55 is registered with the district council for the purposes of that licence.” (5) In section 80 (Interpretation of Part II), after the definition of “London cab”, insert— ““mayoral strategic authority” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025.’ This new clause would provide an optional “license where you operate” model, by giving strategic authorities power to require that journeys that start and end within their strategic authority area are fulfilled by locally licensed operators. New clause 84—Information sharing for health improvement and reduction in health inequalities purposes— ‘(1) A local authority must share information where it considers that the sharing of the information will contribute to the improvement of health and a reduction in health inequalities within the local authority area. (2) Information which the authority must share includes information about the stability of healthcare providers within the area. (3) The duty under subsection (1) does not apply to any sharing of personal data.’ New clause 85—Alignment of Essex county borders— ‘(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide that the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Essex correspond with the boundaries of the historic county of Essex. (2) Regulations made under this section may amend, repeal or revoke provision made— (a) in or by virtue of the Lieutenancies Act 1997, and (b) in or by virtue of any other Act passed before this Act, where the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purposes of this section. (3) In this section— “ceremonial county of Essex” has the meaning given in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Lieutenancies Act 1997; “historic county of Essex” means an area which in the opinion of the Secretary of State was commonly understood to be Essex, prior to the enactment of the Local Government Act 1888.’ This new clause would require that the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Essex align with the historical boundaries of Essex. New clause 86—London Borough of Havering: Referendum on joining Greater Essex— ‘(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for a referendum for residents of the London Borough of Havering to opt to— (a) cease to be an area under any jurisdiction of the Greater London Authority, and (b) form part of the area of a Greater Essex Combined County Authority. (2) Arrangements made under this section must include provision— (a) for any referendum to be held in sufficient time to enable the London Borough of Havering to form part of the area of a Greater Essex Combined County Authority at the moment of its establishment; (b) about the administration of the referendum; (c) for the London Borough of Havering to form part of the area of the authority only where a simple majority of participants in the referendum have voted accordingly. (3) Arrangements under this section may be made by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’ This new clause would require the Secretary of State to enable residents of Havering to participate in a referendum on joining the Greater Essex Combined County Authority Area. New clause 87—Alignment with boundaries of historic counties— ‘(1) The area of a strategic authority must be coterminous with the area of a historic county, save as where provided for by exceptions in subsection (2). (2) Exceptions from subsection (1) are where— (a) the Secretary of State intends to create a strategic authority for a metropolitan area which would otherwise— (i) be located wholly within a historic county, or (ii) be located across the boundary of two or more historic counties; (b) there is no existing equivalent local authority for the area which in the opinion of the Secretary of State may be reasonably identified with a historic county. (3) A single strategic authority may not cover the area of more than one historic county, save as provided for by subsection (2)(a). (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations— (a) define— “equivalent existing local authority”, ”historic county”, and ”metropolitan area”, for the purposes of this section, and (b) make further provision about exceptions to this section. (5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.’ This new clause requires that strategic authorities should correspond with historic counties. It provides exceptions for cities and other built-up areas, and for historic counties for which no equivalent current local authority exists. Amendment 1, page 60, line 6, leave out clause 55 Amendment 3, page 60, line 27, leave out clause 57 Amendment 42, in clause 58, page 60, line 33, at end insert— ‘(1A) It is a duty of a local authority to specify the description of a neighbourhood area that will apply within the local authority’s area for the purposes of subsection (1).’ This amendment assigns the power to define “neighbourhood area” to the affected local authority. Amendment 150, in clause 58, page 61, line 2, at end insert— ‘(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) must include provision to ensure that appropriate governance arrangements for a neighbourhood area are related to the preparation and implementation of— (a) local plans, and (b) spatial development strategies and other strategic planning frameworks.’ This amendment would require regulations made under subsection (2) to include provision for a clear link between neighbourhood governance structures and the preparation and implementation of local plans, spatial development strategies and other relevant strategic planning frameworks. Amendment 70, page 61, line 14 , at end insert— ‘(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure local authorities receive adequate funding to implement the “appropriate arrangements” in subsection (1) which relate to neighbourhood planning functions.’ This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to deliver neighbourhood planning functions. Amendment 41, page 61, line 18, at end insert— ‘(4A) But regulations may not— (a) alter— (i) any function exercised by, or (ii) any power available by or under any Act of Parliament to, a parish or town council, or (b) make provision for the abolition of any parish or town council.’ This amendment would ensure that the Bill’s provision for effective neighbourhood governance does not alter any functions performed by a parish or town council or lead to the abolition of a parish or town council. Amendment 43, in clause 58, page 61, line 18, at end insert— ‘(4A) Regulations under this section may not include power for the Secretary of State to specify the description of any neighbourhood area.’ This amendment precludes the Secretary of State from exercising any power to define a neighbourhood area. Amendment 5, page 61, line 27, leave out clause 59 Amendment 44, in clause 62, page 66, line 17, leave out from “acting” to end, and insert “who— “(a) are wholly independent of the Local Audit Office, and (b) possess appropriate expertise.” (2) The Secretary of State must approve any appointment made for the purposes of subsection (2), and may only do so when they are satisfied that the person to be appointed satisfies the criteria specified in that subsection.” This amendment makes provision about the independence of persons appointed to scrutinise local authority audits. Amendment 46, in clause 66, page 71, line 28, after line 28 insert— ‘(4A) A Local Audit Office may make arrangements about— (a) the membership of an audit committee; (b) the appointment of the members; and (c) the conduct and practices of the committee.’ This amendment removes the role of the Secretary of State in appointing audit committees and provides LAOs with the ability to oversee the membership and work of audit committees. Amendment 45, page 71, leave out from beginning of line 29 to end of line 7 on page 72. This amendment removes the role of the Secretary of State in overseeing the membership of audit committees. Government amendment 119. Amendment 78, page 71, line 31, at end insert— ‘(c) the training of members newly appointed to an audit committee.’ This amendment would require the provision of training for all new members of an audit committee. Government amendment 120. Amendment 103, page 71, line 38, at end insert— “(7A) The Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for the establishment of audit committees for parish councils. (7B) Regulations under subsection (9A) are subject to the negative procedure.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations which make provision for the establishment of audit committees for parish councils. Government amendment 121. Amendment 7, page 74, line 18, leave out clause 72. This amendment removes the ban on upward only rent review clauses. Government amendment 158. Amendment 182, in clause 79, page 78, line 15, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert— ‘(2) The provisions that come into force in accordance with subsection (1)(b) are the provisions set out in section [Public consultation on the provisions of this Act]. (3) This Act comes into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint (if, and to the extent that, it does not come into force in accordance with subsection (1) or (2)). (4) The Secretary of State may not appoint regulations under subsection (3) until the Secretary of State has laid before each House of Parliament a report under section [Public consultation on the provisions of this Act].’ Government amendments 114 and 115. Amendment 168, in clause 79, page 79, line 12, at end insert— ‘(z2) Section (Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing national standards); (z3) Section (Private hire vehicle and taxi licensing regulations).’ This amendment provides for the coming into force of NC67 and NC68 as soon as the Act is passed. Government amendment 157. Government new schedule 3—Extension of the general power of competence to English National Park authorities and the Broads Authority. Amendment 2, page 261, line 14, leave out schedule 24 This amendment removes the direction powers on unitarisation. Amendment 38, in schedule 24, page 262, line 14, after “government” insert— ‘having particular regard to the need for the new single tier of local government, or new unitary council, to— (a) be of an appropriate geographical size, giving consideration to— (i) economic zones, (ii) physical geography, (iii) public service provision, including health, transport, and emergency services; and (b) preserve community identity, cohesion and pride.’ This amendment mandates that the Secretary of State must have particular regard to certain criteria when creating or merging SAs to ensure their suitability in terms of economic, geographical, service, and community considerations. Amendment 4, page 265, line 33, leave out schedule 25. This amendment removes the power to allow the Secretary of State to abolish the committee system. Government amendment 152. Amendment 94, in schedule 25, page 266, line 24, leave out “Duty to move” and insert “Moving”. This amendment, alongside Amendments 95 to 102, makes the Bill’s provision for legacy committee systems match the provisions for legacy mayor and cabinet executive systems, while maintaining the prohibition on new systems other than leader and cabinet executive. Government amendment 153. Amendment 96, page 266, leave out from line 33 to line 4 on page 267. This amendment is related to Amendment 94. Amendment 95, page 266, line 33, leave out “must” and insert “may”. This amendment is related to Amendment 94. Amendment 97, page 267, leave out lines 12 and 13. This amendment is related to Amendment 94. Government amendment 154. Amendment 98, page 267, leave out lines 18 to 32. This amendment is related to Amendment 94. Government amendment 155. Amendment 99, page 267, line 33, at end insert “or committee systems”. This amendment is related to Amendment 94. Amendment 100, page 267, line 37, after “executive” insert “or committee system”. This amendment is related to Amendment 94. Amendment 101, page 267, line 39, after “executive” insert “or committee system”. This amendment is related to Amendment 94. Amendment 102, page 268, line 3, after “executive” insert “or committee system”. This amendment is related to Amendment 94. Amendment 28, page 269, leave out lines 26 to 35. This amendment retains the statutory requirement for public notices to be published in printed local newspapers. Amendment 29, page 269, line 29, at end insert— ‘(aa) after subsection (2)(b), insert— “(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), at least one of the newspapers must— (a) have paid-for of free distribution in the relevant local area, and (b) be published at regular intervals.”’ This amendment ensures that at least one of the newspapers in which a public notice is printed is a local newspaper. Government amendment 156. Amendment 6, page 271, line 19, leave out schedule 26. Amendment 109, in schedule 26, page 275, line 18, at beginning insert ‘For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,’. This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in local authorities. Amendment 110, page 277, line 10, at beginning insert ‘For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,’. This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in combined authorities. Amendment 111, page 278, line 28, at beginning insert ‘For any elections on or after 1 May 2026,’. This amendment would formally guarantee the introduction of the supplementary vote system for any elections taking place in May 2026 for mayors in combined county authorities. Amendment 30, in schedule 27, page 280, leave out lines 21 to 28. This amendment would remove the provision for assets of community value to be removed from the list of assets of community value after five years. Amendment 32, page 280, leave out lines 29 to 32. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30. Amendment 31, page 280, leave out from “value” in line 30 to “the” in line 31. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 30. Amendment 57, page 281, line 26, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”. This amendment would require environmental interests to be considered as a criterion for establishing a local authority’s area as land of community value. Amendment 107, page 281, line 26, leave out “, and” and insert “or furthers the environmental wellbeing of the local communities, as long as the land is not allocated in the local development plan, and”. This amendment and Amendment 108 extend the community right to buy to include assets that further the environmental wellbeing of local communities, alongside economic and social benefits; provided that the land is not allocated local development plan. Amendment 108, page 281, line 29, leave out “or social” and insert “, social or environmental”. See explanatory statement for Amendment 107. Amendment 58, page 281, line 30, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”. See explanatory statement to Amendment 57. Amendment 59, page 281, line 38, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”. See explanatory statement to Amendment 57. Amendment 60, page 282, line 2, after “economic,” insert “, environmental,”. See explanatory statement to Amendment 57. Amendment 82, page 283, line 8, at end insert— ‘(1A) Where a local authority is responsible for assessing whether land in its area is a sporting asset of community value, the Secretary of State must ensure the authority receives adequate funding to make the assessment.’ This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to assess whether land in their area is a sporting asset of community value. Amendment 34, page 295, line 8, at end insert— ‘(2A) The local authority must also arrange with the owner of the land for the preferred community buyer to have had the opportunity to view the land prior to a meeting under subsection (2).’ This amendment would ensure that there is an early opportunity for a preferred community buyer to undertake a proper viewing of an asset of community value that has been listed for disposal, prior to committing to make a purchase of the land. Amendment 64, page 295, line 8, at end insert— ‘(2A) The relevant local authority must as far as reasonably practicable support the preferred community buyer in securing the purchase land of community value.’ This amendment would require local authorities to provide support for the preferred community buyer in agreeing and meeting an offer to buy land of community value. Amendment 63, in schedule 27, page 296, line 20, at end insert— ‘(9A) The Secretary of State must ensure local authorities are adequately funded to meet the expenses of a valuation under this section.’. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities receive adequate funding to meet the expense of land valuations in their area. Amendment 33, page 299, line 12, at end insert— ‘(f) matters relating to requirements about special consideration for land of community value in planning applications affecting an area of land of community value.’ This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance about special consideration for land of community value in planning applications affecting an area of land of community value.

    Hansard source
28. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I am inclined to the view that there are two separate issues here. He will have heard my earlier comments about statements being made to this House first and how deeply regrettable it is when statements are made to the media ahead of being announced to the House. However, with specific reference to the Minister’s comments yesterday, I believe they would far better be addressed as a point of debate. I am sure the shadow Minister will want to raise that later on in this afternoon’s debate. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

    Hansard source
29. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    Order. We have a lot of speakers this afternoon. If Members make long interventions, we will simply not get through everybody.

    Hansard source
30. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    I think some of those points might have been stretching my patience on scope somewhat. I do not intend to put on a fixed time limit. However, Members might like to consider whether they can stay within the bounds of about six minutes, so that I can get everyone in.

    Hansard source
31. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    Order. With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Dr Ben Spencer.

    Hansard source
32. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Olivia Blake.

    Hansard source
33. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Bromsgrove District housing targets

    The Government’s housing targets are forcing a city template on to rural communities against the will of locals and with minimal consideration for infrastructure or environmental impact. That is why my “Save Our Greenbelt” petition has so far received 5,936 signatures. Bromsgrove and the villages, a 79% rural constituency composed of 89% green belt land, has been burdened by an 85% housing target increase, while our neighbouring city, Birmingham, has had its targets slashed by over 30%. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to justify the flawed formula used to calculate the local housing need for Bromsgrove District, reverse the planned reduction in Birmingham's housing target to ensure the burden is shared in a fair and proportionate way and only allow new houses to be built when the accompanying infrastructure is provided.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Bromsgrove District, Declares that it is wrong for rural Bromsgrove District’s housing targets to be increased by 82% while neighbouring urban Birmingham's targets are reduced by 31%; while noting that Bromsgrove District is 89% green belt and 79% rural and that at least 140 hectares of brownfield land in the south of Birmingham are already available for development. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to justify the flawed formula used to calculate the local housing need for Bromsgrove District, reverse the planned reduction in Birmingham's housing target to ensure the burden is shared in a fair and proportionate way and only allow new houses to be built when the accompanying infrastructure is provided. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003130]

    Hansard source
34. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    COP30

    I, too, would like to ask the Secretary of State some questions on the TFFF. I am glad that he is proud of the previous Government’s actions and innovation in setting up that facility. He has explained that there is a tough fiscal situation and that is why the Government are currently not committing to that fund, but it is disappointing that in the statement there is only sentence on the TFFF. It concludes that “work on this was moved forward at COP”. Will he please update the House on what specifically was “moved forward” at COP in relation to the TFFF? When will decisions be made in the future about a financial commitment to that facility?

    Hansard source
35. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    G20 and Ukraine

    I appreciate that this statement might be being outpaced by events outside this Chamber, but negotiating this peace deal with Russia seems to be at odds with nearly four years of steadfast military support. The overriding message is that the rules-based order means nothing, that we will acquiesce to countries that breach sovereign borders, and that actions no longer have consequences. The Prime Minister may as well be waving a piece of paper at Heston aerodrome. The message this sends to our adversaries, and specifically to China, is that the west will be too weak to take action if China invades Taiwan. The Prime Minister mentioned earlier that Russia will face consequences if it invades again. When he talks about a just and lasting peace, what consequences will Russia face for its current actions, or can it act with impunity?

    Hansard source
36. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    I like a lot of what the hon. Lady is saying, because I believe in communities, towns and villages being properly represented. However, names are important, too. Does she, as a Surrey MP, agree that instead of east Surrey and west Surrey, perhaps west Surrey and south Middlesex would be the correct name for the new authority, because of the area that is traditionally part of the county of Middlesex?

    Hansard source
37. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    I rise to speak in support of my new clauses 85 and 86. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) for supporting both new clauses. New clause 85 seeks to ensure that the boundaries of the ceremonial county of Essex are once again aligned with the historic county, as they were for many hundreds of years—in fact, for well over a millennium. It was only in 1965, under the London Government Act 1963, that that changed. The entire history of the constituency that I represent has, except for in the past few decades, been a part of the historic county of Essex. New clause 85 would combine the historic Essex with the ceremonial Essex, which I believe would end the confusion and allow the people of my fine county to once again fully celebrate the rich heritage of the county in its entirety. Let me explain a little further. Across the entire country, the identity of each county is very important to all our constituents. People are proud of their historic county identity, and it is reflected in so many ways—whether it is through sport, social activities, church or the local regiment. Whatever it may be, we are proud of our county identity, and it should not be muddled up with administrative councils, which chop and change, as we are now seeing again today. Historic and ceremonial counties are for cultural celebration and for historic purposes, so the lord lieutenants of the different historic counties and ceremonial counties really should be as one. That would end the confusion. In my borough, which is the so-called London borough of Havering—everyone who comes to Havering knows that it is really Essex, not London at all—we are constantly confused about where we are. The people of my borough are tired of this, and they want the muddle and confusion, which was caused by bureaucrats in the 1960s, to end. It is a very simple thing to resolve. I say to the Minister that it would not affect any of the local government changes the Government are proposing. It is nothing to do with local government; this is purely ceremonial and historical.

    Hansard source
38. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is why fundamental reform of the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London needs to take place. Personally, I do not believe that we need the GLA. I believe we should transfer powers back to local boroughs, towns and communities. If we have some form of authority for London, it should deal purely with the capital—the central part of London. Frankly, do we need a GLA that goes all the way from Hampton Wick up to Havering-atte-Bower, and from Ruislip down to Biggin Hill? We do not; it is an unnecessary layer of government. I would prefer the authority, power and funding to go directly to our towns, villages and boroughs that are controlled locally by elected councillors, not a huge bureaucracy in City Hall that is unaccountable, undemocratic and has very little support among anyone I speak to.

    Hansard source
39. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Andrew Rosindell

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

    Yes I would, personally. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will undoubtedly recall that our former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, abolished the Greater London Council. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will remember that very well, because he sat on the GLC at the time. In 1986, the GLC was abolished and what happened? The power went back to each borough across London. We did not have to pay a huge precept. We paid our way for policing and the fire brigade and so on, but generally speaking the powers truly returned—as I hope the Liberal Democrats believe in—to local communities. We did not have an overarching bureaucracy interfering in everything we do, from planning to transport to policing. I would hope that the Liberal Democrats believe that powers should be held as locally as possible. The overarching bureaucracy in City Hall, which is so unaccountable, really needs to go. No, I do not believe we need a Mayor of London. I believe we need to have local authorities working together where there are strategic matters to be discussed—transport, planning or infrastructure—but we do not need to create a monstrous bureaucracy. Margaret Thatcher was right to abolish the GLC and Tony Blair was absolutely wrong to bring back the GLA, with all its paraphernalia, bureaucracy and huge costs to the council tax payers of the Greater London area. On that note, I ask Members to please support new clauses 85 and 86 to restore our Essex identity and to give us the democratic right to decide our own future.

    Hansard source
40. 25 Nov 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Draft Education (Scotland) Act 2025 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. This instrument follows the Education (Scotland) Act 2025, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament in June this year and gained Royal Assent in August. As the Minister set out, that Act dissolved the Scottish Qualifications Authority, established Qualifications Scotland to replace it, and established the role of His Majesty’s chief inspector of education in Scotland. This statutory instrument enables that Act by amending references to the SQA in UK legislation, ensuring that the qualifications are recognised throughout the United Kingdom. Importantly, that allows the body to operate and be adequately recognised throughout the UK, which is outside the scope of the Scottish Parliament; hence we are here today. I take this opportunity to thank my MSP colleagues in the Scottish Parliament for their work in challenging the Education (Scotland) Act and holding the Scottish Government to account on poor educational outcomes. I pay particular tribute to my friend Miles Briggs, the Scottish Conservative MSP for the Lothian region, for highlighting the limitations of the Scottish Parliament’s Bill. There are significant questions about whether the legislation makes progress on the wider educational reforms that are so desperately required. We believe that it is a missed opportunity to enact genuine and meaningful reform of Scottish education. While the order we are considering today is unobjectionable, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to raise the state of the Scottish education system. Once the pride of the country, the Scottish education system has suffered poorer and poorer outcomes. The Conservative legacy in education saw students in England climb the international league tables from 27th to 11th in the world in maths in 2022, while Scottish students continued to slip down the programme for international student assessment rankings in maths and science under the Scottish National party Government—it is a shame that none of its Members could join us this afternoon. Earlier this year, the head of Scotland’s second-largest teaching union said that “education is broken” and that the school system “has passed the tipping point leading to crisis”. The “Curriculum for Excellence” is anything but. At the core of this is the Scottish National party’s desperation to be different for difference’s sake. It is exceptionalism gone too far, and nowhere is that more evident than in the Scottish education system. For once, the SNP Government should take a look at what works south of the border, put their pride and politics aside and emulate best practice for the sake of Scottish students. The SNP has something—lots—to learn from the Conservative party’s legacy, especially in the English school system. However, that is a debate for another day and another place, so I will leave it at that. His Majesty’s Opposition will not stand in the way of this instrument.

    Hansard source