5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

   No, I will carry on. The announcement by the former Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on 16 July therefore makes little sense. He said: “On Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex, I am not making announcements today, because further time is required to get the decisions right.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 1097.] Could the Minister outline precisely what was meant when the former Secretary of State stated that further time was required to get the decisions right? Can he state definitively how much time is required, and can he articulate what specifically is in danger of being got wrong?

   Hansard source
2. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

   I agree with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely key that we get clarity on the timeline for this decision process—when it will be taken and when we can expect to hear—because there are local elections to prepare for next year and people need to know exactly what is going on.

   Hansard source
3. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

   I agree with the hon. Member. We urgently need clarity. On the statement that was made before recess, we saw a huge amount of discontent across both sides of the House with the decisions that had been taken previously, and it is essential that we get real clarity on exactly what the process is going to be. I appreciate that the Minister has come back into his role having had some time away and may be having to catch up, but I assure him that the strength of feeling is high.

   Hansard source
4. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

   I will make a little progress. Further to this, in his letter of 16 July, somewhat contradictorily, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), stated: “I have decided that more time is needed to consider which option, if any, to implement at this time in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.” We now have a new—old—Secretary of State. Can the Minister clarify whether the Secretary of State also requires more time in order to make a decision? Whether she does or does not, can the Minister clarify when the Secretary of State plans to have made her decision by? Her Department has held no further discussions with Huntingdonshire district council, so what precisely is in need of further discussion that warrants a delay of two months? Can the Minister outline why there has been a delay? Can he also clarify when Labour MPs were informed of the delay to a decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough in the first place? I ask the Minister to clarify, on the record, whether his departmental colleague, Baroness Taylor, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, participated in a meeting with Labour MPs and councillors on Wednesday 15 July 2026, during which local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough was discussed. I ask him to choose his “yes/no” answer to that question very carefully, lest he might later be accused of misleading the House. My position remains extant: I back a Huntingdonshire unitary authority, which is known locally as option E. It is the option that was overwhelmingly backed by councillors from all parties across Huntingdonshire district council. Disappointingly, the only people not to have backed this option are Huntingdonshire’s two other Members of Parliament. I maintain that a united front in this respect would have sent a stronger message to the Government. I have led two debates in Parliament about local government reorganisation, both of which highlighted the potential issues that arise from getting the decision wrong. The more recent of those debates was last November and during it I provided an in-depth assessment of why option D specifically was unworkable. It is almost as if I expected the Government to stitch up the decision. I will reiterate the points that I made then for the benefit of the Minister who is here today. Option D rips Huntingdonshire in half, creating east and west Huntingdonshire. There is a significant risk in attempting to disaggregate Huntingdonshire district council. There is a lack of precedent and an absence of lessons being learned, not to mention the destruction of local identity in Huntingdonshire, which is already stronger than local identities elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, particularly in separating Huntingdon from Godmanchester and St Ives. Disaggregating Huntingdonshire district council would also come with greater transition costs and affect service delivery. Peterborough is a basket case. It is estimated that 11% of Peterborough’s budget is needed simply to service its own debts, with 80% needed to fulfil its statutory adult and children’s social care obligations. How on earth does it plan to run all the other existing county and district functions on a 9% budget? Peterborough council’s debt gearing is 91%, against a national benchmark of just 50%. Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s local authority financial resilience index analysis, Peterborough is rated as high-risk for its overall level of reserves, its unallocated reserves, its earmarked reserves, its interest payable or net revenue expenditure, its gross external debt, its fees and charges to service expenditure ratio, its council tax requirement or net revenue expenditure, and its growth above baseline. Huntingdonshire is not deemed to be high-risk in a single one of those categories.

   Hansard source
5. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

   No, I am going to carry on. The option D business case itself states: “As Peterborough has historically required exceptional financial support and comes from the most financially challenged position, increasing the scale does not necessarily provide the desired resilience. Reserves still remain low. The cost of servicing debt continues to eat into a significant proportion of the net budget and the funding headroom is tight. This could be mitigated by resizing services in line with available funding.” Option D provides a significantly lower level of reserves, leaving it more vulnerable to shocks. The reserves of Greater Peterborough are comfortably the lowest in Cambridgeshire at just 16%, which is again deemed high-risk. By comparison, Huntingdonshire would be 42%. On employment, we need look no further than the percentage of universal credit claimants in the local authority; in Huntingdonshire, it is 2.8%, while in Peterborough it is 8%, which is far and away the highest rate locally; Peterborough has the highest unemployment rate in Cambridgeshire. Greater Peterborough is also projected to have the highest prevalence of education, health and care plans, and the greatest risk of special educational needs and disabilities escalation. At present, Huntingdonshire has the second lowest rate of EHCP prevalence in Cambridgeshire. This analysis strongly suggests that the system would all but immediately collapse. Greater Peterborough will have the highest spend per resident for adult social care and for children’s social care, more than double that of the other two unitaries, as well as the highest SEND spend per resident and the highest percentage of homeless households, at nearly double that of Greater Cambridge. It is akin to the Berlin Wall being put up overnight, condemning one half of Huntingdonshire to eking out an existence in the bleak Peterborough Democratic Republic while the eastern half enjoys the trappings of a slightly better existence in the Federal Republic of Mid Cambridgeshire. But will we? Is Mid Cambridgeshire any more viable than Greater Peterborough? No, it is not. A unitary authority for Mid Cambridgeshire would be centred upon St Neots as the biggest town, compared with Cambridge or Peterborough in the neighbouring unitaries. The option D business case barely even attempts to sell the viability of Mid Cambridgeshire, stating: “It encourages reflection on ensuring the resilience of all unitaries, especially Mid Cambridgeshire”. It goes on to outline that “targeted action can be taken to sustain its market, towns and rural communities” and that this model safeguards the rapid growth trajectories of the two city regions. It makes no effort to address the challenges that this would leave Mid Cambridgeshire to face.

   Hansard source
6. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

   I agree. The numbers that I saw were terrifying. I think somewhere in the region of 80% to 90% of Cambridgeshire’s peat roads would be based in the Mid Cambridgeshire authority; the roads budget itself simply would not be able to cope with that. I did not know the point about the internal drainage board and the mid-level commissioners, but having seen some of that infrastructure I can well imagine that the bill for replacing that will be terrifying if it falls solely on Mid Cambridgeshire. The business case also states that Mid Cambridgeshire’s “proposed lower levels of funding may result in difficulty in being able to deliver services to residents within its budget envelope. A significant transformation programme will be required to ensure services are resized accordingly”. We can read that to mean “reduced”. The business case later adds that “Mid Cambridgeshire may face particular challenges in both capacity and funding for high-cost statutory services”, and that Mid Cambridgeshire “in particular, may require additional support to ensure it can participate fully and equitably in regional initiatives”. That is very reflective of the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire about the land grab for high-growth areas that Greater Peterborough is attempting. Mid Cambridgeshire will be set up to fail.

   Hansard source
7. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

   I am not aware of that; I have not seen the detail of the report so it would be remiss of me to opine on it, but I have read the business cases in detail. While splitting the county into those three distinct regions may look like it makes sense, the travel regions for those areas are very distinct and do not necessarily reflect the make-up of the option D business case. It is worth highlighting that in the option D proposal the travel-to-work patterns and commercial activity data clearly illustrate that the movement of people within Mid Cambridgeshire is limited to within each of the three component areas of Huntingdonshire, Fenland and East Cambridgeshire. There is little in the way of movement between them, which begs the question of why three distinct areas would then form a viable unitary authority. The evidence clearly shows that Huntingdonshire would benefit from being its own unitary authority, rather than its being split in two, given that there is little in the way of movement from the northern part of Huntingdonshire into Peterborough, and vice versa. When we look at option D further, we see that it does Mid Cambridgeshire no favours when it comes to gross value added per capita. The two councils with the highest GVA per capita are Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, which are to be combined to form Greater Cambridge. The next two highest are Peterborough and Huntingdonshire, with the wealthier half of the latter to be merged into Greater Peterborough. That leaves the two councils with the lowest GVA per capita to be combined, along with half of the next lowest, resulting in a Mid Cambridgeshire authority with a GVA per capita that is roughly 50% of neighbouring Greater Cambridge. The lack of potential for growth in Mid Cambridgeshire is baked in by design. If that option is selected by the Government, I would like to understand how Mid Cambridgeshire is supposed to wash its own face. “Splitting Huntingdonshire could weaken this cohesion and reduce its prominence relative to neighbouring authorities.” That is a direct quote from the option D business case, which identifies the threat to Huntingdonshire alongside the lack of viability of either Greater Peterborough or Mid Cambridgeshire. We are now in the crucial final phase prior to the final decision on the outcome of LGR in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and what that decision will mean for the historic county of Huntingdonshire. Will it continue or will it be consigned to history? Mr Speaker marked Huntingdonshire Day this year, posing with the Huntingdonshire flag. That may never happen again. I have outlined the concerns about the proposed changes, the manner in which those changes have been discussed in secret between Labour party politicians and members, and the concerns regarding their feasibility. I have outlined why option D—the option we believe the Government are most likely to select based on conversations among officials within Cambridgeshire—or a variant thereof would not work and would leave Huntingdonshire in a far more perilous state than it is anywhere near today. I have outlined how the business case for option D itself repeatedly raises concerns about the viability of a Mid Cambridgeshire unitary authority—something that those within Huntingdonshire widely believe will fail within a few years. From a scheduling perspective, every day that goes by without a formal decision being taken on the future of local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough further jeopardises the likelihood of implementing it successfully. It is vital that a swift and uncontroversial decision is made in order to give officers the best opportunity to facilitate the transition if we are to realistically meet the May 2027 election timetable currently in place. It is evident that I could have spoken about this issue for a good while longer. That is before discussing the effect it will have on both the local plan, which will now likely be voted on before a decision has been taken, and on Project Fairfax, the defence technology cluster at RAF Wyton for which a memorandum of understanding is already in place with the Ministry of Defence. That project is crucial for fuelling growth in Huntingdonshire and facilitating the growth in every postcode that the new Prime Minister has pitched. Can the Minister confirm what discussions his Department has held with the MOD regarding the impact of LGR on the feasibility of delivering Project Fairfax? Option E—a Huntingdonshire unitary authority—would allow Project Fairfax to flourish. It is the option that Huntingdonshire voted for. Centred around the existing boundaries and an established regional identity, it would create the institutional stability required for long-term investment and growth, and would ensure consistency in leadership, existing teams, partnerships, development pipelines and investor relationships. This is the third time I have made the case for Huntingdonshire to the Minister, so he knows the arguments well by now. He knows that there is no strong argument for pursuing option D at this late stage. I hope that the Secretary of State heeds the details in this speech. Option D simply will not work, and nobody wants it. It would weaken the direct relationship between a defined region and local government, divide the community and destroy an identity. If nothing else, pursuing it would make his party unelectable in Huntingdonshire for a generation. “The public deserves better—better policies that support better outcomes and are better connected to the places people live. Putting place over political party demands collaboration and long-term decision-making within a stable governance structure”. Those are not my words; they are from the Cabinet statement on rewiring the state on 31 July. The Prime Minister should stay true to his word and apply his aspiration to Huntingdonshire.

   Hansard source
8. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

   Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

   Should the Government choose an option that sees the Huntingdonshire area split in two between two unitary authorities, what additional support will be given to fully disaggregate the district council’s responsibilities, given the complexity involved? Could the Minister also offer any clarity on local services? For example, the boundary would go in between Huntingdon and Godmanchester, which are separated only by a small bridge—

   Hansard source
9. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

   Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. In my constituency, there is not a single bank branch. This issue is a particular challenge for rural communities because not only do we lack bank branches; public transport is extremely limited and, in some areas, non-existent. While many people are comfortable with using digital banking, we should not assume that everyone can simply move online. For older residents and those less confident with technology, the loss of face-to-face provision can be particularly challenging. In rural areas, poor broadband and unreliable mobile coverage only compound the problem. There is real irony in increasingly telling people in precisely those communities where digital infrastructure can be least reliable to rely on digital banking. Alongside the social impact, there is an economic impact. Many small businesses still handle significant amounts of cash and need practical ways to deposit takings, obtain change and manage their finances. Having to travel long distances to do that means lost working hours and additional costs, as well as greater security risks. Of course, I recognise that banking habits are changing and that alternative provision has an important role to play, but alternatives work only if they exist, are accessible and are sustainable. We are also seeing post offices under pressure, with local branches closing in villages including Malpas and Kelsall. It is important that access to banking is measured not simply by the distance to the nearest bank branch but by whether people can genuinely access banking services, and that we take a holistic approach that ensures that rural communities like mine are not simply expected to make do, but properly supported.

   Hansard source
10. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Local Authorities: Aluminium Recycling

    The hon. Member is making an important point about the value of the aluminium we throw away. This is not just about drinks cans; blister packs also contain valuable aluminium but are not routinely recycled at the kerbside by many councils. My constituent, Yvonne, has done amazing work in one of our local villages trying to gather together these blister packs for recycling. Does the hon. Member agree that we should be speaking with councils and encouraging them to recycle things like blister packs at the kerbside?

    Hansard source
11. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire

    My hon. Friend just mentioned West Sussex, which has also seen the deferral of any decision and a request for a third option despite the fact that the democratically elected councils had offered up two of their own proposals. We are still waiting for a decision and the way forward is still unclear. Does he agree that in both Cambridgeshire and West Sussex, this Government’s inaction and indecision are causing real harm to our constituents because all our council officers are taking so long to deliver this?

    Hansard source
12. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Alison Griffiths

    Direction of Government

    My constituents will have been pleased to hear from Sir Jon Cunliffe, who produced 88 recommendations last July. However, his diagnosis is rather different from that of the Prime Minister. He believes that governance and regulation are the key to better performance, rather than some ill-defined version of “better public control”, which, according to the Government’s own assessment, would cost more than £100 billion. Will the Prime Minister promise to enact all 88 of those recommendations without delay?

    Hansard source
13. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Draft Registration of Births and Deaths (England and Wales) (Specified Requirements) Regulations 2026

    It is a real joy, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The regulations before us are welcome. They will make it more convenient for people to register major events in their lives, some of which are the most immensely joyous, and some of which are profoundly heartbreaking. We in this place should be very cautious about imposing duties or obligations on people when they experience a major event in their lives. When we impose such obligations, as we clearly do in respect of registering births and deaths, we should try to make it as easy as possible for them to fulfil those obligations. I particularly welcome the move to make the process easier in relation to stillborns, but I urge the Government to look at what more can be done to ensure that those having to register the stillbirth of a child do not, at a time of great difficulty for them, have to go into a waiting room that is often full of babies and parents who are celebrating a great joy coming into their lives. The Bill applies a principle correctly, but it could and should be applied more broadly. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 introduced by this Government ought to make it simpler to ensure that people’s interactions with the state are as hassle-free as possible, yet in areas such as healthcare, where digitisation and use of personal data can have a profound impact on user experience, we have often heard resistance to reform. Properly implemented digitisation can make life easier for healthcare staff and patients, particularly people waiting for or recovering from major surgery. The difference can be measured in weeks or months of stress and uncertainty. Our duty is to make life simpler for millions of people across the country, so can the Minister say whether this Government are prepared to take the side of the public over trade unions in any future dispute about digitisation, and can she set out what further steps the Government are planning to make it easier for citizens to engage with state services? The regulations before us are welcome. Again, I urge the Minister to specifically look at what more can be done at registry offices for those coming to register a stillbirth, and we hope to see that approach extended to other areas.

    Hansard source
14. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    China: Threat to UK Interests

    Nine weeks ago, the Government were told that Chinese embassy guards were brandishing prohibited electroshock weapons and threatening peaceful vigil holders with them. The Chinese Communist party either breached articles 41 and 27 of the Vienna convention, or it procured these weapons illegally in the UK. The Chinese Communist party will not waive diplomatic immunity, so when will Ministers stop hiding behind a dead-end Metropolitan police investigation and do something to deter future hostilities in the UK?

    Hansard source
15. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Criminal Justice Reform

    Mark Sanders was a teacher who raped young girls. His sentence was nine years and nine months, yet in July, after serving just two years, he was moved to an open prison, free to come and go and have overnight stays. I raised his case at Justice questions with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), and also wrote to him. He promised to review the case, but I have had no response. I am sure the Lord Chancellor recognises that for survivors this feels like a form of early release. Mark Sanders should not be in our communities—which he now is—after serving only a quarter of his sentence.

    Hansard source
16. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Alberto Costa

    Direction of Government

    Earlier today, Members from across this House and the other place, along with stakeholders from throughout the United Kingdom, met to discuss the scourge of microplastic pollution. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on microplastics, and today we launched our report, the second in 10 years. I have an easy ask for the Prime Minister: will he organise a meeting for me, the stakeholders and Members from across the House to meet the relevant Minister to discuss the report’s recommendations?

    Hansard source
17. 1 Sep 2026·Parliament·Alan Mak

    Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas

    In response to some of the things that the hon. Lady is describing, the last Conservative Government legislated to protect access to cash, but I think we now all recognise the need to legislate for access to face-to-face banking. Will she join me in calling on the Minister to support my In-Person Banking Services Bill to deliver more banking hubs?

    Hansard source
18. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Topical Questions

    As this could conceivably be the right hon. Lady’s last appearance at the Dispatch Box as Transport Secretary, will she respond to my one last ask? Will she leave a note for her successor, asking them to look again at Aldridge railway station? Will she perhaps remind Mayor Parker to put back the funding that he took away?

    Hansard source
19. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Business of the House

    Last week I visited Red Industries in my constituency and heard that discarded nitrous oxide canisters are becoming an increasingly common waste stream. Residents and litter pickers feel and see the same, with canisters strewn across parks and incidents of antisocial behaviour. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on what further action is needed to tackle nitrous oxide misuse and clean up our communities?

    Hansard source
20. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty

    Let me start by joining the Minister in expressing the Opposition’s sincere condolences to all those affected by the recent wildfires in Spain. I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Our starting position is that an agreed legal basis for Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU is needed. Gibraltar deserves certainty about its future. Businesses in both Gibraltar and Britain need certainty. British citizens travelling to Gibraltar need certainty, and the many thousands of frontier workers need certainty. We need to have proper scrutiny, not least because an acceptable deal between Gibraltar and the EU has to do many things at once. It must uphold unequivocally and without qualification British sovereignty over Gibraltar and the express will of the people of Gibraltar to be part of the British family, not Spain. Every Government has a duty to defend the integrity of the United Kingdom and the British family wherever it exists. It must also deal with the practical realities of the frontier and Gibraltar’s economy. However, we find ourselves in the extraordinary position that, with the treaty signed and provisional application under way, and even with the final sections of the frontier fence now removed, Parliament has still not been afforded a proper debate in Government time to scrutinise this agreement. Since the agreement was announced, the shadow foreign affairs team has asked five urgent questions and numerous oral and written parliamentary questions to try to establish the Government’s intentions, often receiving unsatisfactory non-answers. The FCDO is responsible for Britain’s treaty obligations, but it has been the Government of Gibraltar, including the Chief Minister, who have all too often kept Members of this House informed. I thank them for that. Even today in this statement, there is no mention of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process and scrutiny, so I ask again for confirmation that the 21 sitting day CRaG process will apply. Will the Minister set out the timetable for that today? We cannot have a repeat of the way the Government have tried to avoid scrutiny with the Chagos deal. On the substance of the deal itself, starting with the military base, can the Minister offer an unambiguous and unequivocal guarantee that nothing in this agreement constrains the operation, freedom of action or sovereign control of His Majesty’s armed forces in Gibraltar? Britain’s military base is not a matter for compromise, negotiation or shared competence. It is sovereign British territory, serving vital British and NATO interests. On the entry of British commercial goods, including British foods, into Gibraltar, can the Minister confirm whether the new process has been stress-tested with British businesses and when guidance for businesses will be published? On the movement of people, having a fluid border with Spain—a key request of the Gibraltar Government—clearly comes with trade-offs, and we should recognise that. The decision to have Schengen checks in a British overseas territory is obviously one such compromise, and there is understandably a real strength of feeling about it, notwithstanding that Gibraltar has always had its own entry requirements, including for Brits. In the light of reported chaos at the border, it is imperative that the Government get this right. Given the totally chaotic way that the EU has introduced its entry-exit systems across Europe, it is imperative that we do not see a similar situation at Gibraltar airport. The Conservatives will be watching. What tabs is the Minister keeping on the roll-out of the new checks by the EU, and what is his recourse if British nationals end up being disrupted by EU issues? Gibraltar’s new residency regulations came into force on 14 July. What assessment has the Minister made of their impact on the ability of British citizens to live and work in Gibraltar? What is the anticipated impact on British citizens of retirement age wishing to relocate permanently to Gibraltar? Do the Government have contingency plans to support Gibraltar if the Spanish Government stage any provocations for their domestic audience now that the border fence is down? Finally, the Leader of the Opposition in Gibraltar has expressed concern that the UK-Gibraltar concordat envisages circumstances in which the UK could act without the consent of Gibraltar’s Government or people on treaty matters. What is the Minister’s response? If there were to be a change of Government in Gibraltar, what would the implications be? To conclude, Gibraltar is as British as any of our constituencies. Britain and NATO rely on Gibraltar’s strategically vital military base. In an age of insecurity, the base is indispensable for our country. Any deal to secure a long-term future arrangement between Gibraltar and the EU needs to be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny in this House. The Government should know that, and they should expect that Opposition Members rightly desire to understand what this treaty means in practice.

    Hansard source
21. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

    It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the last day before Parliament rises. As ever, I have so much to say and there is never enough time. As we approach the summer recess, I have reflected on the issues that matter to my constituents. What makes the communities that I represent so special is, inevitably, the people who simply care about where they live, including the volunteers at Pelsall carnival, the wonderful Wombles and the Aldridge volunteer gardeners, to name but a few. That same pride is reflected in our green spaces, so I was delighted to learn that five green flag awards were received this week across the constituency, recognising the work of groups such as the Barr Beacon Trust, the Friends of Pelsall Commons and many volunteers. Our green spaces are what define our communities. Members know what I am going to come to next, because it is the last opportunity to mention the precious green belt of Aldridge-Brownhills. My constituency is under siege by developers, thanks to the Government’s relaxation of planning rules and their redefinition of green belt as grey belt. Currently, applications are in for the following sites: 345 houses at Birch Lane in Aldridge; 330 at York’s bridge in Pelsall; 245 in Chester Road East in Streetly; 81 at Barns Lane in Rushall; 160 at Little Aston Road in Aldridge; 41 in Middlemore Lane West in Aldridge; 600 at Chester Road West in Streetly; 850 at Queslett Road East, also known as Doe Bank Lane; and 155 at Longwood Lane—all currently under review. There are 2,767 applications in the pipeline, all on green- belt sites that developers have reclassified as grey belt. And that is not all: there is potentially more to come. I know my constituency is a desirable place, but that is because the green belt creates its identity and prevents us from being swallowed up into a greater Birmingham suburb. We need more homes—of course we do—but they must be built in the right place. Instead, our communities face developers exploiting the definition of grey belt. Can a field of carrots or maize really be called grey belt? Of course it can’t—it is productive agricultural land—yet developers at Birch Lane are using that label to force the hand of the local council. At a time when food security has never been more important, this policy is a recipe for food insecurity. Once these fields are covered in concrete, they are gone forever. I could talk at length about this issue, but I think I will have to put in for a Westminster Hall debate when Parliament returns. I have no doubt that we will have a lot of support for that. I want to touch on a couple more areas, starting with the importance of our local businesses. I go on the high streets day in, day out to speak to traders. We have some fantastic new businesses such as Serenity Kitchens and Bathrooms; existing family firms such as Alan Foster Butchers, Herbarium and Orchard Hills Bakery; and independent retailers such as H & Jodie’s. Their message is the same: they are resilient, but they need the right conditions to succeed. They need a Government who back business, and I do not see that we have one. In Brownhills, our pressures were compounded by a high street sinkhole. Although the road has reopened, it reminded us of the importance of shopping locally. I am pleased that we have the Pride in Place funding, and I hope that we can make progress. In Aldridge, we had a challenge with double red lines and what some people argued was predatory ticketing. It is an issue that we have been working through, but it highlights the importance of free parking, which Walsall council put in place. Let us see whether the Reform-led council will continue that. I am running out of time, but let me just say that no debate is complete without a mention of Aldridge train station, a project that has been secured but needs money. I will continue my campaign.

    Hansard source
22. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Local Government Reorganisation

    When a Minister comes to the House on the last day before summer recess to announce proposals that his own MPs describe as “utterly unacceptable”, “sacrificing their communities” and “a disgrace”, and other proposals such as those for Cambridgeshire are put on hold, it is a clear sign of a flawed process. He has given no detail as to how long the delay is for Cambridgeshire or what the additional information he is now seeking is. Will he publish that today, or will residents in Cambridgeshire be left in the lurch over the summer, not knowing for how long this farce will go on, or what further information is being sought?

    Hansard source
23. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

    Labour Members will recall the political pain that I am sure many of them faced when the winter fuel proposal was announced. It was put forward to save around £1.3 billion to £1.5 billion a year. They will also recall the angst, the ministerial resignations and the delay that occurred around the defence investment plan, which cost about £15 billion, less than half of which is actually new money—about £6.9 billion. It is very surprising that the Government propose to spend more on this building and this estate than they are spending on the defence investment plan. As a deposit, they are planning to spend more than half of what was put forward as a saving on winter fuel. If colleagues are surprised to hear that, I can tell them that of the four options being brought forward, even the cheapest is more than £10 billion. In a nice sleight of hand, though, all the works on the northern estate—which are essential to the restoration and renewal programme—are excluded. That is more than a further £5 billion over the next 10 years, and that is excluding the half a billion we have spent over the past five years just on preparatory work, before building anything. After spending half a billion on preparatory work, the National Audit Office said last month that the £3 billion that is being brought forward is to allow the programme to progress from four options to two. When the legislation was passed, it was with one option; after seven years and half a billion pounds, we have gone from one option to four, and it is now proposed to spend a further £3 billion to go from four options to two. As the headline figure is so large, however, the proposal is to commit £3 billion, but to lock in the next Parliament so that, in essence, it has no choice but to sign off a figure that this Parliament knows it will be highly reluctant to sign off. All of this is being done with no debate in this House, despite more than half the Parliament being new Members. This is not a new issue—I raised this point in the exact same debate last year, the Sir David Amess debate, and have raised it multiple times in the House. There has been no debate about these gigantic figures, despite the level of debate we have on other topics. The Government might say that this is a parliamentary matter, but it is not; it is the Government who will provide the money, and it is the Government who have the majority in the House. This is happening because, bluntly, there has been a breakdown in trust between officials—who are deeply frustrated with Members and peers because they feel that we have not set a clear budget or a clear timeline, and that the goalposts are being moved regarding the options—and Members and peers, who are frustrated because they feel that officials are not responding to concerns. In 2021, the Leader of the House said that this scheme was massively gold-plated, but the trade-offs are still not being addressed. Let me give just one example—that of the Lords roof. Although the Finance Committee does not cover R&R, we had a proposal this week on the Lords roof, which is work outside of R&R. An extra £1 million of costs was being incurred just because the Lords would not agree to finish at 10.30 pm. When I put that to Members of the Lords, they were completely unaware of that figure. I am almost out of time, but the point I want to make to the House is that these are huge numbers, and it is ridiculous that there has been so little transparency and debate. R&R is going to be a national scandal; I keep raising it, but nothing is changing. It is time that we had a debate in this House, made this issue transparent and brought some clarity to it, including a defined budget and a time limit, which I would set as one Parliament.

    Hansard source
24. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Topical Questions

    The Secretary of State appears to think it is scaremongering to suggest that, with effect from this weekend, passenger and freight traffic using the channel tunnel and the port of Dover will be disrupted as a result of the European entry and exit system. I do not want the grievance; I want the solution, and I want it before the event, not after it. What is the Secretary of State going to do to achieve an agreement with the European Commission and the French to suspend this ridiculous system until it works properly?

    Hansard source
25. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Local Government Reorganisation

    What a poisoned chalice this Secretary of State is leaving for the incoming Prime Minister. I have a very specific question to put to him. A report published in The Times —online on 18 June, and in the paper the following day—stated categorically that this Secretary of State had overruled senior civil servants and lawyers from three different Departments in order to make decisions that were favoured politically by Labour council leaders. Was that report correct or was it false?

    Hansard source
26. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty

    May I warmly endorse what the Minister said about the Falkland Islands, and ask a question or two about security aspects? Given that both we and Spain are in NATO, the reassurances about the sovereignty of the base are welcome. Can the Minister confirm that on those occasions when military assets, including munitions, have to be moved into the area, the report that I have seen suggesting that everything about munitions has to be reported to the Spanish authorities does not mean that this cannot be done in secrecy when that is required? Finally, with regard to the border, is there any danger that, without the land border, people will be enabled to get on an aeroplane and come to the UK who might pose a security threat, and then we would be in difficulty sending them back? Hopefully none of those fears is warranted, but I would like to hear that from the Minister.

    Hansard source
27. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

    National Planning Policy Framework

    On the subject of keeping land habitable, the hon. Lady will be familiar with the fact that the Lincolnshire fens, and particularly South Holland and The Deepings, are entirely flat, without even the undulation equivalent to the Mendip hills. Our land is drained, and much of it is reclaimed from the sea, yet there are perpetual attempts to put critical infrastructure on it, including solar, pylons and suchlike. That is incompatible, and those things cannot be reconciled. I entirely endorse what the hon. Lady says about the character of the land, its propensity to flood and what we should do with it.

    Hansard source
28. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Local Government Reorganisation

    I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This is blatant—blatant. These changes, like so many of the Secretary of State’s decisions, have been driven by party politics. He tried to cancel local elections, and he was caught trying to tip the balance in Labour’s favour, but nothing in today’s statement has done anything to dispel the belief that this is purely partisan. Many communities have been left in limbo, while Labour councils have been allowed to redraw the map on which the future elections in which they will be engaged will be fought. Can he honestly say that that will inspire confidence in the integrity of the process? If the Secretary of State wanted accusations of gerrymandering to be put aside, why on earth did he create such a clearly gerrymandered set of boundaries? The maps speak for themselves. In Devon, he has accepted the proposals put forward by Labour-run Exeter and Plymouth. In Leicester, he has accepted the submissions by a Labour-controlled council. In Nottingham, he has accepted the proposal put forward by the Labour-run city council. I could go on and on, but time does not permit. How on earth can the Secretary of State expect anyone to believe that the process has been politically impartial? Devolution should be about transferring powers away from Whitehall. It is about giving freedom to succeed to local areas, and for them to keep the reward of that success, creating the conditions for more investment, more jobs and more opportunity, but none of that is dependent on imposing a single organisational model from Whitehall. Unitaries should never be the admission price for a devolution deal, nor should local areas be compelled into so-called strategic authorities simply because the Secretary of State and Whitehall prefer organisational uniformity. Devolution should mean trusting local people to make local decisions. The Secretary of State says that he is holding councils to the standards of best value, transparency, consultation, good governance and sound decision making, yet by the very same standards he fails his own test, with minimal consultation, partisan judgments and arbitrary decision making. He speaks about stronger councils, yet some of these new authorities will be burdened with crippling debt from the day they are created. In Nottinghamshire, Conservative-run Rushcliffe council is a well-run, financially secure council, yet under his plans it will be carved up with most of its assets transferred to debt-ridden Labour Nottingham city council. How on earth can weakening well-managed councils to prop up bankrupt ones create a stronger foundation for local government? What of local democracy? The Secretary of State talks with great pride about how many local representatives will be culled in these proposals, but that means decisions taken further away from the communities they affect and planning powers becoming increasingly removed from the very people who have to live with the implications of those decisions. The Secretary of State complains about two-tier local government, but his own mayoral proposals create two tiers of local government. So please can he inform the House: is two-tier local government good or is two-tier local government bad? He does not seem to know. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the democratic deficit? Given the pace at which he is driving the changes, and the fact that a number of the proposals have still not been outlined and will not be until the autumn, what on earth gives him the confidence that they will be implemented in time for shadow elections in May next year? What assessment has he made of the likelihood of judicial reviews further delaying the timetable before 2029? The statement raises more questions than it answers. If this proves to be the Secretary of State’s final appearance at the Dispatch Box in this role—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Although we do not agree, I have enjoyed working with him across the Dispatch Box; but I hope he recognises the mess that he is leaving behind. He cannot believe that he has squandered this opportunity for genuine devolution. Instead, his legacy will be one of taking power away from local communities, imposing an unfair funding review on councils and gerrymandering local government boundaries. I find it difficult to believe that that is a record he will genuinely be proud of.

    Hansard source
29. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Local Government Reorganisation

    If we had to have change, I thank the Secretary of State for listening to the vast majority of people Gloucestershire and coming up with the best proposal that was on the table. However, my real worry about all this—we have done a lot of work on the Public Accounts Committee on it—is what happens if small councils that have financial problems are merged into one big council. A number of small financial problems makes one very big financial problem. He really has to consider that when thinking about how we go forward with local government in the future.

    Hansard source
30. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    British Steel

    What concerns me is the jobs of my constituents who work at Scunthorpe. That is all I am worried about; I have no ideological objection. If it is what is needed now, fair enough. As long as the blast furnaces are totally uneconomic because of high energy costs, however, it can only be a sticking plaster. I was struck by the question put to the Minister by his own Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer)—there is no point my demanding that we scrap green energy and all that sort of stuff—so will he take that away and do more with grants to ensure Scunthorpe’s blast furnaces are competitive on world markets?

    Hansard source
31. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

    Local Government Reorganisation

    One of the poorest wards in the entire country is Gainsborough south-west ward. Why is the Secretary of State splitting West Lindsey in half? Why is he taking Scampton away from Gainsborough? It makes no sense. Why is he cutting away the nuclear fusion site from Lincoln? Why is he loading debt on Lincoln city council—for example, for the Hykeham bypass? There is no logic in this, other than it being a stitch-up by Lincoln Labour party. This is the only Labour-controlled council in Lincolnshire. Everybody else has been treated with complete contempt.

    Hansard source
32. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Protecting Built Heritage

    We will begin with the Select Committee statement. Jo Platt will speak on the publication of the third report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, “Protecting built heritage”, HC 144, for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions will be taken. At the conclusion of this statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Jo Platt to respond to them in turn. Questions should be brief and Members may ask only one question each. I call Jo Platt to give the statement on behalf of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

    Hansard source
33. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Topical Questions

    May I refer the Secretary of State to Question 20 on the Order Paper? Can she explain when the A120 to Harwich will finally be upgraded? Is she aware that a community of some 20,000 people is served by this dreadful road, and that we dread another winter of subsidence and potholes as the existing road collapses, which is long past its renewal date? Given that this road is vital for growth in the east of England, as it serves the Harwich port and the freeport as well as this deprived community, when will we see some plans to upgrade it?

    Hansard source
34. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Changing Places Toilets: Capital Funding

    Colleagues may be aware that our next speaker is recovering from an operation. I am content for the right hon. Member to deliver his speech from a sedentary position, if he would like to do so.

    Hansard source
35. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Changing Places Toilets: Capital Funding

    To put the fear of God into the Minister, I call Daniel Francis to wind up.

    Hansard source
36. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

    Changing Places Toilets: Capital Funding

    I will take this opportunity to wish all hon. and right hon. Members, along with departmental staff, Doorkeepers, Clerks and Hansard Reporters, a very pleasant recess. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered capital funding for Changing Places toilets.

    Hansard source
37. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Business of the House

    Greatworth in my constituency is a beautiful village, yet it is beset with problems. Not only is peak High Speed 2 construction going on, causing road closures, but the village is having inordinate issues with Anglian Water. Residents face a hosepipe ban and a lack of water pressure, while a standing pipe is flooding, pouring out water constantly. I will raise that with Anglian Water, but after the recess, could we have a debate in Government time about the interaction of construction projects and water services, and ensuring that they all work for rural communities?

    Hansard source
38. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    British Steel

    Many manufacturing businesses in Keighley and Ilkley, including GESIPA, Airedale Springs and Olicana Products, are deeply concerned about the tariffs and quotas associated with the national steel strategy. They have said to me that the measures will result in increased costs, reduced supply and weakening competitiveness, and will directly threaten jobs in Keighley. Can the Minister outline a response to the managing directors of those businesses on the concerns that they have raised directly with me about the steel strategy that the Government are adopting?

    Hansard source
39. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking West Yorkshire fire and rescue for its continued efforts to tackle the wildfire that is currently on Silsden moor? At the height of the incident, 12 fire engines were in attendance. As the risk of wildfires on moorlands increases, may we have a debate in Government time about the Government’s decision to ignore the advice from the National Fire Chiefs Council, scientists and conservationists and to ban the controlled rotational burning of heather, which is resulting in more uncontrolled wildfires, peat degradation and severe impacts on biodiversity?

    Hansard source
40. 16 Jul 2026·Parliament·Rishi Sunak

    Changing Places Toilets: Capital Funding

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I will do my best to keep standing—if nothing else, it will make me speak for a lot less time than I might otherwise, which will be a relief to everyone. I both congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and thank him for securing this important debate. He speaks from personal experience, and he spoke very movingly and powerfully about the situation we are discussing today. I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important topic. Politics is often about addressing the great matters of state. We often talk about war and peace in this House. However, politics is also about making people’s everyday lives that little bit easier. One of the things all MPs discover is that we learn a lot from our constituents—certainly if those constituents are from Yorkshire, as the Chairman will appreciate. I was profoundly moved after a meeting I had with a group of my constituents in 2017. I had called in at the Dales School in Morton-on-Swale near Northallerton, and a group of parents of the most severely disabled children at the school wanted to talk to me. They told me about the difficulties they faced as families when they went out. and explained how a lack of suitable toilets and changing facilities meant that visiting the majority of leisure attractions and destinations across the country on a day out, which most families would take for granted, was nigh-on impossible for them. I vividly remember one mum putting in front of me a magazine with all the events and attractions happening across the region in the summer holidays. She had gone through them and crossed out 99% because they did not have the facilities that her child required. As a parent myself, I looked at that list, saw all the places she had crossed out and realised that those were the very places I had taken my two young daughters to, to help them fall in love with Yorkshire after we first moved there. I reflected on the huge unfairness of that situation and how it compounded the difficulties that that family and many others faced—difficulties that most of us will never encounter—and how most of those places were just off limits for them. As I sat there, I felt that the situation was just not right. Another parent, Andrew, spoke—similarly to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford—of the physical difficulty and the indignity of having on occasion to change his 10-year-old daughter Aniela on rough ground behind a shed or on the dirty floor of a public bathroom, because those were the only places available to them in the circumstances. I admit that, going into my meeting with those parents, I had complacently assumed that we had largely resolved the issue of access to and provision of disabled toilets in this country. I had not realised, until I met and listened to them, that for young children or adults who require the help of a carer to use a toilet, a disabled toilet is not sufficient. They need a Changing Places facility with a bench, a hoist and a privacy screen. After that meeting, I vowed to those parents that I would do whatever I could to raise and highlight the issue, which I began to do as a Back-Bench MP in Parliament. Fortuitously, a year later, I was lucky to be appointed Minister for Local Government. In that role, I was inspired by my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Richmond (Yorks), William Hague. As Minister for disabled people, which was one of his first ministerial jobs, he was instrumental in bringing into law, under John Major’s Government, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That legislation enshrined in law the principle that institutions must make reasonable adjustments to ensure equality of opportunity for disabled people. Twenty years after the introduction of the 1995 Act, I felt that we needed to renew that spirit to address the issue of Changing Places. As a junior Minister, I therefore set about changing building regulations to make it mandatory to install Changing Places facilities in new large public buildings such as shopping centres, cinemas and theme parks. At about that time, I happened to meet Zack Kerr, a young campaigner with cerebral palsy—I am sure the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford knows him well. Zack told me then: “Life can be difficult enough in many ways, but when there are no accessible toilet facilities where I can be hoisted safely from my wheelchair and changed in privacy and with dignity, I face the choice between staying at home or restricting my social life because of my needs...that’s just not fair.” Zack rightly also pointed out the need for Changing Place facilities at motorway service stations, so that families could travel freely across the country. I am glad that, when the Conservatives were in Government, we made £4 million available not just to install Changing Places at motorway service stations, but to make a better start on installing them in NHS hospitals. In 2020—fortuitously or not, depending on your point of view—I then became Chancellor of the Exchequer. In my first Budget, I launched the £30 million Changing Places fund, which match funded the cost of installing the toilets in existing buildings, where the need is, as we have heard, significant. I am delighted that over the subsequent years, the fund has made possible almost 500 different Changing Places facilities across the nation, including in Leyburn and at the Dales Countryside Museum in Hawes in my constituency. As we have heard, more than 2,500 Changing Places are now installed across the country. We should take a moment to reflect that that is three times as many as there were a decade or so ago, when I first became aware of the issue. Now landmark attractions such as Alton Towers, Madame Tussauds and the Tower of London, as well as most Premier League stadiums and cinemas and shopping centres right across the country, all have that vital facility in place. Of course, the job is not done. We need more Changing Places facilities; almost a quarter of a million people rely on them. We have made real progress, and it is worth taking a moment to thank the people who deserve praise for that. The consortium, as we have heard, is now run by PAMIS and the Centre for Accessible Environments, but previously, when I was in post, it was run by Mencap and Muscular Dystrophy UK, supported by many others. They deserve enormous credit for their co-ordination and campaigning on this issue. So do the tireless campaigners up and down the country—families with severely disabled children and other family members, like dad Andrew Newton and his daughter Aniela, who came to see me all those years ago. Certainly for my part, as I reflect on my political career, it will remain one of my proudest achievements to have played a small part in supporting all their efforts. Every time a parent gets in touch to say they have been able to enjoy a family day out that most of us take for granted, I feel a real sense of pride. We all know there is much wrong with our politics, but this issue shows the value of our constituency system: communities are able to raise issues directly with their elected representatives and see them turned into action. It also shows the benefit of working across party lines over years to make changes, and to make people’s lives that bit easier. I associate myself with the powerful speech by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. I know the Minister will have listened hard to what he said about the need for capital funding for existing buildings, and I am sure she will do what she can to make colleagues in Government aware of that issue, and to make representations to them. I know she will do that because all of us here are deeply committed to ensuring that these families can enjoy more opportunities and the better quality of life that they deserve, and most importantly, have the chance to live with dignity.

    Hansard source