Manuela Perteghella MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Jun 2026 · Road Safety: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. I would like the county council to focus on what really matters to our residents, rather than spending its first six months in power deciding which flag should fly on which flagpole or talking about other culture war policies. I received an email from a visitor to my constituency who had hit a pothole, which thankfully had not resulted in a crash, but his car had been badly damaged. Now he is in conversation with the county council. This is not good for residents, or for our local visitor economy. The council needs to get a grip on the state of the roads, which obviously contributes to these dangers. In rural constituencies such as mine, speeding through villages is the norm. Speed limits of 30 mph mean very little when there is no enforcement to back them up. Our country lanes carry cars, lorries, farm vehicles and cyclists, and collision blackspots are all too common. Narrow roads prevent us from having things like chicanes or narrowings, because large farm vehicles obviously need to use the road as well. Street lights are also an issue when we have many dark sky villages. Rural communities feel abandoned due to the lack of police officers and, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) just mentioned, the lack of power for local councils, as well as the lack of attention from Government. I will focus on some locations in my constituency, but the list is not exhaustive. Rather, it is illustrative of the road safety issues that we all have in the west midlands. One example that I want to put on record is the junction where the A422 Banbury Road meets the B4455 Fosse Way, just east of the village of Ettington. Every day, drivers, cyclists, bikers and farm workers navigate a junction that should never have been designed the way it was. I have been calling on the Department to step in and engage with Warwickshire county council to ensure that this junction gets the full safety review and redesign that it so urgently needs. People have already paid the price for the failure to act. There are many other dangerous junctions, including Oakleigh Road and Justins Avenue, off the Birmingham Road in Stratford-upon-Avon, with residents reporting near-misses and, sadly, crashes too. I have had meetings with National Highways about the Billesley junction on the A46, but we are still waiting for improvements to that junction, where several fatalities have already happened.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Road Safety: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, at the heart of this debate is changing the culture from local government to national Government. We need to have education and behavioural change, and I will say a bit about that, but the culture also needs to change. We need to be proactive, and we can be, because only then will we save lives. Speeding near schools an issue. The children of Mappleborough Green primary school have written to me as they are experiencing fear and anxiety when crossing and walking along a very busy road that still has a 40 mph limit. We have a 40 mph limit outside a primary school. We are not getting any support in keeping those young children safe on their journey to school—and I am not even going to touch on the air pollution that the children are experiencing. What does the Minister say to those children? Constituents have contacted me about speeding on the A3400 through Wootton Wawen village, which is making it difficult for elderly residents to cross the road to go to the post office or the shops and, again, for children to go to school. As the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) mentioned, we need a shift from reactive to proactive enforcement. We need that cultural shift. We cannot keep waiting for collisions to occur and then investigate the wreckage.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Road Safety: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. With the new national road safety strategy we have a real opportunity to ensure that we reduce serious injuries and deaths on the roads. I hope the Government will take into consideration our views and the responses to the consultation, and will ensure that the guidance is updated so that we are not acting after a fatality, because that is too late. It is too late for the families and for the young drivers who might have crashed—it is lives destroyed. Also, we cannot have a speed reduction policy that is based on how fast the cars are travelling, rather than on the dangers they pose to road users, including children walking to school or elderly residents crossing the road to get to the post office, the shop or their GP. We must identify the risks before lives are lost and intervene accordingly. That is the change in culture that Members have mentioned, and the change in policy that the Government must now commit to. There must be cultural change at council level, too, as currently there is a reactive culture in which interventions are made only if there is a history of road traffic accidents, and locations with recorded collisions, especially collisions resulting in injury, are prioritised. County highways authorities often use the speed that most drivers do not exceed as data to judge whether a road has a speeding problem, but interventions should not be based on how fast drivers are driving. We need a change to the Department for Transport guidance, which also seems to reinforce reactive behaviour, especially on speed limits. I look forward to hearing about that from the Minister. A constituent in Bidford-on-Avon—one of my villages—told me recently: “Current analysis shows that 63% of cars exceed the speed limit through the village.” I raised this situation with the local police force, which told me that 35 mph is the enforceable limit—but why? The charity Brake says that a pedestrian hit at 30 mph has a one in five chance of being killed, rising to one in three if they are hit at 35 mph. Children can be killed at 30 mph, so why are we waiting to enforce at 35 mph instead of 30 mph?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Road Safety: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree with the hon. Member’s points. With the road safety strategy consultation and review, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make changes to the culture and assess the situation. If we want to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads, we need to be bold and make sure that local authorities have better, bolder guidance on interventions for urban as well as rural areas. For example, every time I ask for cameras, I am told that there have to have been five fatalities. There had to be been one fatality when I started campaigning for road safety in my village. I could not cross my road with my children—holding a little one by the hand and pushing the pram—so I started campaigning on road safety measures in my village. I was told, “You need to wait for five fatalities before automatic number plate recognition cameras are installed.”

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  For my constituency, the King’s Speech was underwhelming; a timid affair, not the radical bold change our country needs right now. In the previous parliamentary Session, my constituents were promised change and a Government focused on growth. Instead, we have the farm tax for those producing our food and a job tax for our local businesses that impedes the very same growth. In Stratford-on-Avon, one of the key industries is hospitality and tourism, which is why I have long called for better rail and bus connectivity for my constituency, and why I will continue to press for it today. Stratford-upon-Avon is still without a direct train to London and has no reliable or direct late-night rail service to Birmingham. We are also without adequate bus connections between our rural towns and villages. The Government claim that their top priority is growth, but how is our local economy supposed to grow without adequate public transport infrastructure to get people to their places of work, and to get young people to college and other places of learning or to their first job? Stratford is home to one of the finest theatre companies anywhere in the world, the Royal Shakespeare Company, and the home of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, yet it is difficult for people to visit us. This leaves local businesses to suffer. Our hospitality and nightlife industry is being starved, and it is young people who are paying the price most of all. Hospitality and tourism are young people’s industries. These are often the first jobs our young people take, the sector in which they build confidence, skills and careers. When those industries struggle, young people struggle with them. For constituencies such as Stratford-on-Avon, the creative industries are also central to our economy, our identity and our future. The Government see the sector as one of the eight growth-driving sectors in their industrial strategy, yet the reality is that the sector is already under immense pressure. For example, since our departure from the European Union, touring across Europe has become more difficult, more expensive and more bureaucratic than ever before for performers, musicians and arts and culture organisations, yet there has been little meaningful support from the Government for those industries or for the communities that depend on them. Brexit has made us all poorer. By clinging to red lines such as blocking a customs union and access to the single market, and dithering over a youth mobility scheme, the Government are locking Britain into higher prices and weaker growth, but most importantly they are letting our young people down. For that reason, I am again calling on the Government to: scrap the employer’s national insurance jobs tax; support local businesses by reforming the unfair business rate system; implement an emergency VAT cut for hospitality and leisure; and support our young people, our businesses and the creative sector with a bold, renewed EU-UK deal which includes a customs union, access to the single market and a youth mobility scheme. My constituents struggle with poor transport connectivity, but they also watch the condition of the Rivers Alne, Arrow, Avon and Stour deteriorate before their eyes. After recognising the failure of the Conservative Government to properly regulate water companies, this Government have quickly followed in their footsteps and allowed more than half a million sewage spills into rivers last year alone. My constituents have seen only rising water bills. They are paying through the nose to companies that do not respect the environment they live in. The clean water Bill will establish a new regulator. I call on the Government for that regulator to be a strong regulator with the power and determination to hold water companies properly to account and end the sewage scandal once and for all. The Government must also legislate to measure the volume, not just duration, of sewage spills, and strengthen powers for local authorities and communities to monitor river health. We need to place power in the hands of the people who most cherish the areas they are responsible for. People in Stratford-on-Avon deserve reliable transport, thriving businesses, opportunities for young people and a clean, protected natural environment. They deserve a Government willing to invest in rural communities, defend our waterways and stand up to failing companies where regulators have been asleep at the wheel. My constituents are tired of excuses, tired of sewage in their rivers, and tired of being treated as an afterthought. They want action and they deserve nothing less.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  A large part of my constituency’s economy depends on hospitality, tourism and our independent high streets. Those who run pubs, cafés, arts venues, restaurants and hotels are telling me that they are being squeezed from every direction, by higher employer national insurance, rising energy bills, and uncertainty over business rates relief. Does the Chancellor understand the damage that this is doing to communities like mine, and will she commit today to proper business rates reform and targeted support for hospitality and leisure?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Water (Special Measures) Act 2025: Enforcement · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, the River Avon and its tributaries are central to our natural environment and to leisure and tourism—the visitor economy. It is a disgrace that our waterways are still being polluted. Does my hon. Friend agree that water management data must be transparent, and that the Government must introduce monitoring of the volume, not just the duration, of sewage overspills?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Covid-19: Financial Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member, and I will get to that point. In Stratford-on-Avon and up and down the country, business owners ask a simple question: why were they excluded when they had paid tax for years? These were people running events businesses, training services or consultancies, freelancers in the arts, music or creative sectors, and small companies that formed the backbone of our local economy. That is the injustice that this debate seeks to address. It is important to say at the outset that we do not deny the scale or urgency of the Government’s response in March 2020. The coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme were introduced at a speed and on a scale never seen before. According to the House of Commons Library, the overall cost of covid-19 business support ran into tens of billions of pounds, and for many people and businesses it prevented immediate hardship and business collapse. That context matters, because it shows that the Government were capable of acting decisively, and that the state was capable of dealing with a suite of diverse and complex scenarios. The question is why, alongside that intervention, millions of people were left with nothing at all and simply abandoned. Around 3.8 million UK taxpayers were excluded from meaningful financial support during the pandemic—a figure supported by analysis from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the National Audit Office and research cited by the Library. They included company directors paid through dividends, newly self-employed people, new businesses, pay-as-you-earn freelancers, new starters, and those on maternity, adoption or parental leave or on carer’s allowance, whose circumstances placed them just outside rigid eligibility rules. They were a substantial part of the British workforce. The Government support schemes worked well for many, but excluded millions by design. The problem was not the absence of data, but the choice made about how that data would be used. Company directors paid through dividends were told that their income could not be verified, despite their submitting annual self-assessments, corporation tax returns and company accounts to Companies House. New businesses were excluded simply because they had not traded for long enough. Mixed-income workers were penalised for having diversified their earnings. These people were not invisible to the tax system, but they were invisible to the support schemes. The decision to exclude them was not an administrative necessity; it was a policy decision, and for that alone, the 3.8 million people left out must have an apology. These decisions are now rightly being examined by the UK covid-19 inquiry. Module 9, which focuses on the economic response, is considering how eligibility criteria were set, how fraud risk was assessed and how trade-offs were made between speed and fairness. That scrutiny is essential, because the consequences of exclusion were not abstract; they were human, financial and, in many cases, long-lasting. The inquiry must not simply catalogue what happened, but confront what it meant for those left outside the system.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a strong and thoughtful case. Does he agree that although the Act regulates user-to-user services, it leaves a significant gap around generative AI chatbots, despite the growing evidence of harm caused to children from private interaction with them? And does he share my concern that the speed at which this technology is developing risks outpacing the legislative framework that we have in place?

• 28 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I will speak to new clauses 12, 20, 52 and 59. New clause 12 stands in my name, new clause 20 in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), new clause 52 in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and new clause 59 in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). New clause 12 would give local councils a legal duty to oversee how land listed as a community asset is managed. That means that if the owner neglects or mismanages land of community value, the council can take powers to purchase compulsorily, take ownership and restore the land to community use, or to block planning changes that would further damage or undermine the land’s community value. Such powers are essential to protect local assets from being run down deliberately to justify redevelopment. By granting councils those powers, we enable them to hold absentee or speculative owners accountable and ensure that designated community assets are properly maintained and used for community benefit. We all have in our constituencies examples of land that has been mismanaged or assets left derelict. With the new clause, councils would become a genuine safeguard for assets of community value far beyond simply listing the assets. They would have real power to hold landowners and speculative developers to account. New clause 20 would give community groups and parish or town councils a legal right to apply to buy sports facilities such as playing fields, leisure centres, gyms or pitches that have been derelict for two or more years, managed in a way that harms their sporting value, or unreasonably made inaccessible to the public. If the council agrees that those criteria have been fulfilled, it will be able to facilitate negotiations for a sale. As we spoke about in a previous debate, the abolition of district councils means that town and parish councils will be asked to take on more assets. It is therefore important that the safeguards are in place and that the unitary councils support them. New clause 20 would save local sports facilities that have been locked up or left to decay by private owners by empowering local communities to bring them back into use. I had an example of that in my constituency a few years ago. A sports pavilion was built as part of the conditions for a new settlement, but it was locked—it was not used. When I became the councillor for the area, I asked why it was not open, and was told that the condition was to build a sports pavilion, not to manage it. The community managed to get the sports pavilion opened, and it is now a fantastic community hub and café, but it took a lot of campaigning from the community and parish councils, lots of grant applications and so on. It is important that we give councils all the tools they need. It is not fair that local sporting heritage and public access to sports facilities are lost due to neglect, speculation or profit-driven redevelopment. The new clause would put power back into the hands of communities to reclaim their pitches, courts, clubs and sports pavilions, and to keep sport where it belongs—in public hands and for the public good. New clause 52 would create a new category complementary to assets of community value: assets of negative community value. Those would be properties or land that encourage, for example, antisocial behaviour, cause harm or disruption to community wellbeing, or have been vacant and derelict for at least three years with no attempt at restoration. I am sure we all have such assets in our constituencies. I can think of a couple in mine. Once the assets are listed, local authorities could take steps to secure temporary management or community stewardship. That would also contribute to wider community wellbeing. The councils could invite community groups to propose new uses or use compulsory purchase orders to bring the assets back into productive community use. New clause 52 would also allow local authorities to tackle eyesore or nuisance buildings that attract crime or vandalism. It is a way to contribute to the sense of place. We could speed up regeneration by giving councils and communities tools to deal with long-term neglect. New clause 59 would give local councils greater power to protect and manage land that has been officially recognised as being of community value, such as local parks, playing fields, pubs or community halls. If a council found that such land was being mismanaged, it would have the power to compulsorily purchase it or, again, to refuse planning changes. The new clause would strengthen community protections against speculative neglect and misuse of valued local assets. For example, it would stop landowners from deliberately running down community buildings, green spaces or sports facilities so that they can later argue for redevelopment. The new clause would make councils stewards of community assets, rather than just record keepers of a list. It would give real teeth to the community right to buy, which obviously is welcome, and to the assets of community value system, which is set out in the Bill. Overall, our new clauses would expand community rights and local authority powers from just protecting community assets by listing them to actively reclaiming and repurposing land that has been neglected or misused. We feel that the new clauses are drafted in the spirit of the community empowerment aspect of the Bill. They aim to strengthen local control and community ownership, especially where private ownership fails the public interest.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the petitioners for bringing this important issue before Parliament. Having a baby should never be what pushes a family into financial hardship. But for too many new parents, statutory maternity and paternity pay simply do not meet the basic cost of living. In my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, many parents work in sectors such as hospitality, tourism and the creative industries, where income can be seasonal or irregular. I often hear from constituents who simply cannot afford to take the time they need to recover after childbirth or to bond with their baby. That is not only unfair, but shortsighted both socially and economically. Every parent should have genuine flexibility and choice in those first crucial months.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendments 250 and 251 would protect the right of local residents to be properly informed about decisions that affect them by retaining the statutory requirement for public notices to be published in printed local newspapers. Amendment 251 would ensure that the newspaper in which notices are printed is truly local, relevant and published at regular intervals. The legal requirement to print notices in local newspapers must remain to protect transparency and local accountability. That is the baseline. Printed notices are still one of the main ways in which residents, including hundreds of my constituents, find out about planning applications, road closures, licensing changes and other council decisions. We cannot restrict the dissemination of important public notices that directly affect the lives of residents just to the online world and social media. In my rural constituency of Stratford-on-Avon not everyone is online, and we have discussed the challenges for rural and isolated communities to even have broadband or wi-fi connectivity. I told the Minister that this week I had students who had to go to cafés in town to revise for their GCSEs, because they could not get a signal in their homes. Older rural residents are often digitally excluded, and many struggle with internet access. In those areas lucky enough to still have them, local newspapers have a very important role to play in holding local government to account. On top of publishing statutory notices, they report on local democracy and help to keep communities informed and engaged. The amendments will also help local journalism, which relies in part on statutory advertising income, to survive. Amendment 251 is important because it adds a definition to make it clear that at least one of the newspapers used must actually be local, published regularly and distributed, whether paid-for or free, in the local area. The amendments will guarantee that public notices reach the people affected, and reinforce the principle that information should be accessible, inclusive, local, useful and timely. A person who is not online will not know that, for example, the road between their house and their GP will be closed on a day they have to attend an appointment. There will be unintended consequences. Together, the amendments keep community engagement open to everyone, not just those who have broadband connectivity. I was very surprised to see the removal of public notices in print newspapers in the Bill.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendments 40 to 42 and 249 seek to improve how the assets of community value system works in practice. Amendment 40 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded to carry out assessments of whether land is a sporting asset of community value. Amendment 41 makes the same point on valuations, and amendment 42 would require local authorities, as far as reasonably practicable, to support the preferred community buyer in securing the purchase of land of community value. Finally, amendment 249 would ensure that community value does not stop mattering once a planning application is lodged by allowing the Secretary of State to issue guidance requiring the planners and His Majesty’s Planning Inspectorate to give special consideration to land of community value when making decisions. Amendment 40, which would make sure that local councils are properly funded when assessing whether land is a sporting asset of community value, is vital in identifying and assessing sporting assets. It must not be a simple tick-box exercise, because evidence has to be gathered and local groups have to be consulted, and competing claims between landowners and residents often have to be resolved. This can be done only with time, specialist knowledge, consultants and often site visits, all of which cost money. As we know all too well, and as the Minister has reminded us today, many councils are already stretched thin. Without additional funding, there is a very real risk that this new protection for sporting assets will be inconsistent or, at worst, non-existent. For the same reasons, amendment 41 would require adequate central funding for land valuations. If councils cannot afford them, communities face delay and uncertainty and opportunities are lost. Adequate central funding would make the process faster, fairer and more consistent across the country. With this financial support in place, more communities will be able to come together to make a bid for their grassroots sports clubs and other important cultural assets in their communities. Amendment 42 goes to the heart of community empowerment, requiring councils as far as is reasonably possible to support the preferred community buyer by guiding them through the process and helping them to gain access to expert advice and funding. Right now communities have the right to bid, but they are left on their own; this amendment would turn that right into success. Amendment 249 would ensure that community value is not ignored in the planning system. At present, even a listed community site can be granted planning permission for demolition or redevelopment; it is my understanding that there is nothing in regulations to ensure that consideration is given to the fact that a particular site is on a list of assets of community value. This amendment would require planning authorities to give special consideration to the community value of such land before approving development. It would not block development, but would ensure that community value is considered and that the community’s voice is properly heard. It is a modest improvement. Without these improvements to the legislation, the right to protect community assets risks being just words on paper. When it becomes a genuine tool for local and community empowerment, which is the welcome title of this important Bill, it will live up to the spirit of devolution that we all want to deliver. I turn now to the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Amendment 373 would include historically significant buildings as community assets, while amendment 374 would support councils to buy land if there is no community buyer; if no community group comes forward, the local authority can step in. Amendment 373 would expand the legal definition of what can be classed as an asset of community value to include land or property with buildings of historical significance. We all have those in our constituencies: even if their current use is not community based, they are still part of our built heritage, and they shape our sense of place, so they are really important. While the current asset of community value system focuses mainly on social use, some historically important sites might not fit neatly into that community use test, even if they are locally important and of historical significance. Historical buildings are obviously important in their own right, of course, which is why we have the listed building system, but they also connect people to the story of their place and past industries—the movements that shaped their community. When those buildings disappear, communities lose part of their collective memory and character, and once they are gone, they cannot be replaced. That is really important. More than that, though, historical buildings are community assets in waiting. Many historical sites, such as disused chapels, mills, railway stations, schools and places that are part of our industrial heritage can be restored into vibrant hubs, cafés, arts venues and co-working spaces. They can have a community-based use, and protecting them buys time for communities to develop and put forward a viable plan to the authorities, rather than watching the bulldozers move in. With imagination, we can help these historical buildings to become community hubs. Amendment 374 is designed to support councils to buy land if there is no community buyer, by requiring the Secretary of State to provide financial support to the local authority to purchase the land itself. This is an essential amendment, because not every community will have the resources or capacity to raise the funds, especially in disadvantaged communities; even if they want desperately to save it, there is no recourse. No community anywhere in England should lose its assets simply because local people cannot afford to buy it or act fast enough. The amendment would mean that councils could step in temporarily, for example holding the assets in trust or leasing it back to the community once funding or a long-term plan is secured. I will move on to new clause 51 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). The clause would create a statutory community ownership fund, which the Secretary of State must set up within six months of the Bill becoming law. Under this new clause, strategic authorities could apply for up to £2 million to support community groups or parish and town councils in buying assets of community value that are at risk of being lost; having been on the list for five years, they can be dropped without the community knowing. The regulations to create and run the fund would follow the negative procedure, meaning Parliament could annul them, but not amend them. The new clause would give the community real financial teeth, turning the right to bid into a right to buy, giving the tools so that the community can act. Communities, as hon. Members will know from experience, often identify assets worth saving, but they lack the up-front capital to act. A permanent statutory fund would give councils and community organisations the power and financial support to ensure that assets of community value stay and are preserved for community use. By placing it on to a statutory footing, the clause will make community ownership funding a permanent part of local government support for community empowerment, and not just a pilot scheme.

• 23 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 5, in schedule 24, page 246, line 27, after “government” insert — “having particular regard to the need for the new single tier of local government, or new unitary council, to— (a) be of an appropriate geographical size, giving consideration to— (i) economic zones, (ii) physical geography, (iii) public service provision, including health, transport, and emergency services; and (b) preserve community identity, cohesion and pride.” This amendment mandates that the Secretary of State must have particular regard to certain criteria when creating or merging SAs to ensure their suitability in terms of economic, geographical, service, and community considerations. In an earlier sitting, the Committee discussed amendment 25, which would have required the Secretary of State, when preparing a proposal for a new combined authority—something we oppose—to follow such a proposal with a statement explaining how it would affect the physical geography, community identity and the boundaries of other public services. Amendment 5 focuses on the need, when we look at local government reorganisation into a single tier of local government or unitary council, to bring communities together by preserving or creating a sense of space. It is our view that, when merging tiers of local government to create a new unitary council, as part of the strategic authority process, particular regard should be given to the size of the area covered by the new authority, which we have obviously debated in depth, as well as the merger’s impact on community identity, heritage, cohesion and pride. After the passionate intervention of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey about the need to focus on the socioeconomic requirements of the geographical landscape and the connection of communities within his constituency, perhaps he will support the amendment. Obviously, from a central Government perspective, we accept that reorganising an area may improve clarity, but it is crucial that the Bill delivers clear devolution benefits for communities. To do so, areas merged or otherwise must remain responsive to their communities, and they must continue to engage with those communities by carrying forward a shared identity or a sense of place in some form. It goes to what the hon. Member for Broxbourne said this morning about unifying communities in his area and reinforcing a sense of place. That is why the population figure of 500,000 must be just a benchmark—it must be flexible—and I know the Minister has already confirmed that. We have already spoken about the existing boundaries of public service provision, including integrated care boards, local NHS areas and police and crime commissioner areas. To reiterate, however the reorganisation takes place, it must be responsive to the particularities of the area, not purely directive. It is that direction from Government that we oppose, and the amendment would mandate that, when deciding mergers, the Secretary of State considers these very important local characteristics that other Committee members have raised. There is an intrinsic logic to the way in which those public service areas evolved to intersect and connect, and chopping them up just for the sake of numbers, without due regard to all these characteristics, is taking a significant risk with our public service delivery. For example, to narrow it down to one specific question, will our local NHS trusts and ICBs be brought along with plans to merge levels of local government, so that the staff in both the health services and the new unitary authority can keep effective working relationships and continue to provide high-quality services and care for their local populations? In conclusion, we think the amendment is important, especially in relation to the merger of authorities to form single-tier unitary councils, and we are minded to press it to a vote.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I said strategic authority—this is at the strategic authority level. Parish and town councils are different, of course, and so they have different needs. Some areas depend on the visitor economy. My town council is represented in arts and culture and in the tourism strategies for the town.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for the example from her council. As she said, it is important that the levy is ringfenced for the strategic authority to reinvest in the local area, so that it could provide, for example, additional regional funding streams for arts and culture and for residents themselves. I hope that the Government will at least commit to conducting a review into visitor levies, so that we can safeguard our hugely valuable tourism industry.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will not press new clause 41 to a vote, but I would like to do so with amendment 358, which concerns consultation with parish and town councils on tourism strategy. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 358, in clause 40, page 40, line 31, at end insert— “(2A) In section 144, after subsection (1) insert— ‘(1A) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must engage with town and parish council within its area. (1B) Engagement under subsection (1A) must include— (a) consulting town and parish councils on tourism strategies, policies, and investment priorities; and (b) creating opportunities for town and parish councils to contribute to activities relating to the exercising powers under subsection (1). (1C) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must publish a report summarising the authority’s engagement with town and parish councils which includes— (a) form of engagement used; (b) the views of town and parish councils on the authority’s exercise of powers under subsection (1); and (c) the role of town and parish councils in exercising powers under subsection (1). (1D) The Secretary of State may issue guidance regarding requirements for engagement under subsection (1A).’” This amendment would require local and/or strategic authorities exercising powers to encourage visitors to their area to engage with town and parish councils.

• 21 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 358 would require a strategic authority to engage with town and parish councils when using its powers to encourage tourism. Tourism is a vital part of the economy for many local areas, supporting jobs, local businesses and community services. The Bill allows strategic authorities to exercise powers to encourage visitors, but with no statutory requirement to involve town and parish councils in the process, as we explained before.

• 16 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My question is for Mr Whittaker. I have many grassroots sports clubs in my constituency, which provide youth teams, women’s teams and walking football sessions, so they are fundamental to community wellbeing and inspiring the next generation of sports people. That is especially true in rural areas. The new provisions for sporting assets of community value apply to sports grounds with spectator facilities. Should those provisions be extended to include grassroots sports clubs? Robbie Whittaker: That is a difficult question to answer, because as you go down the size scale of sports clubs, the extent to which they are able to mobilise to take advantage of opportunities is different. However, where people in the local area can do that, there is no reason why the legislation should not be flexible in allowing it to happen. I do think that it is a horses-for-courses thing. One of the things that I have learned through my involvement with the FSA is that no two areas or clubs are alike, and no two sets of local circumstances are necessarily alike. It is an area where the legislation should probably give flexibility without mandating any particular approach.