142 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
With just a few days of COP30 left, it is incredibly disappointing that UK climate leadership is at risk because of the Government’s decision not to contribute to the tropical forest forever facility to end forest destruction. Can the Minister please confirm whether reports that that decision is under review are accurate? Can he assure the House that the UK will play its part in contributing directly to taking its fair share of ending forest destruction?
I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. What further concrete steps will she take to increase pressure on Israel to allow humanitarian access for the more than 30 humanitarian NGOs that have been blocked from delivering urgently needed relief and to stop Israel supporting settlement expansion and settler violence? On Gaza, what new concrete actions will the Government take to press those who support the warring parties to stop the slaughter? Specifically, how will she persuade the UAE to put more pressure on the RSF to stop the slaughter?
Today’s announcement by ExxonMobil—a company that made £25 billion of profit last year—will be devastating for the workers, their families and the communities in and around Mossmorran. Does it not just show that ExxonMobil does not give a fig for its workers; it just prioritises profiteering? Does the Minister agree that the fossil fuel giants cannot be trusted to protect jobs or the planet? Will he commit to investing new resources to ensure a genuinely just transition in which the voices of workers are central to the debate, so that they are not left to the whims of these profiteering fossil fuel giants?
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this crucial issue tonight. I hope to bring to the House the voices of people in my constituency, of campaigners across the country, and of the many families who wake up each morning wondering, “How will we keep our children warm this winter? How will we keep our grandparents warm?” Those are questions that nobody should have to ask. The Government have committed £13.2 billion to the warm homes plan, which is welcome. It was very strongly implied that this would be £13.2 billion of additional funding, but there are rumours that the Chancellor is considering scaling back the energy company obligation and paying for it with the warm homes plan funding. That would mean that the Government were, in reality, reducing the amount of money spent on retrofit. If that is the case, it is extremely disappointing—and that is the understatement of the year. I am really disappointed that the warm homes plan, which was due to have come forward quite some time ago, has been delayed and delayed. We now find that there is perhaps a Government plan to reassign some of the funding in a way that would fly entirely in the face of the intended purposes of the warm homes plan, and in the face of what we need to do: upgrade our homes so that everybody can live in a warm home that is affordable to heat. Fuel poverty is an absolute scandal in our country, and we simply cannot let a long-term programme be cannibalised to produce a short-term headline. The rescue mission that our housing stock needs will not survive being hollowed out further by short-term tinkering in the Treasury. We already know the shocking scale of fuel poverty in this country. The Government’s own figures show that nearly 3 million households in England were fuel-poor in 2024.
The hon. Member is right to draw attention to the eye-watering profits made by energy companies—a subject raised during exchanges on the statement made just before this debate—and the irresponsibility of many of those companies’ actions. It is essential to ensure that when people pay their bills, the money goes towards keeping them warm, not filling the coffers of shareholders. Given those eye-watering profits, it is clear that there is capacity in the energy market, not least because of the hike in energy prices that has resulted from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. That is what has driven <span id="748" class="column-number" data-column-number="748"></span>them through the roof; it has nothing whatever to do with levies and policy costs. We should be ensuring that those eye-watering sums are reinvested in supporting those who are most vulnerable to fuel poverty, and enabling them to live in warm homes.
The hon. Gentleman may have been reading my notes over my shoulder, because I was about to make exactly that point. We must keep the needs of the most vulnerable households front and centre. I was talking about the fuel poverty statistics. According to the Government’s own figures, 3 million households were fuel-poor in 2024, but using the definition that is still used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, campaigners estimate that the number of UK households facing fuel poverty is nearly double that number—about 6 million households. We live in one of the world’s wealthiest countries, and no one, but no one, should be struggling to keep their home warm. In the west midlands, where my lovely constituency is, we face the highest regional rate of fuel poverty in England. North Herefordshire far more badly affected than the national average. Adding to the strain in my constituency is the fact that rural homes are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. They are more likely to be detached or built before 1919—that is certainly the case in North Herefordshire—and therefore harder to heat efficiently, and rural households face deep fuel poverty and high energy costs. Moreover, installers are known to avoid complicated homes, such as those in my constituency, because they are less profitable, which means that schemes such as the ECO often fail to reach rural locations.
My hon. Friend is entirely right about the particular problems that we face in rural areas. This is relevant to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon): we must support the most vulnerable households.
I am not an engineer, and I must confess to having some doubts, certainly about HVO, so I would need to engage in a bit more conversation on that subject. As for ground source heat pumps—yes, absolutely, although I understand that air source is normally more efficient. In my constituency we have some water source heat pumps as well, so all sorts of wonderful technologies are possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) drew attention to the excellent work done by charitable organisations in this sector, but fundamentally none of it is a substitute for a decent, proper, national, strategic, well-funded and long-term programme of home insulation to tackle the problem at its root. If we have delivery routes based only on profitability for private contractors, whole swathes of the country will be left behind. We have had problems, such as those highlighted by the National Audit Office recently, that are related to short-termism and profiteering by some rogue contractors. Retrofitting homes is central to solving fuel poverty. Insulation and proper energy efficiency measures reduce bills and cut emissions. Upgrading a typical home from an energy performance certificate rating of D to EPC C— I recognise that EPCs are not perfect, but I will leave that aside for the moment—would save households around £210 a year. That is a significant amount of real money for families who need it, and it is also good economics for the country. Investments in innovation and home energy efficiency pay back in lower bills, reduced pressure on the NHS, health savings, which are related to better health outcomes, and, of course, jobs created up and down the supply chain. We want to be investing in these new green industries. It is important to acknowledge that there is a history in this sector; we have been here before. Past retrofit schemes have been structured in ways that prioritised speed and profit over quality and need, allowing cowboy contractors to exploit the system. That was in significant part due to the short-termism of those programmes, which limped from year to year with single-year funding allocations. It was utterly counterproductive, and I saw that myself as I wrestled with such programmes when I was working as a councillor and as a cabinet member with responsibility for energy and environment. We need long-term policy certainty. The colleges providing the skills training, the businesses wanting to support apprentices and take them on, and the companies wanting to join the supply chain need that long-term policy certainty, which is in the gift of the Government. The National Audit Office recently reported very serious quality failures in recent ECO4 retrofit installations, leading to significant health risks for thousands of households. The Government absolutely must not allow the same mistakes to be repeated in the warm homes plan. The plan must commit not only to making homes warmer and bringing down bills for the millions struggling across the country, but to ensuring that no one ends up in a worse financial situation through having used a Government retrofit scheme. That is why the warm homes plan must promise homes that are not only warmer, but retrofitted properly by those with appropriate certification, and must be subject to independent checks. The Treasury is tempted by immediate headline reductions in bills, but if the Government reduce or eliminate the ECO scheme and use the warm homes <span id="750" class="column-number" data-column-number="750"></span>plan money to backfill those losses, the result will be fewer homes upgraded, fewer people protected from fuel poverty, and a greater long-term cost to the public purse and to our national health.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member, who is a fantastic champion for health. She pays attention to the needs of the most vulnerable in our society, and ensures that policy really addresses the root issues that people face. I agree, and that is why I am so deeply concerned that the Government are flying this kite, and suggesting that they will start plugging gaps in the cost of their energy bills policy by using the warm homes plan money. Instead, they should introduce a wealth tax; that could be another source of funding for this endeavour. In plain language, taking money out of the warm homes plan to fill a gap that would be created by abolishing ECO is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is completely short-sighted. We absolutely need to cut energy bills, and we need as much investment as possible—as much as is needed—in the home insulation programmes that will provide the long-term solution to the problem of fuel poverty. This is not an either/or choice. We can and must make bills more affordable, and must at the same time invest in home upgrades to create future savings. We do not need to choose between warmth today and efficiency tomorrow. I mentioned a wealth tax; a 1% tax on wealth above £10 million, and a 2% tax on wealth above £1 billion, would raise at least £14.8 billion. That is way more than enough to pay for the cost of electricity bills policy, and to scale up, not down, the warm homes plan. I want to set out briefly what a responsible warm homes plan must contain. First, it must treat the worst affected first, as hon. Members from across the House have said. It must prioritise low-income and vulnerable households and the coldest and least energy efficient homes, and treat warmth as a basic human right.
The hon. Member is a fantastic champion for policies that address social and environmental justice. He raises the important point that in these schemes, far too often, people have to jump through umpteen hoops. <span id="751" class="column-number" data-column-number="751"></span>We are talking about supporting the most vulnerable households; the last thing they need to do is jump through multiple administrative hoops, go through all the levels of a scheme, and then find that the deadline for the programme has been reached. We need to simplify and clarify, to provide long-term certainty to everybody working in the sector, and ensure that all households that need to access the warm homes plan can do so as easily and simply as possible. I was talking about treating the worst-affected homes first; that was my first point. Secondly, a good warm homes plan must guarantee independent retrofit assessment and performance monitoring. We must not repeat the problems we had with ECO4. When public money pays for home improvements, the public must demand high standards. That means an independent public body with statutory powers to co-ordinate, monitor, evaluate and enforce, and to make sure that this stuff is done to the correct standard. It must be able to withhold payment until independent sign-off is achieved, and have a compulsory remedial fund that fixes, at no cost to households, any poor workmanship that somehow gets through. If we are to prevent a repetition of past problems, this body must create a publicly accessible register of any firms that fail to meet high standards. Thirdly, a decent warm homes plan must include proper support and tailored delivery, especially for rural homes. North Herefordshire and many constituencies like it cannot be dismissed or overlooked because our properties are older and more challenging. We need specialist assessment teams, rural tailored procurement, and grant funding that recognises the additional cost of retrofitting hard-to-treat homes. Fourthly, the plan must protect tenants. Retrofitting must not become an excuse for “retroviction”, in which landlords evict tenants to carry out improvements or unduly raise rents as a result. The warm homes plan must include a freeze on evictions and rent rises during any improvement works, and for a certain period after they have been completed. That would ensure that tenants felt the benefits of these improvements, and that costs were not passed on to them. Fifthly, the plan must include an urgent programme to inspect and fix the homes affected by poor ECO4 installations. The victims of past Governments’ poor-quality schemes deserve an apology, compensation and a guarantee that this will never be repeated. The Government have to replace broken accreditation schemes and reform regulatory responsibilities, so that the system provides real accountability, not a paper trail of excuses. Sixthly, the plan must be aligned with a clear energy affordability strategy. Real reductions in household energy bills mean reducing our dependence on volatile global gas markets, decoupling the price of gas from the price of electricity, expanding clean power capacity and tackling excessive corporate profits. It is unconscionable that while millions struggle in cold homes, nearly a quarter of the annual average energy bill went to the pre-tax profits of major electricity generators, networks and household suppliers last year in the UK. That scale of profit demands scrutiny and a reconsideration of who bears the cost of our energy transition. Do we accept a system where families are priced out of warmth, while companies report massive profits, or do we invest in public goods that protect the vulnerable and create sustainable jobs?<span id="752" class="column-number" data-column-number="752"></span> The warm homes plan is a chance to change lives, lower bills, create good, skilled jobs and cut emissions. It is also, frankly, a test of this Government’s political will and our moral compass.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the earlier part of my speech, in which I explained that I absolutely do welcome the commitment to £13.2 billion, but I am deeply worried that the Government appear to be backsliding from that commitment; they are promising to use part of that in other policy areas, as a sticking plaster. That could significantly reduce the overall package of funding available for this vital work, when the Government should be increasing it. If the Government do good things, I will say, “Well done.” If they threaten to do bad things, I will be really rather cross, and will try to put as much pressure as possible on the Minister. This House, the Minister and the Government can choose to protect that full £13.2 billion, make it additional to the other schemes to tackle fuel poverty, and make this work for the poorest and most vulnerable, or we can stand by and watch the plan be hollowed out for short-term convenience. We can measure the cost of inaction in ill health, avoidable deaths, poorer education outcomes, and long-term added pressure on our NHS and social services. The choice is clear: the Government must not let short termism steal warmth and energy bill savings from millions. Please, do not let the lessons of the past be the mistakes of our future.
Absolutely, I completely agree. We need a long-term strategic approach that takes into account all the issues in houses, so that we do not repeat the problems of ECO4. That is part of the issue that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I am literally on my final sentence. Let us make the warm homes plan the bold, high-quality, fair, accessible and accountable programme that the people of Britain deserve. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
It is not people seeking sanctuary who are tearing our country apart; it is toxic, racist narratives and the scapegoating of migrants and asylum seekers for what is nothing to <span id="530" class="column-number" data-column-number="530"></span>do with them. The chronic housing crisis and the running down of public services are not caused by migrants; they are caused by political decisions and by the grotesque inequality in this country. Does the Secretary of State understand that attempting to out-Reform Reform is actually just boosting this baseless, far-right narrative and will only deepen divisions, when we urgently need leadership and hope instead?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State accused one of my Green colleagues of hypocrisy when in fact she had been objecting to the warehousing of asylum seekers in military barracks, which is a position in line with Greens in the Chamber and, in fact, all major refugee rights organisations. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would like to withdraw her grossly misleading remarks and baseless accusation of hypocrisy.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way as she speaks about the importance of the UK taking global leadership. I welcome the Bill, but will the Minister complement it and show global leadership by announcing a new international taskforce dedicated specifically to protecting at least 30% of the Atlantic ocean by 2030?
Ella’s law—the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill—will now not get its Second Reading on 21 November, despite wide cross-party support. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Government make time on Fridays or at other times for more of the most vital private Members’ Bills, such as Ella’s law, or could they adopt the measures into their own Bills—for example the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill?
The Government are creating new boards from council leaders, but abolishing, not restocking, the police and crime scrutiny panels. <span id="350" class="column-number" data-column-number="350"></span>Does the Minister recognise that this risks creating a chasm of scrutiny right when police reform is most urgent on issues like racism, misogyny, police conduct and the ill-governed use of AI? Does she not see a role in better scrutiny for elected local opposition leaders?
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I like to start on a positive note and by looking for common ground, so I will begin by recognising and welcoming the fact that the Government have made some concessions in the other place on this Bill, which is a positive step. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the Minister’s claim that this is a win-win for nature and housing, and express my continued concern that the Bill, especially part 3, has not had the full reconsideration it needs to ensure we have a genuine win-win. The reason, unfortunately, is that the Government seem to be stuck in the view that there is a zero-sum game between nature protection and house building. That is wrong and unhelpful; it is a complete misconception. Despite making some concessions, the Government lost a lot of trust among the general public by claiming at the outset of the Bill’s progress that they would do no harm to nature protection. The Government were forced to reconsider and recognise, not least by their own official adviser, that that was not in fact the case.
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are many hundreds of thousands of homes sitting empty around the country and that this Bill will not do anything to address that issue, which could go a very long way to addressing the problems of homelessness that he claims to worry about?
<Question HRSContentId="{4AB4A2B5-2FDA-4DC9-8D3A-7427E001622E}">3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{9B37B144-D674-43A6-8F54-A9F0E4994421}">What her planned timeline is for moving away from the use of farrowing crates and cages in farming.</QuestionText> </Question>
I thank the Minister for her answer. Animal Equality estimates that around 200,000 sows in the UK spend nearly a quarter of their adult life confined in farrowing crates, which are metal barred cages that severely restrict their movement—they cannot even turn around. Some 75% of vets are concerned and research suggests that two thirds of the public oppose their use. When it comes to the animal welfare strategy, will the Minister commit to phasing out the use of all farrowing crates and the equally cruel cages for birds, and what practical steps will be put in place to support farmers with the transition?
More than 50 countries have endorsed the tropical forests scheme launched at COP30 in Brazil. It is one of the most significant global initiatives to protect tropical forests. The UK’s decision not to contribute is a shocking failure in emissions reduction, international nature finance and our relationships with South America. Might we have a debate about the important need for the Government to revisit and reverse that decision before the end of COP30?
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing it. To be honest, I am a bit disappointed that the Secretary of State did not come to the House to make a statement about the carbon budget delivery plan, especially given that the previous one was in breach of the Climate Change Act 2008, and given the urgency of the UK’s meeting not just its statutory domestic climate targets but its international obligations under the Paris climate agreement. It is obvious that UK climate action has important domestic and international ramifications. We are holding this debate while COP30 takes place. The UN has warned that the goal of a 1.5°C limit is fragile. According to the UN Secretary-General, the current plans put forward by nation states to cut emissions will put the world on a pathway to 2.3°C of global warming if they are fully implemented, and yet the UK’s new carbon budget delivery plan will fall short of our own commitments under the COP process, via our nationally determined contributions. The delivery plan is looking to achieve 96% of the cuts for the 2030 NDC and 99% for the 2035 NDC. That does not even reflect the fact that the UK’s NDC commitments themselves fail to take account of the scale of ambition needed to tackle the burning reality of the climate crisis, in line with what the climate science demands, and to reflect the UK’s historic responsibilities—and therefore moral obligation—to take a fairer share of the global need to cut emissions. The Government’s carbon budget delivery plan is absolutely better than previous versions—let’s face it, it was a low baseline—but it is still wanting, both in <span id="131WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="131WH"></span>global terms and in terms of facing the climate reality. That needs to change; even more ambition is required. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central talked about the warm homes plan and the wider need for investment, particularly in the housing sector. We must ensure all our homes are fully fit for the future. As she said, it must be recognised across Government that climate action is absolutely central. It is not just about tackling our carbon emissions; it is also a really important way to tackle inequality and generate a resilient, jobs-rich economy that will secure long-term prosperity for us all. There are of course things to welcome in the carbon budget delivery plan, including tougher energy standards for the private rented and social rented sectors, welcome signals on heat pumps and so on, but to make our homes really fit for the future we need to think even bigger. We need to minimise embodied carbon in the housing sector, and maximise on-site energy generation, biodiversity in the construction of new homes and resilience in things such as flooding and overheating, which is crucial in tackling the impacts of the climate crisis, which is hitting harder and harder. Every new home—especially every new social home—must be built to the highest standards. We urgently need the warm homes plan. It is deeply concerning that there are rumours that the Government are seeking to rob Peter to pay Paul by taking money away from the warm homes plan—that crucial long-term investment in insulating our homes and making them fit for the future so that people have cheaper bills. We must not put a short-term sticking plaster on bills. We need both, not one or the other—<em>[</em><em>Interruption</em><em>.</em><em>]</em>
I will conclude with three brief points. First, reframing the carbon budget delivery plan as a growth plan takes things in the wrong direction. It is the myth of infinite growth on a finite planet that got us into this mess in the first place, and that is driving the climate and nature crisis. This moment demands climate action that is rooted in tackling inequality, not feeding the pockets of developers and big oil bosses. That brings me to my next point. The science on fossil fuels is unequivocal. In addition to the positive measures in the carbon budget delivery plan, we have to keep fossil fuels in the ground. Rosebank and Jackdaw cannot—must not—go ahead. My final point is to put on record my thanks to Friends of the Earth for challenging the last plan in court and for its ongoing commitment to holding Governments to account. All this is possible only because of the Climate Change Act 2008. We all have a responsibility <span id="132WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="132WH"></span>to uphold that incredibly important piece of legislation, which is key to ensuring that together we build a sustainable future for our country. The British public remain very supportive of ambitious climate action. They want to know that measures are being taken to transition the economy, build a sustainable future and tackle the huge risks of climate breakdown. We all have a responsibility to ensure that that future is liveable for ourselves and future generations. I look forward to continuing to work across parties to build that positive future.
The Minister talked about difficult decisions, but what about an obvious one? Two thirds of the British population are now backing wealth taxes. Is it not time for the Treasury to abandon its self-imposed fiscal straitjacket and commit to lifting children out of poverty, to investing in our public services and to future-proofing our communities by transforming the tax system so that it better serves ordinary people and so that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share?
The BBC employs thousands of tremendous journalists who are diligent, truth-seeking and impartial. It is not perfect, but we must defend this national asset. We cannot be left to the wolves of the kind of channels that Trump prefers, which have values of propaganda, not of ethics and integrity. Will the Secretary of State protect our BBC from all further political interference, listen to the cross-party voices here, put an end to all political appointments and remove those already in place, like Robbie Gibb—if not immediately, then in that process?
British-made military equipment has been found in conflict zones in Sudan. That includes Cummins engines found in armoured vehicles, which were not subject to export licensing, did not go through any checks and were not subject to any diversion checks having been sent to the UAE. The Minister dismissed the concerns expressed earlier by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), but is it not clear that our arms export licensing system is not functioning, is not fit for purpose and needs a full review, and that we should have an embargo on all arms exports to the UAE now? I agree <span id="920" class="column-number" data-column-number="920"></span>with him that the UK Government need to do more, as does the world. Does that not include international pressure and sanctions on all those with links to the warring party, including, as I understand it, the UAE and Egypt, which are supporting and fuelling the horrific conflict in Sudan?
I welcome the review’s emphasis on preparing young people for a changing world through things like media literacy, political literacy and climate literacy. My question is about pace. The Secretary of State mentioned implementation in 2028-29, but that is too slow given the urgency of these problems—by that point, today’s 12-year-olds may be voting in the next election. What will she do to speed up implementation of those critical parts of the curriculum before then?
<Question HRSContentId="{B4E9D760-4927-42BD-B5C1-8F400988923A}">8. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{CE13CC0E-9F88-4007-8F80-1127AC9CC672}">What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the affordability of business rates for small and medium-sized enterprises.</QuestionText> </Question>
Grassroots music venues are a vital part of the heart, soul and economy of Brighton Pavilion. Treasury Ministers have admitted that fairer business rates valuation methods are not currently used for many of these businesses—my local venues are calling the burdens punitive and a threat to viability. Will the Chancellor assure me that she will not forget grassroots music venues in her Budget?
This morning the Chancellor spoke of difficult decisions for everybody but the ultra-rich. With billionaire wealth soaring while living standards for most people fall, does she agree that it is time to double down on gross inequality in our country and tax extreme wealth fairly, so that we can tackle the cost of living crisis, end child poverty and invest in our public services?
My constituent Nicola is from one of 29 families who lost loved ones in the Chinook helicopter crash. Many documents have not been released, and the families have been denied truth and justice. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the matter? In the meantime, will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to meet the families, and the cross-party group of MPs supporting them?
The Refugee Council has a clear proposal that would allow the Minister to close asylum hotels within a year without resorting to barracks: a one-off scheme to give a time-limited permission to stay, subject to rigorous security checks, to people from countries that mean they are almost certain to be recognised as refugees if it were not for the backlog. Will the Minister adopt that sensible solution, and also provide safe and legal routes so that people are not pushed into the hands of people smugglers in the first place?
It is horrifying that Netanyahu has bombed Gaza in a clear violation of the ceasefire. The suffering in Gaza is unimaginable. To move forward, we must demand justice and reparations for all victims of atrocity crimes and hold to account the perpetrators. What are the Government doing to uphold UK obligations under international law to bring to justice those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide? What are the Government doing to push for journalists to be allowed in, given the Israeli Government’s outrageous restrictions, which prevent them from documenting the horrors?
It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I will speak to my new clause 15, which proposes an independent review of the adequacy of scrutiny and accountability arrangements within six months of commencement. We have had plenty of debate in Committee about scrutiny and accountability of new strategic authorities and the larger new unitary authorities, but new clause 15 is solely about the mayoral combined authorities. Given the scale of the powers on offer, the Bill is relatively light on scrutiny and consultation requirements. There are duties carried over from existing legislation relating to strategic authorities taking on the functions of, for example, fire and rescue authorities, and to the appointment of commissioners to whom strategic mayors would delegate functions, but quite honestly, only one new measure in the Bill adds to scrutiny over the carried over measures. That is clause 9 and schedule 3, about the termination of the commissioner role and a role for the overview and scrutiny committee to recommend dismissal. In the rest of the Bill, the underpinning of the scrutiny arrangements for these powerful new combined authorities will be derived from local councils, as established by the Local Government Act 2000, but I am yet to be convinced that such an underpinning will provide enough scrutiny and challenge of these powerful new bodies.
I will cover some of those issues, but yes, I am not completely happy with how many local councils work. Some carry out the bare minimum. I think we need more minimum guarantees built into this new process, and the Bill is the right place to introduce them. As I said, the current model is basically an expanded local authority model, based on the idea, I think, that a combined authority is a collection of local authorities so the underlying scrutiny arrangements are sufficient. However, that has already been stretched by the more powerful mayors, and it will be stretched further when the new authorities are set up. The new powers in particular need more scrutiny. For example, public bodies in every area will need to have regard to the growth plan. Growth plan objectives will be decided by the central authority, but how will they be <span id="519" class="column-number" data-column-number="519"></span>developed and scrutinised? A strategic authority will be the local transport authority for its region, so it will gain a key route network of roads and can instruct the traffic authorities in its area on the management of the network. These are additional powers, so there is a role for additional scrutiny. Local plans and planning decisions will need to conform to the strategic authority’s plan—that is set out in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—but how the powers are used deserves scrutiny, challenge, questions and accountability. These authorities are also taking on land assembly and housing powers. They can make mayoral development orders, and set up many huge budgets within mayoral development corporations. I do not think the local authority scrutiny model can cover the questions that might need to be asked in those circumstances. There is a process for giving the new strategic authorities even greater powers in the future, but there is no associated process in the Bill for reviewing the scrutiny arrangements as those powers increase. New clause 15 would require a review of the scrutiny arrangements to match the new powers given to strategic authorities, which they may request as the Government devolve further. A safety net for scrutiny is needed somewhere in the Bill. I am aiming to fix a genuine problem. Many existing strategic authorities have struggled to establish a truly collaborative approach between the local authorities and the members of the committees that exist to scrutinise those authorities. Quite often, the members feel that they should represent their own local authority and do not necessarily take a collective approach to scrutiny in the committee. I believe that problem will increase, particularly where we establish authorities that may lack a strong collective identity like that Greater London or Greater Manchester, where people automatically feel that they will be standing up for that area. In these new invented areas, we need legislation to ensure that scrutiny will reflect a common identity and collective approach. This issue is a reflection of quite a lot of existing problems with scrutiny in councils. I will cite some of the conclusions in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s 2017 report. It looked at the effectiveness of local authority scrutiny committees and concluded that scrutiny was marginalised in too many authorities, which could contribute to service failures. The Committee also found evidence that scrutiny committee chairs often did not challenge their leaders, picking instead safe, less controversial topics, and that the fact that the committee chairs are appointed meant that they were more likely to keep quiet and use their role as a way to prepare for a future cabinet position. In the local authority model, the leaders can choose their cabinet, and we have already discussed many times in this Committee how the new mayors will be able to choose their commissioners. I am sure that Members can see how the same dynamic might occur.
Is the Minister honestly saying that if there was a call from Parliament to review scrutiny within one year of Royal Assent, she would not be telling us that was too soon? The reason one year is written into the new clause is that is a very reasonable deadline.
I very much support the new clause, and put my name to it to demonstrate that. I want to say a few words about why the new clause is so appropriate for the Bill. It would allow the Secretary of State by regulations to introduce proportional representation voting for local authority councillors. Importantly, the regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that Parliament would get its say. This measure has precedent. As we will all recall, the electoral system for mayors was changed from the supplementary vote to first past the post via an amendment tabled by the then Government during Committee stage of the Elections Act 2022—it was not part of the Bill on Second Reading, and there was no wider consultation. There is obviously no recent precedent for changing the local government system for England, but the Scottish Government—at the time a Labour Government in coalition with the Liberal Democrats—changed the local elections to the single transferable vote through the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004. The Welsh Government, at the time a Labour minority Government, legislated to give councils the option of switching to the single transferable vote in the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021.<span id="531" class="column-number" data-column-number="531"></span> Under the new clause, the Secretary of State might decide to go for different degrees of change, after talking to people about what might be more appropriate. The alternative vote and the supplementary vote are very similar; they are both preferential systems that are very suited to single member positions. I think that that is why the Government have chosen to return to the supplementary vote for mayors. I would argue that the alternative vote is better, gives voters more choices and guarantees a majority through a process of consensus, but that is one of the options. My favourite is the single transferable vote—I am waiting for the interventions—because it is a bigger change. However, for local government, because the single transferable vote is so suitable for multi-member constituencies, and because it is so simple for voters—people just choose their favourites, and the voting system works out the right consensus and the members who have the broadest support—it is an excellent system and ought to be considered. It may be very suitable for the larger unitaries, where more members per ward could be put together to make it work in a proportional fashion. However, the new clause would not mandate any of that; it would be for the Secretary of State to decide. In January, in a debate in the House on proportional representation for general elections, I said this about the Bill: “We have an opportunity, presented by imminent local government reorganisation—the creation of combined authorities and potentially very large councils—to shift to a more proportional system, potentially using multi-member wards and the single transferable vote. That is the system used in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. It is incredibly simple for voters to cast their preferences. The election counts are extremely exciting…It delivers candidates based on consensus, not division…it delivers for many people”. The real benefit—this has obvious benefits for Northern Ireland—is that it delivers “not only hardworking representatives in the administration but people whose job it is to listen and represent them from opposition parties.” For larger councils, that could really help, as I said in that debate, with “the potential remoteness of the uber councils that are being talked about.”<span id="vol761_col469" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="469" data-volume-number="761" data-external-id="1FFB4FCB-1580-4C9E-8A08-95D64607126E">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 30 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 469-470.]</span> If there are multi-member wards, ward councillors whose roles in the combined authorities pull them out of local areas could leave local responsibilities to their colleagues. Having a range of people represented at the local ward level would be so beneficial and I believe that needs looking at. We need to urgently consider that change for local government.
There is confusion because I have argued that larger councils could lead to greater remoteness, certainly because the town hall may be many miles away. However, people will still be electing ward councillors, and my argument is simply that, should a person’s local ward councillors be part of the administration, they may see them very rarely. In those circumstances, it might be beneficial to have a range of local councillors from different parties, potentially with an increased number per ward, so that they represent more different points of view and can listen to constituents in different ways.
May I add that this is a really interesting debate and one that we should continue to have under my new clause? To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, Conservative Members have argued repeatedly that there will be a loss of representation from the abolition of the lower-tier councils. Does he not agree that this a way to mitigate that?