Manuela Perteghella MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Air Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing this important debate on the urgency and duty for policymakers to tackle air pollution—the silent killer in our towns and cities. I also thank all the Members who have contributed so passionately and movingly to the debate. Toxic, poisonous air threatens the community spaces that we all love and the people we care most about. It knows no boundaries, reaching our workplaces, homes, schools and other public spaces. As other hon. Members have done, I would like to pay tribute to Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, mum to Ella Roberta. For over a decade, Rosamund has campaigned tirelessly for cleaner air through Ella’s law. I had the privilege to meet Rosamund last month when, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I visited communities to understand the physical and mental health impacts of air pollution on their lives. Ella was a happy, playful and bright child, and she lived not far from the South Circular Road in Lewisham with her family. By the age of seven, she was suffering debilitating asthma attacks, which would see her cough and wheeze so much that she would fall unconscious. A few weeks after her ninth birthday, Ella died. She had suffered a fatal asthma attack. A landmark inquest in 2020 ruled that toxic air from traffic emissions contributed to her death, marking the first time that air pollution was officially recognised as a cause of death in the UK. Ella’s death was preventable. Among other measures, Ella’s law would enshrine a legal right to breathe clean air, requiring the Government to meet stricter air quality standards based on the World Health Organisation guidelines. We must not let children like Ella and their families down when turning our attention to this urgent problem, yet in the UK, an estimated 500 people die of disease related to air pollution each week. Air pollution is an invisible and insidious enemy. According to a recent report by the Royal College of Physicians, air pollution has been linked to 30,000 deaths and, as we have heard, it costs our economy more than £27 billion per year. Long-term exposure to emissions can cause heart and lung problem and increase the risk of a person developing cancers. Fine particulate matter from polluted air penetrates deep into the body, settling in our lungs. Recent research has also pointed to an increased risk of cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease and dementia from long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution, which can affect the heart and blood vessels. The public health burden is not shared equally: the most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly, those already facing deprivation, and babies and children are most at risk. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists stated that a growing evidence base links maternal exposure to air pollution and adverse pregnancy outcomes. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for the introduction of a new clean air Act, based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a dedicated air quality agency. The scale of the issue is such that we need strong, independent oversight to tackle pollution at its source and protect public health. We must also transform how people travel, reducing dependence on the cars that spew noxious fumes into the air we breathe. The Government must work with local authorities to curb transport emissions. We need to invest in affordable, reliable public transport to ensure that fares do not rise above inflation, restore the £2 bus fare cap, and improve the passenger experience so that it is cheaper and better to travel by public transport. We must electrify our railways, embrace cleaner technologies and support active travel by creating safe cycling and walking networks across the country. For those who have no option but to rely on cars, especially those in isolated rural areas, we must make the transition to electric vehicles easier and more affordable by expanding charging infrastructure and reducing costs. Finally, we must address the inequalities at the heart of the issue. By increasing the public health grant and empowering local communities, we can develop targeted solutions such as supporting healthier and better insulated housing, reducing traffic exposure and improving local planning. As some hon. Members have already stated, health experts recommend stronger controls on household wood burning and effective action to raise awareness of health harms from indoor air pollution, including damp and mould. Children in the UK today have some of the worst asthma outcomes in the developed world. It is not right that so many lives are shortened by diseases that we can work together to prevent. Most importantly of all, there is no effective advice to help people to avoid air pollution if they have only one route to work or school, if they live near a busy road, if their care home or school is near air pollutant sources or if their house is poorly insulated. We call on the Government to recognise, in law, the human right to breathe clean air and to legally enforce air quality standards that meet WHO limits by 2030. We owe clean air to the baby born today, to the child coming out of school right now and to every child who will come after them.

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

  More

  I am bringing forward this debate because of the many fatalities on the roads in the west midlands, and the catastrophic consequences of collisions and crashes. In seconds, happy worlds are turned upside down, lives are destroyed and families are left grieving their loved ones. My constituents are dying on the roads as a direct result of successive Governments’ inaction on tackling the scourge of speeding and dangerous driving, and I intend to set out exactly what must change. Let me begin with an example that has stayed with me. On 19 May, a constituent contacted me to say that drivers on a road near them were regularly travelling at more than double the 30 mph speed limit. They were frightened, and they wanted something done, so I wrote to the Government to raise their concerns. The response I received was that the Department for Transport was not at that time considering any changes to the data used in assessing road safety interventions. On the same day that the response arrived, there was a fatal accident on that road—and that was the third death on south Warwickshire roads in a few days. The Government must change their approach to road safety and intervene to save lives on our roads. They must also safeguard and consider all road users, and any new measures must protect vulnerable users such as pedestrians, walkers, cyclists and roller skaters, and ensure that funding for active travel infrastructure is available to communities so that people can enjoy safe walking, cycling and horse riding. Why must cycling infrastructure cost millions of pounds? Why is it so difficult to have separate and well-marked cycle and active travel lanes in Britain? I welcome the Government’s road safety strategy, published in January. It is ambitious in its aim to cut the number of people killed or seriously injured on Britain’s roads by 65% by 2035 and by 70% for children under 16. Yet a strategy without teeth is not a strategy at all. The Government need to commit to radical solutions; tinkering at the edges is no longer sufficient. The scale of death and serious injury on our roads demands bold, evidence-based action—and it demands that now. We need national legislation that is properly enforceable, that sets clear thresholds for interventions on dangerous roads and that does not leave communities at the mercy of local councils that are failing in their duty of care.

• 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

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was a school governor for many years, so I know how teachers write letters to parents to ask them to park considerately, and also not to idle their engines, because obviously that causes lots of pollution, and health issues such as asthma. The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to ensure that schools are given the tools to change behaviour. We can send as many letters as we want, but I often find that the thing that makes parents and carers change their behaviour is the children themselves—children telling their parents that it is walk to school week and that they want to walk rather than drive. The role of education is really important, and even firefighters, policemen or local councillors can go and speak to children at school to change behaviour from the ground up. Wales and other nations are implementing 20 mph zones. I want to see whether we can learn any lessons from them, but because of all the data that shows how dangerous 30 mph is, I think 20 mph zones should be standard on new residential developments. In one of the new developments in an urban area of my constituency, the new road appears to link houses with a local school, but the speed limit will be set at 50 mph. Again, that was raised with Warwickshire county council, but it just said that it follows national guidelines, despite the council having a suite of active travel policies and the fact that the road goes through a residential estate. It is really difficult to make the council review that limit. We now have so many new houses being built, and this road cannot a have 50 mph limit. We really must ask local highway authorities to do better. Let me turn to one of the groups we know are most at risk. Young drivers between the ages of 17 and 24 account for just 6% of new driving licences, but they are involved in 24% of fatal and serious collisions. Those are young people from constituencies like mine and across the country who never make it home. The evidence for what works is not hard to find. Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and every single state in the United States already operate some form of graduated licensing for new drivers. Those schemes are sensible, proportionate and evidence-based, and they include measures such as restrictions on night-time driving, limits on carrying passengers—especially young passengers—in the early months of a licence, and probationary periods marked by visible plates. They save lives. We should be doing the same, and I urge the Government to look at graduated licences and to bring forward proposals without further delay. The RAC believes that a form of graduated licensing for young drivers could help to save lives on our roads. I want to thank my constituents Robbin and Patsy, who have been formidable campaigners for graduated licences and road safety for young people since losing their child. Road safety is not just about physical measures; it is also about changing driver behaviour. Nationally, I want to highlight the work of THINK!, which has launched important and lifesaving campaigns, from encouraging the use of seatbelts to tackling excessive speed, drink and drugs and, recently, the use of mobile phones at the wheel. Such campaigns must continue to be properly resourced and funded and reach every driver. The Warwickshire Road Safety Partnership holds an annual memorial service to remember the lives lost and injured on Warwickshire’s roads, which I attended last year. It was a sombre event, because we all knew that all these deaths and injuries could have been prevented. The families of those killed on the roads of the west midlands are not asking for the status quo; they are asking for change that will save lives. I am asking the Government today to deliver it.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his passionate intervention, and I fully agree with him. I will talk a bit about what is happening in Warwickshire and I hope that Warwickshire colleagues will also intervene and share their experience. I also hope that the Minister will say something about guidance for local authorities, so that they are not just reactive but proactive. Communities up and down the west midlands want to see proper enforcement and a reduction of speed limits in residential areas, especially where schools are located. My constituency of Stratford-on-Avon is a case in point, where we are left exposed by the Reform-run Warwickshire county council. Parish councils and community watch groups work hard to gather data, but it is incredibly difficult to implement any type of traffic calming measures or speed reduction orders. Often, even if those are agreed, the cost of the proposals falls on parish and town councils. The problem is felt with particular force in rural constituencies like mine.

• 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 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The two-child limit has punished children for circumstances entirely beyond their control. For nearly a decade, families have been denied support simply because a child happened to be born as a third or a fourth child. That was a cruel choice made by policymakers, not one made in children’s best interests, and it really shows that a Government can get it wrong. This was a particularly callous policy because it was designed to punish children, and because of the harm done to generations of young people, who are the future of our country. Today, 4.5 million children in the UK are growing up in poverty, including in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon. This policy has been a major driver of deep poverty, pushing working families further into hardship at a time when food, energy and housing costs remain painfully high. In Stratford-on-Avon, I hear from parents who are working hard, often juggling insecure hours or caring responsibilities, yet are still struggling to afford basics such as heating, healthy food, transport and even furniture. Many live in privately rented homes where costs keep rising, while support has been cut or frozen. These families are doing everything that is asked of them, yet the system has been stacked against them. I gently remind the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), that looking after five children as a single parent is a job—it is work. Raising a family is one of the most important jobs or contributions that a person can make to society. Research by the Social Market Foundation has made the wider point that when countries make it harder to have and raise children, birth rates tend to fall and populations age faster. That has real consequences for the long-term health of our economy and the public finances, because a smaller working-age population has to support a larger retired population, while demand, productivity and innovation can all suffer. The same analysis also underlines something we should be honest about in this debate: in the UK, being a parent is too often tied to financial pressure. Where families feel supported through affordable, high-quality childcare and a safety net that does not penalise children, outcomes are better for parents and for children alike, and the whole society benefits. If we are serious about giving every child the best start in life, we should stop designing policy that makes it harder for families to get by. Removing the two-child limit is the single most effective step this House can take to lift children out of poverty during this Parliament. It is backed by children’s charities, economists, educators and those working on the frontline. It will improve health, educational outcomes and life chances, while easing pressure on public services in the long term. A fair society does not balance its books by denying children support. It invests in them, protects them and gives every child the opportunity to thrive. That is why I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues support the removal of the shameful two-child limit and why I am proud to back the Bill’s Second Reading.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Horse and Rider Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) for securing this important debate in support of the equestrian community. Stratford-on-Avon is a deeply rural constituency with fast-moving country roads and narrow lanes. For many riders, using public roads is not a choice but a necessity, and too often that comes with real and frightening risks. Per mile travelled, rural roads are the most dangerous in the country, accounting for well over half of all road deaths.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Horse and Rider Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that issue. I agree with her. As we have heard, the figures are horrendous: thousands of incidents involving horses result in injury and death. These incidents are widely under-reported, but the harm they cause is very real. Most concerning of all is that more than four in five of these incidents are caused by drivers passing too fast or too close, and that is despite clear highway code guidance introduced in 2022 advising motorists to slow right down and give horses plenty of space. Too many drivers simply do not know about that guidance or do not understand the danger of ignoring it. There is also the issue of loud engines, such as those in motorbikes, which can startle horses. That is why I strongly support the Liberal Democrats’ Road Traffic (Horse and Rider Safety) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. Clear rules, proper coverage in the driving theory test and better driver education will save lives. Where possible, horse riders should not have to rely on roads at all. The Liberal Democrats have set out plans to expand safe off-road routes through the countryside, giving riders the freedom to travel safely along bridleways. Finally, I thank the Warwickshire road safety partnership and Warwickshire horse watch, which work to support the equestrian community and provide advice on safety. Horses are a vital part of rural life in constituencies like mine. Their safety, and the safety of those who ride them, deserves far greater priority than the Government are currently giving it.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Rural Crime · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency, car thefts and related burglaries continue to rise. Nationally, almost four in five car thefts go unsolved. This is not low-level rural crime; it is organised, highly profitable, and deeply disruptive and upsetting for families and businesses reliant on vehicles. Will the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to tackle organised vehicle crime, and will they back the Liberal Democrat proposals for a specialist national unit to work with police forces, such as Warwickshire police, to crack down on car crime?

• 16 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents are also quite confused about which public service to call. We have to explain, “If it is about parking restrictions, you have to call the county council; if it is about dangerous parking, you have to call the police.” But how do you define “dangerous parking”? Sometimes the police will then point people back to the council. We would really appreciate clarification—or harmonisation, actually—of civil enforcement on highways matters.

• 16 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will not press the amendment, but I would like a reassurance from the Minister on the frameworks. Although they are nascent and in their embryonic state, they are really important. By the time the Bill becomes law, we will be consulting on these frameworks and applying them. Will the Minister write to tell us how this issue will be resolved? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment proposed : 304, in schedule 12, page 164, line 33, at end insert— “61DCB Density requirement (1) A strategic authority issuing a mayoral development order must prioritise applications which— (a) will deliver greater density in urban areas, (b) are located in areas with greater public transportation accessibility according to the indices established by subsection (2), or (c) if located within the Greater London Authority, are located in areas with a Transport for London Public Transport Accessibility level equal or greater than Level 4. (2) A strategic authority must create ‘public transport accessibility index’ to categorise areas within the authority based on their proximity to public transportation (3) A strategic authority must issue a mayoral development order for any land which has been previously developed.”— (David Simmonds.) This new clause would require mayoral development orders (MDOs) to prioritise planning applications in areas of high urban density and public transport accessibility, and would require MDOs to be issued for previously developed land. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 14 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This Government’s plans for devolution involve folding existing local government structures into larger combined authorities. From a central Government perspective, the benefits are clear. Each region has a single point of contact, accountability and new structures through which to work. However, devolution should deliver benefits in both directions and be truly community-led. If proposals are prepared by the Secretary of State and the Department rather than being locally-led, we believe that a basic requirement should be that each new authority is appropriately sized, and that physical geography and cultural identities within the authority—especially community identities—are looked at. We need to look at the boundaries of other public service structures in the area that could be affected by the new combined authority, such as fire and rescue services, police forces and integrated care boards. In my area, we have local government reorganisation and the ICBs are being reorganised as part of NHS England reform or abolition, so both are changing at the same time. In geographical local areas, we have not just NHS commissioners but other NHS services, such as local NHS trusts. Looking beyond size—I hope that the Government are flexible about size, because of all the other important considerations with any new authority—authorities should be shaped carefully to reflect economic zones, as well as physical geography. Crucially, there must be careful thought about how the proposals will align with public services. I have already talked about the organisation of ICBs, but there are also, for example, existing transport hubs and established boundaries for fire and rescue services. A less tangible but no less important requirement is respect for distinct community identities. For example, my area is in the county of Warwickshire. South Warwickshire is very rural, with hundreds of parish and town councils, while north Warwickshire has different economic areas and is more populous and urban. Proximal areas may not be well-suited partners in new combined authorities, so what kind of flexibility will there be to think about services and the shared history of local communities so that such areas do not have a false cohesion? We would like regional and sub-regional cultures to be taken into consideration, because those are what brings communities together. This goes back to the role of parish and town councils as the first tier of government: they know their communities best, which is why they should have a say in any consultation. They know their boundaries; they know which bus services should be improved so that residents can go to hospital and so on. Practically, we are asking the Government to consider all these areas, boundaries and services, because if combined authorities backfire, governance structures could fail and might not deliver at all for areas that are already struggling. Requiring the Secretary of State to make a statement accompanying each proposal for a new combined authority, covering its impact on the shared areas that I have mentioned, would improve the quality of combined authority proposals.

• 14 Oct 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The amendment and new clause 46 are about giving devolution in England a clear direction and fair footing, and replacing uncertainty with a proper plan and accountability. It will create a clear road map for devolution. The Bill already includes a requirement for an annual devolution report to be published, but there are currently no plans to include any forward-looking strategy. Why is a commitment to publish a strategy and timeline for further devolution important and necessary? The local authorities that were left out of the devolution priority programme are facing a cliff edge in terms of funding streams that are now being redirected to mayoral strategic authorities. Right now, devolution is happening, but unevenly. Cumbria, Cheshire, Warrington, Greater Essex, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Sussex and Brighton are all in the devolution priority programme, putting them on a fast track towards improved transport opportunities, housing and economic growth. Regions such as Kent and Wessex, which were left out of the devolution priority programme, are left not only without the benefits of funding and the regional voice of an elected mayor, should they want one, but without the knowledge of when they can expect those things. The amendment would require the Government to report annually to Parliament on progress made. This transparency will prevent future Ministers from delaying or cherry-picking which regions get devolution next. The amendments, which require a forward devolution strategy to be published, are therefore important to give councils like those in my area, which are at the beginning of their devolution journey, reassurance that plans are being progressed for devolution in their areas if they are not in tier 1. It is important that councils know not only their current financial situation, but how and when finance and governance are likely to change. The amendment would give local authorities certainty as councils could plan ahead, invest and prepare for new responsibilities. As I said earlier in the debate, devolution must be equitable and consistent, not a patchwork of deals and negotiations.

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Devolution should mean giving power back to people and communities. Decisions ought to be taken as close as possible to those they affect, but this Bill imposes a top-down model from Whitehall with sweeping new powers for the Secretary of State, mayors and their unelected commissioners, rather than the real empowerment of councils and residents. My own constituency of Stratford-on-Avon is a good example of why this matters. In rural south Warwickshire, our needs are very different from the urban north. We face unique challenges such as unreliable public transport, which leaves local residents with poor access to key services. Our fire and rescue services have been reduced. That is why I support the two-unitary council solution for Warwickshire, reflecting the reality of our place and respecting the local identities. Further, we must not overlook the vital role that parish and town councils play in communities such as mine across Stratford-on-Avon. From creating neighbourhood development plans to supporting local groups and looking after our village greens and recreation grounds, they do outstanding work, and with the right backing, many stand ready to deliver more for their communities. Councils are already stretched to breaking point, with deficits running into the billions. For those authorities already in the deepest difficulty, devolution without proper funding is little more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Unless Ministers face up to the scale of the challenge and provide sustainable resources, no new governance structure will succeed. Although bringing back the supplementary vote is a move in the right direction, the Government have missed a real opportunity to restore trust in politics through fairer elections. If the Government recognise that first past the post is not fit for mayoral elections, why is it fit for parliamentary and council elections? I welcome the strengthening of the community right to buy scheme, which will help safeguard valued local assets, particularly in rural areas, where protecting much-loved assets and community hubs, such as our pubs, is so important. The Government must go further on this, especially when assets are kept empty and derelict by landlords. In conclusion, the Bill could have been the moment to show that national Government are willing to put power in the hands of communities. Instead, by centralising rather than devolving, the Government have let the moment pass.