English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. <em>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.</em> <em>Question proposed,</em> That the schedule, as amended, be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
142 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting)
This seems the right point to bring this up. The Minister has talked about how the schedule creates powers to make directions in relation to roads that are not on the key route network. The Minister will have many decisions to make about regulations, and the complexity is coming out in our debates. Are discussions taking place in Cabinet about replacing the Office of Rail and Road with something broader to capture more of this area? The Office for Rail and Road only covers National Highways roads—the strategic road network. I wonder whether the key route network would benefit from being included in the work of the office, which could be named the Office for Integrated Transport and could also cover local roads, buses and active travel. Has the Minister had discussions with the Department for Transport about that?
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting)
I beg to move amendment 265, in schedule 9, page 149, line 37, at end insert— “(4D) In preparing or revising a local transport plan, a local transport authority must have regard to the air quality guidelines established by the World Health Organization.” <em>This amendment requires all local transport authorities, including mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities, to have regard to the World Health Organization’s air quality guidelines when preparing or revising their local transport </em><em>plans</em><em>.</em> This is a simple amendment that I worked out with the Healthy Air Coalition and my good friends who campaign on air pollution, such as Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah who works in memory of her daughter. The health burden of air pollution falls hardest on those with the least choice—children, old people and low-income communities living near congested roads and industrial corridors—yet the current legal limits for nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter are four times higher than the World Health Organisation recommends. The latest figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs may show improvements in some cities. Areas such as London and Nottingham are now technically compliant with the legal limits, but compliance with outdated legal limits does not mean the air is safe to breathe. The Bill gives combined authorities a crucial opportunity to align transport planning with public health outcomes and the correct goals. Combined authorities have shown some real willingness to act, but their ambition can be constrained by national standards that lag far behind the World Health Organisation’s evidence and guidelines. The Bill is a chance to change that by ensuring that local transport plans are designed not just to meet the legal minimum but to deliver genuinely clean and healthy air for communities. <em>Question put,</em> That the amendment be made.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting)
I support the arguments made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. We seem to have a lot of new responsibilities, and in transport we lack clarity about where the money is coming from. I agree with the idea of integrated settlements, but will transport continue to receive what it currently does? Will the new authorities be well funded? With austerity so entrenched in local authorities and all this reorganisation happening, will any of that start to be reversed? With that in mind, I have put forward two new clauses with ideas to solve some of those issues. I will briefly outline why Members might consider supporting new clauses 17 and 18, which are closely related. New clause 17 is an attempt to put together so-called total transport authority powers for the strategic authorities, to help them to be more of an integrated transport authority than would be achieved by simply transposing local transport plan powers over from the Transport Act 2000. It would add strategic responsibilities around planning and integrating different modes and transport providers in a total transport authority’s area. To be clear, it is not necessarily about providing all those things; many are provided by different parts of the public sector. It is about having responsibility for integrating them.<span id="257" class="column-number" data-column-number="257"></span> New clause 17 is also about bringing in integrated ticketing. That is crucial, not just for the convenience and benefit of passengers on public transport, but as a way—particularly at the scale of a strategic authority, which is where these kind of total transport authority responsibilities sit—of achieving the ability to cross-subsidise different modes of travel. This is a good way of making efficiency work in terms of funding, raising money and making the most of the ability to use revenue to create borrowing for investment. The Department for Transport conducted a viability trial of total transport solutions in 2019 . It was focused on rural areas, and found that local authorities made savings—relatively modest, but they were at the local authority level—and services could be improved without additional costs. This saves money at the wider Exchequer level. If we are talking about the providers of public services listed in the new clause—NHS trusts, local authority social care providers and school transport provision in the area—strategic authorities are asked to look at better integrating those obviously integratable types of transport, and make them more efficient. The new clause would also enable cross-subsidisation between profitable and non-profitable streams of transport provision. We see that in the London budget, with which I was intimately familiar for many years. The tube network is able to make a profit, which helps to subsidise bus journeys, and that is to everyone’s benefit. That is worth Ministers’ consideration in more detail, and I hope the new clause will prompt them to do that. It was not my intention to go over the top with this, so I tabled a second new clause—new clause 18—which asks Ministers to look again at tax increment financing, instead of attempting to amend powers already in the Bill. There are clear benefits from tax increment financing. The ability to add a levy to, for example, business rates, as has been done in the past, or potentially on VAT in an area, and to use that to borrow for significant investment, is potentially really powerful. It was used in part for the Northern line extension to Battersea, for example—a glimmer of new tube line that suddenly happened because of that kind of initiative. New clause 18 asks Ministers to look at this issue again and to consider the power for strategic authorities. We are all wondering where the money might come from. We can see the potential benefits of this level of organisation, but the new clause would put some more powers in place and prompt further reviews of what might be done to help these bodies stand on their own two feet. As we discussed earlier in relation to precepts, powers to raise money will not necessarily lead to a lot of new taxes and levies; they are self-regulating via the process of democracy and are therefore not to be feared.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting)
I, too, have much experience of the London system of planning—of putting together the London plan and its implementation through strategic planning applications. I have a couple of things to say. First, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, we have heard alarming reports today that the well-worked-through, evidence-based requirements that were put into the London plan may be undermined by an unclear process. We would like assurance that once the processes are carried out—once local people have engaged and many local authorities have given evidence in respect of a plan and some policies—the policies are kept in place and used by the mayors who have gone to so much trouble. We hear <span id="264" class="column-number" data-column-number="264"></span>rumours of CIL holidays and other really worrying things. I will not ask for answers on that now, but we will discuss the community infrastructure levy later. The issue I want to raise is the transparency and clarity of the online information that accompanied the Mayor of London carrying out his strategic planning responsibility in respect of individual planning applications. As an expert user of that online information in the past, I know it is vastly worse than what is commonplace and very good from most local authorities. One does not get easy access to the accompanying documents or other people’s comments as they come in; they can be incredibly useful in local authority planning applications. By contrast to the national infrastructure planning process, the documents associated with the planning application are not published and the timetable is not necessarily available. I had endless trouble while trying to scrutinise and take part in the process. I beg the Minister to look at putting in place a more standardised way of making the planning applications that are intervened on by mayors, and the process that happens, more transparent. It should match either of the other two planning levels we have. At the GLA end of things, it has not been very good.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting)
I endorse the amendment. It is extremely sensible to have this kind of priority in place. It is extremely reminiscent of planning policy guidance note 13, which was abolished by the coalition Government in 2011 and was originally put in place under the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2001, if I recall correctly. It was part of an integrated transport policy, making sure that homes and transport were planned in concert and that there was a sequential test for focusing first on areas that were already developed—areas close to urban centres—and then allowing for sequential use of greener areas. That is something that we lack in planning policy at the moment. Having a policy that is entirely either/or, or where we free up things completely or not at all, without a sequential test, has led to a lot of conflict in planning policy lately. Something that sets a sequence of priorities is much more sensible, and I think the Minister should look at it.
- Hansard source
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
It is great that the UK is finally ratifying the treaty, and it is also great to hear the Minister talk about the benefits of marine protected areas, but if the Bill is to signify a new and invigorated Government focus on protecting our <span id="552" class="column-number" data-column-number="552"></span>precious marine environment, does she not agree that the terrible, destructive fishing practice of bottom trawling obliterates vital habitats on our seabed? It makes a mockery of the entire term “marine protected area” that the UK Government have ignored the Environmental Audit Committee’s advice to ban bottom trawling from our own marine protected areas.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. This is not my first Public Bill Committee, but I have had the whole summer to forget how these things work, so I look forward to being firmly guided by you if I stray from good practice. I will speak to new clause 35. In that context, I emphasise how friendly, constructive and helpful the new clause is intended to be as a way of getting the Committee started on a good note. I ask Ministers to take the need for it on board, although I will not press it to a vote. I tabled the new clause to ensure that, more broadly, words such as “strategic” and “local”, where they relate to a level of government or a level of area of policy, have a consistent meaning for strategic authorities, constituent authorities and community-level groups. I will give some examples of possible confusion growing in the areas cited in new clause 35. We have a strategic road network, which is in fact a national network managed by National Highways. We have new strategic authorities, which will have to manage a key route network, analogous to the Transport for London route network. We also have local roads managed by local authorities. In the Bill, however, we have strategic authorities being asked to make a local transport plan. That could be more helpfully named a strategic transport plan. Another area of policy I am very familiar with is the community infrastructure levy. In later clauses, we will discuss new applications of the mayoral community infrastructure levies. I have experience of how, more locally, spending on what most local councils call strategic community infrastructure levies is done by local authorities. Decisions on local CIL spending, which is what councils normally call is, are made closer to the community, often by ward councillors or neighbourhood forums.<span id="100" class="column-number" data-column-number="100"></span> We are slightly better off in planning, where there is a national basis for decisions on nationally significant infrastructure, and where strategic planning applications may be called in by regional strategic level mayors under current or new structures. However I do think that we lack rigour, sometimes logic, and often clarity in all these terms now. More thought about making things more standardised and easier to understand would be very welcome. I am not proposing a vote on this new clause, but what I would like to hear from the Minister today is that she will take this away, ask for at least a report on the current range of terminology we have ended up with in different areas of policy, and consider potential further amendments and the fuller review the new clause calls for.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
I beg to move amendment 261, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, after “economic development”, insert “, poverty and socio-economic inequality,” <em>This amendment would make poverty and socio-economic inequality an area of competence for devolved authorities, ensuring they can take action to address the root causes of disadvantage in their areas.</em>
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
The amendment relates to the fact that the new strategic authorities simply must be tasked with reducing inequality as well as creating growth. We know that growth for growth’s sake does not trickle down or help everyone equally. The strategic authorities must be tasked with understanding, measuring and reducing <span id="101" class="column-number" data-column-number="101"></span>socioeconomic inequality. The socioeconomic duty in the Equality Act 2010 is not yet commenced for England, but if it were the amendment would have to be made. The amendment would make poverty and socioeconomic inequality an area of competence for devolved authorities, ensuring they can take action to address the root causes of disadvantage in their areas. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty and inequality, this is an issue close to my heart. In July, the officers and I sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Women and Equalities to ask about the urgency of commencing the socioeconomic duty. We said, “The urgent need for the duty could not be clearer. Rising child destitution, increasing reliance on foodbanks and untimely excess deaths attributable to austerity policies all highlight the imperative for a legal tool to reduce socio-economic inequalities”. We also said, “Activation of the Socio-Economic Duty marks an important shift from piecemeal responses to rising poverty and widening inequalities, to a proactive systemic approach, embedded across all policy areas”. The Bill is an opportunity to embed those principles. I do not believe that these two actions—the commencement of the duty and the writing of this Bill—are mutually exclusive in achieving these goals. I cannot see why, given the Government’s promise to enact the duty, the new bodies should not be set up with it in place and in mind. I know that organisations including many local authorities are already preparing to comply with it in England. Towards the end of last year, one of my Green party colleagues on the London Assembly questioned the Mayor of London with some urgency about the work that he is doing with local authorities and agencies across London to prepare for this. We are now approaching the end of this year and it is still not in place. I believe that the Bill is the right place to start putting this into legislation. I do not plan to push the amendment to a vote, but I would like to hear more from the Minister about when the Labour Government plan to bring the duty into force, and what plans Ministers have to use a statutory instrument to apply it to strategic authorities and mayors. Even if they will not accept the amendment, I would appreciate anything on the record asking those bodies to get ready for the duty, so that when they are set up, they can hit the ground running on addressing poverty and inequality in their areas.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. <em>Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.</em> <em>Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.</em> Clause 3 Single foundation strategic authorities
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting)
I want to express my sympathy with the amendments related to the Isle of Wight. It is not miles away from the area that I represent, Brighton Pavilion. I know many people there who are similarly proud of their distinct identity. I note that the name for the new combined authority that will envelop Brighton is “Sussex and Brighton”. If it is good enough for us, it is good enough for the Isle of Wight.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
I rise to speak to new clause 48, tabled in my name. I also want to raise another issue for consideration by the Minister at a future stage. In clause 6, the new rules for mayoral combined authorities give simple majority voting for relevant decisions by bodies to adopt budgets or policies, such as spatial development strategies, local transport plans and other strategies set out elsewhere in the Bill. For example, schedule 2 outlines that “a resolution to adopt the strategy is to be made by a simple majority of the constituent members present and voting”. There are other rules to do with a tied vote. I think that the Bill should also amend the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to give simple majority voting for decisions by the London Assembly on the budget and mayoral strategies of the Mayor of London. That is for consistency of decision making across the different authorities and bodies, and for fairness to London’s democracy. Along with many Opposition Members, this is something that I have wanted for some time now, as I was a member of the London Assembly in my previous job. In these Committee debates I will frequently bring up examples from my long experience of being part of an effective scrutiny body in a devolved authority at the strategic level—I feel that I have a good handle on how it works. Using “a simple majority” is the right way to go about this. The Minister has talked about building consensus and working in partnership. I really value it when cross-party working can result in genuine dialogue, with mayors that will listen and make changes, and bodies scrutinising or working with them to put forward their own ideas and have them taken up. Those are all <span id="145" class="column-number" data-column-number="145"></span>really healthy things for our democracy. New clause 48 would simply amend the parts of the 1999 Act that outline how the Assembly votes. Currently, the Act requires at least a two-thirds majority for any changes to be made, and the new clause would instead insert the words “a simple majority”. It is a very simple change, which the Minister should consider. The second issue I want to raise relates to forward plans, which are incredibly useful for the general public, or anyone who wants to influence mayoral decisions and the decisions of combined authorities or local authorities. At the moment, only local authorities have this particular requirement written into law, under the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, which clearly set out how key decisions are to be included in forward plans. I am not talking about planning decisions but key decisions, as set out in the schemes of delegation. Those forward plans are required to be published in advance, so that people who want to influence or scrutinise those decisions can bid to change them, or for things to be taken into account at the appropriate time. Again, this certainly comes out of my experience in the London Assembly. It unanimously passed a motion in 2022 that was put forward by one of the Liberal Democrat members and me, which said that the Mayor of London should publish a forward plan. However, he did not agree to do that, as he said that he was complying with everything in legislation; so the answer seems to be for legislation to require both the Mayor of London and these new combined authority mayors to publish a forward plan along the same lines. Looking at the 2012 regulations, it would be very simple to change the current wording, “local authorities”, to “strategic and local authorities”, if the Minister wanted. I also point the Committee to the excellent report published last month by the GLA oversight committee, a cross-party committee currently chaired by a Labour member of the London Assembly. It makes exactly the same request: for a forward plan of key mayoral decisions to be put into the 1999 Act. Because of the complexities of the different regulations, I have not tabled an amendment for such a change, but I hope the Minister would consider the question of effective scrutiny of these new bodies and the ability to influence them. I hope she could potentially come forward with a new clause at a later stage for us.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
It is notable that recently the London Assembly has, on a number of occasions, made constructive changes to the mayor’s budget at stage one of budget setting, which have simply been overturned at the second stage. This tendency, I think, is part of the growing need for a change in the threshold.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
I want to participate in this debate, despite having not tabled any amendments. I am grateful to the Members who have done so. The issue of commissioners is interesting. It is also interesting that the Government have chosen this model to codify in the Bill. From my experience, I believe that the London model of how this is done is far ahead of other combined or strategic authorities that already exist, and of the Government’s imagination in terms of the Bill. London Assembly members are used to having the equivalent of commissioners—deputy mayors—to scrutinise. The Assembly members do that effectively, not only by asking the deputy mayors questions and making them accountable, but also by providing them with evidence and new ideas, and by highlighting problems across the strategic area. Many effective changes have been brought through in that way. However, to have those kinds of commissioners without that level of scrutiny is a mistake. In that respect, I am not in favour, and I am not convinced by the argument from my Liberal Democrat colleagues that people who are separately responsible for running services—many of them statutory services—and who have a lot of other responsibilities and duties in the constituent part of the strategic area are the right people to be given those kinds of roles. It is a really interesting question. I have also found that, aside from a very short period when a Green deputy mayor was appointed to serve under an independent mayor in London, most mayors seem to be allergic to appointing anyone from an opposition party to any of those roles. There are examples of independently minded, effective, delivery-focused people. Chris Boardman, in Manchester, was mentioned. However, <span id="155" class="column-number" data-column-number="155"></span>there does seem to be a party political element to the appointment of the roles, if the Minister and the Chair were to look at the record. In conclusion on this clause—and it will come up in relation to other parts of the Bill—we collectively need a wider discussion about scrutiny and governance of the new roles. Some of the comments earlier from the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner suggested that if we all got together in a room, we might be able to come up with a better idea than what is being proposed. I very much agree with that. There are things that we should be discussing. It was pointed out to us in evidence that we will lose something like 90% of our elected representation in certain areas. In certain parts of the country, people will end up with somewhat of a deficit of overall elected representatives—people to come to with casework. More should be looked at on whether or not a model more like the London Assembly could be adopted, where people are separately elected with strategic responsibilities. In London, there are constituency Assembly members, and Assembly members who are London-wide and take a more strategic view. Those are good models that have worked, and the Government and others should look at that. It is not up for debate today, but my new clause 15 proposes a review of scrutiny, which I will argue for later. When the Government come to look at this in review, which inevitably they will have to do, I hope they will look again at potentially having more directly elected—
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
I am attempting in my speech not to be too biased towards what I am used to, because that is a failing as well. We should discuss this in a very open way. Other new clauses I have tabled contain proposals for things such as a citizens assembly. We should look at international examples as well. When there are proposals to spend a significant amount of money on the commissioners, there is value in spending an appropriate amount on decent scrutiny and elected representatives. Again, I am biased—I am an elected representative. I think we are good value, but that is a case to be made. Finally, I cannot find any mention in schedule 3 about guidance that the Secretary of State may issue to commissioners about conduct, standards and transparency. I would like some reassurance from the Minister about guidance on those aspects of the job. Even if they are <span id="156" class="column-number" data-column-number="156"></span>not elected, they are accountable to the public and must be given a process and regime of standards, and potentially be brought into existing standards systems. Without scrutiny, standards and regulations to govern their behaviour, I worry about this in the same way as several other Members today have.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
Does the Minister believe that the people who are able to recommend that the commissioner be terminated have sufficient ways to discover whether or not they should be?
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
I had not previously heard the Conservatives’ argument on this issue, and I have to say that I disagree. The Minister said that the original intention of the policy was to allow for a wide range of precepting, and if there is one thing that directly elected mayors are really accountable for, it is the level of precept that they set. I am in favour of creativity in conversations with the electorate about what initiatives, appropriate to the local area, might be funded by precept on a short-term basis or just in the local area. The way that the provision is set up allows mayors to be properly accountable for that. I worry less about it resulting in huge tax rises without consent, because consent is built in at election time. I appreciate the concerns about austerity continuing in councils that are underneath and part of the combined authority if mayors are taking up available taxpaying powers. In every debate in this Committee, I would love to bring up the fact that all this reorganisation is happening in the absence of an end to austerity. The Government need to provide more funding to local councils so that this is not all being taken in council tax, which is a very unfair tax.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
I agree with the principle of not having too many people able to do double-hatting, but it is a fact that there have been overlapping periods when mayors of different combined authorities and London have also been MPs, either at the beginning or end of their term. That has been dealt with in a pragmatic way, with nobody overextending those kinds of double-hatted jobs. As I understand it, and I would like the Minister to clarify this, writing this rule into statute would mean that, while nobody would be prevented from campaigning to be a mayor or an MP while in either of these jobs, at the moment they are elected, the situation then becomes illegal. An instant resignation takes place on that day. There would be immense disruption across a wide area—perhaps not so much for one constituency, as we have got used to having by-elections for various reasons, but in holding a mayoral by-election. I wanted to check whether the Government’s intentions here, in making that resignation statutory and instant, are not a bit too much, when these issues have been previously worked out. Does there need to be more detail in the clause to allow for a transition period?
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting)
I appreciate that, but these are two things in different directions. A sitting mayor who becomes an MP would need to resign as mayor that day, given what the Minister has just outlined for us. A mayoral by-election across a large area is a much bigger thing than a parliamentary by-election, and I am not sure that making it instantly statutorily illegal has been properly thought through.
- Hansard source
Warm Home Discount: Fuel Poverty
Nearly 3 million households in the UK live in fuel poverty. At the same time, a recent report from the Common Wealth think-tank told us that energy company profits average about a quarter of everybody’s bills. In the last few years, £70 billion has been paid to shareholders, instead of being reinvested or used to help tackle fuel poverty. Will the Minister commit to tackling those energy company profits by taxing them fairly and reinvesting the money in the urgent work that is needed—for example, through the warm homes plan—to tackle the scourge of fuel poverty in our country?
- Hansard source
Middle East
I warmly welcome the ceasefire and was deeply moved, as I am sure we all were, by the scenes of Israeli and Palestinian families being reunited yesterday. One Palestinian prisoner who has not been released is Mr Marwan Barghouti, a <span id="234" class="column-number" data-column-number="234"></span>Member of the Palestinian Legislative Council who has been in prison since 2002. He did not have a fair trial and was subject to human rights abuses. What representations have the Government made in the past few days to secure the release of Mr Barghouti, given his widespread popularity as a unifying voice for Palestinian rights, dignity and freedom, and therefore his potential crucial role in securing a meaningful and lasting peace in the region?
- Hansard source
Carbon Budget Delivery Plan
<Question HRSContentId="{D79141F3-F1C5-4BE4-AC1E-72EB5E6032A8}">10. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{2066119C-473D-4A13-AE29-472A3C627D71}">What steps he is taking to ensure the forthcoming carbon budget delivery plan includes measures to financially support people on low and middle incomes.</QuestionText> </Question>
- Hansard source
Carbon Budget Delivery Plan
I welcome the Minister to her new position and thank her for her answer. I know how much she will want the new carbon budget delivery plan to reflect the scale of ambition required while ensuring that the poorest are not asked to pay the price, and also to signal that it is an absolute priority across Government. Can she assure us that the new plan will not just be slipped out, but will be launched properly and, crucially, with the Prime Minister?
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I am not sure, however many examples the Secretary of State gives of other countries, that she will convince the people of Britain that mandatory ID cards fit with our particular values. Will she listen to the millions who signed the parliamentary petition, as well as to the fighting Yorkshireman Harry Willcock and the Churchill Government of 1952, who considered the abolition of ID cards an important symbol of a society that trusted its citizens?
- Hansard source
Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility
I thank the Select Committee Chair very much for the report’s conclusions, particularly the call on the Government to consider a secure legal footing for safer drug consumption facilities. From the discussions that have been had, does she have any sense of the chances of a lesser legal mechanism from the Attorney General to give comfort in relation to the risk of prosecution for people using and running such facilities in England and Wales?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Winter is coming, and nearly 3 million households are living in fuel poverty, which is an absolute scandal. The long-awaited warm homes plan cannot come soon enough, but given that previous piecemeal programmes prioritised private profit and left us without the changes that our constituents so desperately need, will the Secretary of State commit to funding a public body to co-ordinate, monitor and evaluate a nationwide programme of home insulation to hold cowboy builders—cowboy contractors—to account and deliver energy savings for all?
- Hansard source
Manchester Terrorism Attack
The Green party stands shoulder to shoulder in cross-party solidarity with the victims and survivors of the horrific attack on the Heaton Park synagogue. I pay particular tribute to those who put their lives at risk to bring the attack to a swift stop. The Home Secretary has today spoken passionately and personally about the fight against the scourge of antisemitism being the same as the fight against any form of prejudice, and I very much welcome that. I am sure she will agree that it is essential to say loudly, clearly and unequivocally that prejudice, hatred or violence against Jewish people is totally unacceptable in our country, and will not be tolerated. The Home Secretary has used this opportunity—this moment—to announce further restrictions on protest, which, I confess, do concern me. Important points have been raised in the Chamber today regarding radicalisation within online spaces. Will the Home Secretary ensure <span id="55" class="column-number" data-column-number="55"></span>that every policy measure she takes is focused on building solidarity between communities and countering division in our country?
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{84E4BCC3-AAC8-4D06-A792-015E4668B0F7}"> </QNum></strong> I want to press you slightly on the make-up of audit committees. Mr Davies said that it was not for him to say, but given the varied make-up of councils across the country, I do not think it would be too hard for you to say that an opposition councillor could be the chair, or something along those lines. In your experience, what makes a good audit committee? <em><strong>Gareth Davies:</strong></em> It is about the person and their skills and approach more than any office they hold or party they come from. You need the right approach and the right skills to do a good job. I have seen elected politicians fulfil that role brilliantly. The reason I said what I said is that I am a bit suspicious of anything that says, for example, “We must have an independent chair who is not a member of the council.” The audit committee is there to be part of the council’s governance arrangements. If it is too independent of the council, it does not engage with the machinery of running the council or influence the decision makers sufficiently, in my experience. If it is entirely made up of members who, with the best will in the world, do not have the skills required to perform a role that sometimes has technical elements, that model also has weaknesses. The best models I have seen consist of a cross-party committee of members who are very interested in getting value for money for the taxpayer and ensuring that controls are operating properly across the council, and in ensuring that the council is maintaining public trust; you need people with those kind of motivations, supplemented with some independent membership. The chair does not necessarily have to come from that independent membership, but it must be somebody who is prepared to read all the accounts and ask difficult questions about why a surprising number has appeared out of nowhere. That is why I would not be prescriptive. You need a mix of skills around the table and the committee must be connected to the leadership of the council, so that difficult messages coming out of the audits are relayed to the decision makers, raised in full council if necessary, <span id="64" class="column-number" data-column-number="64"></span>and certainly raised with the executive or the mayor. That linkage needs to be clear and fully operational for it to work properly. <em><strong>Bill Butler:</strong></em> That is not different—
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{6D6C4EC5-2802-4E82-8F78-B5D3E03FD84D}"> </QNum></strong> Could each of you lay out what you think are the benefits of the Bill from a planning perspective? Are there lessons from London? We just listened to John Denham talking about how there is a gap at London level below the unitaries, but there is nothing in the Bill that is changing the way the boroughs are, and maybe that works; maybe it does not. Can you tell us more about that? <em><strong>Richard Hebditch:</strong></em> I think the Bill could be a very powerful tool from a planning point of view. The ability to co-ordinate across housing, transport and planning is really important. As in the London model, which obviously you know very well, that can be very powerful. One thing that is interesting with the Bill is the comparison with London’s accountability. What has been really important in London is the fact that you have the directly elected Assembly, committee structures with powers, and active civil society and media. There is also the statutory passenger watchdog in London, London TravelWatch, of which I am a board member. There is a developed infrastructure to scrutinise what the strategic authority and the mayor do, and that is important. Particularly given the increased powers there will be for strategic authorities elsewhere to call in planning applications and have mayoral development bodies, it is important to have that level of accountability.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)
Naomi, do you have anything to add? <em><strong>Naomi Luhde-Thompson:</strong></em> I could mention a little bit about public participation, but I do not know if you have a question on that later.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{C14E0AA4-3E90-49CD-8EF4-5382523C5F07}"> </QNum></strong> Others might. I want to move to duties. We see duties for health and health inequalities in the Bill already. Are there any other duties that you would like to see added, potentially in Committee or at the next stage? <em><strong>Richard Hebditch:</strong></em> As I mentioned, these are potentially very powerful bodies, as the Bill collects powers and duties from other legislation, rather than being a stand-alone piece of legislation. The health duty is potentially important. We would like to see duties around climate and nature. Those are long-term issues; they are not the kinds of things where, as a mayor or an authority, you are under short-term pressure—or, necessarily, pressure from central Government—to deliver, but they are really important. In the collection of duties from elsewhere—on local transport plans, for example—there are duties to have <span id="78" class="column-number" data-column-number="78"></span>regard to national policy, but not in terms of the exercise of your functions, so these strategic authorities will be powerful delivery bodies in their own right, not simply as plan-making and strategy bodies, which makes it important to have those climate and nature duties as well. <em><strong>Naomi Luhde-Thompson:</strong></em> The Labour Government in Wales introduced a different format in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—a public authority duty. It has a series of goals, and each public authority has to carry out those duties in relation to their functions. I should declare that I am a member of the Eryri national park authority, so I have a very close view of how this is actually carried out. It comes to the point about where the public interest is in the proposals in front of us. There is growth and a bit about health, but where is the public interest? It does not seem to me to be properly explained or described in the Bill that this is all about delivering on the public interest—what is the Government’s role in doing that? There is a bit of confusion between the two Bills. Look at the health duty in this Bill and then look at the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which is obviously in the Lords at the moment. There is no consultation for health groups in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but there is a health duty on the combined county authority. It is just not connected. On the spatial development strategies, it is not particularly mentioned as a group, but there is a duty on the CCA, so it is really important to examine the connection between the two a bit more closely.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{93EC7F79-A81E-4831-9BEE-7CDEACB46C3E}"> </QNum></strong> Minister, has today’s evidence shown a gap opening up, with the simultaneous creation of unitaries alongside these new mayoral bodies, in terms of real professional scrutiny, accountability and actual checks on these powerful new bodies between elections? In particular, will you look again at resourcing the scrutiny of the mayors and bringing in opposition-led scrutiny, which is what has existed successfully and constructively in London for 25 years now?<span id="90" class="column-number" data-column-number="90"></span> <em><strong>Miatta Fahnbulleh:</strong></em> We recognise that, if you like, the scrutiny landscape is not as it should be, which is why some of the measures that we are driving through the Bill try to address that. We are moving at pace and creating institutions at pace—we recognise that and do not resile from it. We are doing so because we looked at the inheritance and were not pleased with it, so we thought that we had better make some progress in the time that we have. However, it is absolutely the case that strong, accountable leaders are only as strong and accountable as the scrutiny institutions that you build around them. I think they have emerged organically in some instances, but we hope to use the Bill to create more structure around that so that alongside—hopefully—powerful mayors and powerful local authorities, we have that scrutiny function in place. Again, we will learn from what is working well and we will look at how we build on what is working well.
- Hansard source
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Second sitting)
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{646B90C4-485C-4C3B-A72A-29D63FABFD07}"> </QNum></strong> My question was about resourcing. Have you had assurance that you will get some resources for this? <em><strong>Miatta Fahnbulleh:</strong></em> Resourcing is a challenge across the piece. As we think about the structures that we are creating, we are also thinking about how we build capacity, because if we do not do that, we will create structures that will not be effective, which is not the outcome that we are trying to achieve.
- Hansard source
Children with SEND: Assessments and Support
I thank all the people who signed this petition, including 202 in my constituency, as well as the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for presenting it today. We all recognise the challenges in the system. Far too many families are let down, and I hear from them all the time in my inbox and surgeries, as do Members on both sides of the House. We face a huge challenge. Indeed, in my constituency, we have a larger proportion of children with recognised special educational needs but lower-than-average education funding. The challenges are huge, and the deficit in my council looks like it will go up from around £6 million last year to £40 million next year. These are councils, systems and families at crisis point. I recognise that the Government are trying to square a very difficult circle with the White Paper they are seeking to bring forward, but fundamentally, the voices of the children and young people, and of the families and those who work most closely with them, are most important. I ask the Minister to confirm: will she ensure that those voices are at the centre of every part of the <span id="483WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="483WH"></span>plan that the Government set out? Will she defend the rights of those children who have benefited from being able to get EHCPs? Families have told me that their children are now thriving because of the support that they have. Will she defend the rights of children who are currently not accessing support, and ensure that they have what they need, whether that is specialist provision or integration into the mainstream?
- Hansard source
Children with SEND: Assessments and Support
I absolutely recognise that. That is who I meant when I talked about the people who work most closely with these children and young people—the teachers and educators who support them. In my constituency, numerous children have to travel out of county to get the support they need, and numerous teachers are frustrated and tearing their hair out because they do not have the resources needed. There are fantastic examples of excellent SEND provision in my constituency, including in mainstream settings, as well as excellent examples of special schools. We all recognise, however, that there are nowhere near enough state-funded special school places.
- Hansard source
Children with SEND: Assessments and Support
A key part of that is about ensuring there is more state-run special school provision. As the hon. Member for South Cotswolds mentioned, the evidence shows that independent school places cost about two and a half times more than state special school places. We need investment to expand state educational provision so that we can get more bang for our buck in what we are providing for our children. On that topic, I would like to ask the Minister about special school places specifically. Last May, the Department for Education announced that Herefordshire had succeeded in its bid for a new special school with 80 places for children with autistic spectrum disorder and severe learning difficulties, but we have heard nothing further since. Will the Minister confirm whether we can count on that funding coming forward soon, and will she outline the timetable for it? We need to ensure a fair system across the country. I am making a bid for resources for North Herefordshire, but we need to sort out fairness across the entire country. We need to end the postcode lottery in which people have a better chance of accessing support in some places than others, and end the problem of people having to jump through extraordinary hoops and fight unbelievable battles to access the support that should be every child’s birthright. We need a system that enables every child to thrive, and I hope that the Minister will outline how to achieve that.<span id="484WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="484WH"></span>
- Hansard source
Provision of Council Housing
Given that 1.3 million households are on council housing waiting lists, and given the previous Labour commitments to tackling the social housing crisis that he presented, does the hon. Member agree that it is extraordinary that the Minister has repeatedly refused to set a target for social housing? The Government think that setting a target for building any type of housing will address the housing crisis, but they are failing to address the specific problem of building social housing.
- Hansard source
Provision of Council Housing
Given that the Minister feels that social housing is so important, can he explain why he will not set a target for it?
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
I thank my fellow members and the Chairs of the Public Bill Committee for the work they did; I felt work on the Committee was very constructive from the different Opposition Members. It followed some very constructive amendments that were made and agreed in the other place, too, including on villages and vision zero for road danger. I was sad to see so many good ideas defeated and removed in Committee. I think this issue crosses party boundaries; it should be about practicalities, not party politics. On road danger, I am pleased to have tabled new clauses 41, 42 and 43, with support from members of the RMT, which seek to improve safety through driver support and wellbeing. These measures are all necessary to achieve vision zero for road danger for our buses. I am full of support for new clause 2 and other measures that seek to remove time restrictions on concessionary bus passes. Having these time restrictions <span id="973" class="column-number" data-column-number="973"></span>is a major disincentive to working. The Government cannot keep dodging this contradiction in their stated policies, and must act to enable disabled people’s mobility and enact real equality. Young people, too, have received attention with the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and in Liberal Democrat measures. I myself have tabled new clause 44, which seeks simply to enact a policy that is already in place in Scotland in order to give free bus travel to anyone under the age of 22. Today, however, I want to advocate mainly for clean air, as the promoter of the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill—Ella’s law—and for toilet access to be taken seriously by Government in relation to buses. My amendments 62 and 64 would help to fix those policy gaps. The clauses in the Bill on zero emission buses seem to block the highest ambition by not setting the earliest date for a mandate on new procurement of zero emission buses until 2030. That is a really long time still to be buying dirty, diesel-powered buses. It is extremely poor when dirty air is a killer, and when in certain streets and hotspots—often where the least advantaged live—cleaner buses can make a real difference and it is in the gift of public authorities to deal with it. I believe that the Mayor of London and Transport for London began procuring zero emission buses only as long ago as 2021. Given that some London routes are very long indeed, such buses could be introduced in other areas much sooner. With the right help and investment, the infrastructure could be built and good, green jobs could be filled, as implied by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank). I have yet to hear good reasons from Ministers why the clause is so tragically unenterprising. Another vital issue of equality is ensuring that access to toilets features in local transport plans for bus infrastructure and facilities. This is the ideal time for me to be talking about this topic; I apologise to Members who have also been in the debate for a while. As Age UK said in January in its delightfully named “Lifting the lid” report, for older people, those with health conditions and many others, the availability of public toilets can determine whether they feel able to leave their homes. It is basic equality of mobility. My Green colleagues on the London Assembly are famously very persuasive. Working with groups including Age UK, they have gained consensus and won investment, and targets have been set for toilet access on the tube network—toilets should be no more than 20 minutes of travel time away. The Minister talked about creating more accessible stopping places. That kind of standard access to essential toilet facilities on bus routes would enable mobility, and it is so achievable. I hope that Ministers will listen and take these proposals forward in their work.