Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that some people who would otherwise be willing and able do not have access to these services? Many of my constituents do not have good enough mobile service to operate apps.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Direction of Government
I welcome the Prime Minister back to the House of Commons and genuinely wish him well in his endeavours. I gently point out, however, that No. 10 North is three hours south of my constituency; I hope his view of the north involves a whole-of-the-north approach. One measure that would not cost him anything and would be popular in the north, and across the <span id="52" class="column-number" data-column-number="52"></span>whole of the UK, would be to rule out something that appeared in the previous Prime Minister’s Green Paper on the future of television: the suggestion that terrestrial free-to-view television could be switched off in 2034. That would mean that everyone would have to pay to watch television, which particularly affects the elderly, vulnerable and those who live in rural areas.
- Hansard source
Direction of Government
I welcome the new Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box. I note that in his statement he referred to the biggest issues facing the country as being “the economy and the cost of living crisis”. Will he accept that one of the things that has damaged our economy and caused prices to be higher is the tax-and-spend Budget in November 2024? He has cut taxes twice—two small tax cuts—since he became Prime Minister. Will he commit that in the Budget there will be no further searching for new things to tax? The biggest message of hope he could send to the country today would be to rule out further tax rises.
- Hansard source
Policing in Cleveland
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I know that the whole House will join the Home Secretary and me in paying tribute to those brave officers tragically killed in the crash on the A66 in the early hours of 22 August. Our thoughts are with the families of PCs Matthew Blades and Tom Clough, whose lives were cut short by a car recklessly driven on the wrong side of the road by criminals. Those brave officers made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. They will never be forgotten. Every day, police officers up and down the country risk their lives to keep us safe. We owe them all a deep debt of gratitude. This tragedy has sent shockwaves through Cleveland police and the public more widely. The Home Secretary has set out some of the steps being taken to support local police, but will she confirm that every request for extra assistance made by Cleveland police has been met? In the aftermath of 22 August, I was shocked to see so-called tributes staged for some of the men directly responsible for PCs Blades and Clough’s deaths that included cars being driven dangerously and set on fire. Criminal activity of that kind is wrong in principle and deeply offensive in these circumstances. Will the Home Secretary join me in condemning that activity and calling on the police to ensure it does not happen again? Organised crime was allowed to take hold in whole parts of Middlesbrough. Criminal gangs ran rampant and engaged in retaliatory attacks on one another. Homes and properties were attacked with no consequence, and that escalated even further in the days after 22 August. Although it is welcome that 27 people have finally been arrested, such lawless gang chaos should never have been allowed to take root in the first place. The police <span id="103" class="column-number" data-column-number="103"></span>need proper resources to stop that. Many campaigners, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), the shadow police Minister, who I see in his place, have raised concerns for some time that there is a multi-million pound shortfall in funding for Cleveland police in the current financial year. Even the local Labour police and crime commissioner, Matt Storey, said this Government’s financial settlement this year “completely fails to deliver the resources required to meet the demand faced by Cleveland Police and falls far short of what is needed.” Does the Home Secretary accept her own police and crime commissioner’s assessment that the funding she put in place for Cleveland police this year is inadequate? Lawless chaos followed that underfunding, and I think the Home Secretary should apologise for that. The £2 million just referred to is only 0.5% of Cleveland’s budget and is clearly wholly inadequate in the circumstances. I am afraid that that reflects a wider national trend that goes beyond Cleveland. The last Government left behind record ever police numbers, but there are now 1,800 fewer police officers under this Government. As a result, crime has increased by 10% and antisocial behaviour has gone up by 15% in just the last year. The Home Secretary must accept that cutting overall police numbers was a mistake. Will she take steps to reverse that decline? The truth is that only zero tolerance of crime and disorder will ensure that criminals are the ones who are afraid, and not the law-abiding public. We have seen the consequences, with the rampant gangs going unchallenged in Middlesbrough, and it is clear now that a zero-tolerance approach is required to keep the public safe.
- Hansard source
Policing in Cleveland
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Sovereign Grant
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
I call Alex Sobel, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
- Hansard source
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
I call Alex Sobel to wind up the debate, briefly.
- Hansard source
Sudden Cardiac Death: Young People
I am conscious that another Member has risen, but we have only 10 minutes left. The hon. Lady might prefer to confine her comments to an intervention on the Minister in the interests of time.
- Hansard source
Sudden Cardiac Death: Young People
Order.
- Hansard source
Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. The draft regulations extend the period during which the Government <span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span>may exercise the existing powers under the Energy Prices Act 2022. Specifically, they extend the Secretary of State’s power to fund a proportion of the renewables obligation costs attributable to domestic electricity supply from 25 April 2026 until 25 October 2026. No new powers are created through this instrument; it simply prolongs the exercise of powers that Parliament has already granted. The Minister has explained that the purpose of the extension is to support the Government’s policy of reducing domestic energy bills by transferring 75% of renewables obligation costs from consumers to the Exchequer, claiming that it will reduce household energy bills by an average of £150 from April 2026. However, the measure is solely another exercise by the Government in moving costs from one pocket to another. Households may pay less through their energy bills, but they are still expected to meet those costs through general taxation. It is also worth reminding the House of what the subsidies are funding. The renewables obligation provides long-term support to renewable generators, with consumers now bearing the brunt of the cost. The Government are not, as they are claiming, tackling the underlying drivers of high energy prices; they are simply shifting the burden from energy bills on to the public finances. The Minister speaks of a commitment to lowering household energy bills by £300, yet household energy costs are now higher than when the Government entered office in 2024.
- Hansard source
Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
My right hon. Friend is experienced in these matters. I would have thought that question would be in the 101 of presenting this instrument to the House. We are pleased to see the Government finally adopt our Conservative party policy of abolishing the carbon price support on electricity generation, but their plan for the promised £300 savings is still nowhere to be found. While Labour transfers the cost of renewable subsidies on to taxpayers, the Conservative party has set out our cheap power plan to reduce the underlying cost of energy for households. That plan would abolish the renewables obligation altogether, accelerate the delivery of new nuclear power by cutting unnecessary planning barriers, remove VAT from domestic energy bills for three years and abolish the carbon tax. Together, those measures would reduce household bills by around £200—not simply move costs from one bill to another. Can the Minister outline what the Government’s plan for cheap power is, and if not, whether they are willing to accept <span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span>ours as a solution? Finally, when, if ever, will households receive the £300 reduction in energy bills, as promised at the last general election?
- Hansard source
China: Threat to UK Interests
<Question HRSContentId="{BD35A0E7-24FE-4A8C-9A50-AA7F9C317510}">7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{BE671A60-F0FA-42D2-820C-00F673C346E8}">What assessment he has made of the level of threat China poses to UK interests.</QuestionText> </Question>
- Hansard source
China: Threat to UK Interests
It is good to hear the Minister acknowledge that China is a threat. The directors of GCHQ and MI5 have been clear that China presents the most significant state-based threat to the UK. The Government have previously talked about their China audit; will they commit to publishing it in full?
- Hansard source
Strait of Hormuz
Clearly, the free flow of shipping through the strait of Hormuz is vital to western economies, but the threat is that Iran will seek to take complete control over shipping through the strait. What sanctions do the Government propose to take to prevent Iran from succeeding?
- Hansard source
Direction of Government
I share the Prime Minister’s vision of ending rough sleeping for good. He was very kind to refer to my private Member’s Bill, but there are two actions that he could take now that he is in office. First, the various different attempts at progress on Housing First could be brought together across the country, because ending rough sleeping is one thing, but building that network of support around people is vital. The second aspect relates to my second private Member’s Bill, which became law in 2023, but is still to be enacted. It would regulate the use of supported housing. Will he act now to make sure that it is enacted, so that vulnerable people are protected from rogue landlords?
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire
I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of local government reorganisation on Cambridgeshire. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Last week I wrote to the Secretary of State outlining my concerns regarding the delayed decision on the future of local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Thus far we have heard little of her position regarding the criteria under which a decision will be made and how it may differ from that of her predecessor, who decided to delay the decision in the first place. I outlined how the pregnant pause preceding this interregnum is creating uncertainty and instability and affecting the retention of experienced council personnel, investment decisions for local businesses and questions about the viability of local plans crucial to the success of Huntingdonshire. In Huntingdonshire, we fear a local government reorganisation stitch-up. In January, I asked the then Prime Minister whether he could “offer assurances to my constituents and people across Huntingdonshire that the decision is not already a done deal, and that the democratic will of Huntingdonshire district council will not be overridden to satisfy an unelected Labour regional office”.<span id="vol778_col928" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="928" data-volume-number="778" data-external-id="89AFF923-F8A2-499A-8FBE-A308C693A30E">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 14 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 928.]</span> He said: “There are no done deals here; we are going through the proper process.”<span id="vol778_col928" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="928" data-volume-number="778" data-external-id="ED7BC4AB-C72C-48B2-B602-BCB59F4020E9">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 14 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 928.]</span> In March, I asked the previous Minister for Local Government whether she could “reassure me that Huntingdonshire will not be split in two”.<span id="vol783_col411" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="411" data-volume-number="783" data-external-id="E19A3E88-CB75-4156-BF26-66249F0E42C8">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 26 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 411.]</span> She did not offer any reassurance, so here we are in September with no decision having yet been made as we await the announcement of what we fear will be a stitched-up local government reorganisation in favour of a gerrymandered pork barrel option that even Labour councillors in Huntingdonshire despise.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire
Given that Peterborough has unitary status, I agree that it makes sense for a city the size of Cambridge to have that unitary basis. However, I stress that I do not believe that should come at the expense of other regions across the county.<span id="62WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="62WH"></span> The Government splitting Huntingdonshire in two and using the wealthier half to try to prop up their two MPs in the north of the county is going to go down badly. The hon. Members for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) proposed option D after it was concocted by the Labour East regional office. Nobody in Huntingdonshire was asked or consulted about the proposal, but as soon as it was put forward by those two MPs, it was clear that it would be the one likely chosen by the Government.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire
I would bounce that back at the hon. Member and ask him why he never came to me or any of the other Huntingdonshire MPs to ask about proposing an option that would split Huntingdonshire in two. The hon. Member told the BBC last summer: “A Mid Cambridgeshire council would allow rural areas across East Cambridgeshire, Fenland and parts of Huntingdonshire to form an authority that can deliver effectively on residents’ priorities, while a Greater Peterborough council encompassing the most high-growth areas of northern and western Cambridgeshire could better regulate and plan that growth.” Nonsense. I am fascinated to know how an almost entirely rural Mid Cambridgeshire county council is supposed to thrive when it has no basis for economic growth. The Greater Peterborough council would encompass “the most high-growth areas of northern and western Cambridgeshire”. I wonder which authority the hon. Member’s constituency is within.
- Hansard source
Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire
I concur with the hon. Gentleman. There is absolutely an opportunity here to learn from previous mistakes and make sure that they are not repeated when we drive this forward in the new year. In early July, news began to leak out from the Local Government Association’s annual conference that Peterborough city council suddenly seemed to be aware that option D was going to get the nod. Word spread quickly among Cambridgeshire senior executives that option D was going to be selected. Who was leaking that information, and why was I left to announce it on <span id="63WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="63WH"></span>ITV News Anglia so that people could see for themselves that the process under this Government was on the cusp of selecting the Labour-proposed option, as has happened in local authority areas across the country? Strangely enough, the response received on Friday to a freedom of information request to Peterborough city council was not able to be answered. I eagerly await the response to my own subject access request in a few days’ time. It is simply a disgrace that the Government would treat Cambridgeshire residents with this level of contempt by leaking the outcome of a decision that appears to have been almost certainly predetermined to a privileged few, allowing those who have been given the information to achieve a head start and for favoured businesses to gain a competitive advantage, and affecting decisions on employment and education opportunities and future investment decisions.
- Hansard source
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.”<span id="vol789_col1097" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="1097" data-volume-number="789" data-external-id="EB8F6BC9-397D-4247-96BD-A49B3383D860">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 16 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 1097.]</span> 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
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
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
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.<span id="65WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="65WH"></span> 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
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.<span id="66WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="66WH"></span> 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
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
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 <span id="68WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="68WH"></span>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
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
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, <span id="11WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="11WH"></span>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
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 <span id="73WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="73WH"></span>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
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
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
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?<span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.<span id="1125" class="column-number" data-column-number="1125"></span> 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.