David Simmonds
MP for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner · Conservative · United Kingdom
“You will not be allowed to access that system at all, and we will not accept that continued pressure on our courts, local authorities, health services and the other parts of the system.” At the same time, the Government should consider, as I have advocated previously, introducing an asylum visa and simply saying, “If you arrive to work, g…”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I sought to intervene on the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) because I agree with his point about the unfairness of asylum dispersal.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Following the murder of Wayne Broadhurst, killed while walking his dog in nearby Hillingdon about a year ago by Afghan refugee Dawood Safi, the community has done marvels to come together and show its hospitality and welcome for people who are genuinely vulnerable. But there is exasperation, and we need to see serious progress.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The relentless campaigning you have done on behalf of your constituents around Crowborough reflects the campaigning that many of us have needed to do. In my case, lessons have been learned by my constituents about the consequences of the huge numbers arriving at Heathrow.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The ECHR has no jurisdiction over borders; it covers immigration, but not borders. Every day at Heathrow, people arrive as undocumented migrants—without a visa or whatever is required—and are turned away, unable to access the process, which causes such frustration and leaves them stranded in our system for many years.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I worked with that Member of Parliament when I was involved in local government. When he introduced it, he was the hon. Member for Leigh. Now he is the right hon. Member for Makerfield.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
2,669 held · 2,662 searchable for David Simmonds. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I am sympathetic to the issue behind these amendments, although I am not convinced that this is the mechanism to address it. I will briefly explain why, and where this sits in the context of the previous debate. The Minister gave the example of the pensions audit as something that we could alleviate, but my personal experience would suggest that is a very poor example, and amendments 18 and 17 connect to it. If we think back to the last big financial crash when the last Labour Government were in office, the local government pension scheme, which is currently overfunded, saw a huge fall in the value of its assets to the extent that it was then 30% underfunded.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have a brief question for the Minister. One challenge is that most local authorities will have an arrangement, although it is not always called the audit committee; sometimes it is the finance scrutiny committee or the overview committee—there are lots of different arrangements. Could the Minister set out briefly what specific requirements, if any, she intends to impose on local authorities about who can be a member of an audit committee and what its composition is? Will it sit within the overall political balance structure that exists in all local authorities? I ask that just so that we understand where it will fit within the new arrangements.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When we hear that North Yorkshire spends £51 million over a couple of years taking kids to school, that sounds like an extraordinarily high level of expenditure, but it is driven entirely by local circumstances; it is not the result of inefficiency or negligence on the part of decision makers. The point is well made that we have to have that really clear grasp in decision making that comes from people understanding and knowing their local place.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Some have everything dealt with by a single, financially focused scrutiny and overview committee, while others do it as part of a wider context or in the context of individual service areas. So there are different approaches, and it is important that that local discretion continues to exist. I am not convinced that it is necessary to have further legislation, but it is right that we bring the matter to public attention. One weakness of the Westminster-focused Public Accounts Committee is that it does not always grasp local nuance. Home-to-school transport in rural Lincolnshire or North Yorkshire is a completely different challenge from that in Greater London, where all local authorities are, effectively, levied so that public transport in the capital is free for children going to school. Such things are difficult to capture.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The only element where I have any disagreement with the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is over whether the legislation needs to be implemented for local public accounts committees to happen. There have been a number of measures in this regard, and I think of the Localism Act 2011, where there was a great deal of debate about the role of the local armchair auditor and the requirement for local authorities to publish all expenditure over £500—itemised—so that people can see what is being spent day to day, as a means of bringing about transparency. In this debate about audit committees, we have already covered the fact that there are different local arrangements.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Sometimes there are risks that sit beneath what will be classified as smaller authorities, especially given our earlier debate about how reorganisation is seeing asset transfers between districts and parish and town councils as a result of the need to manage opportunities and challenges. Could the Minister therefore set out who will be accountable? Will Ministers sign this off? What is the role of the delegated legislation Committee in making these decisions? What will be the role of the Local Audit Office in deciding how risks are managed? We need to be confident that what may appear to be a low-risk environment does not produce a very nasty surprise.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Broadly, the Opposition agree with the Government’s direction of travel, and this seems a logical thing to do. This kind of update is periodically required. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could set out, for the benefit of transparency in Committee, what the assurance process will be around risk. To reflect on where things have gone wrong, West Somerset district council—then the smallest local authority in England—was essentially not financially viable, but it was also the planning authority for the Hinkley Point nuclear power station, so it was absolutely critical that it could do its job for the needs of national infrastructure. Its budget was essentially broken by the loss of a business rates appeal in respect of Hinkley Point, which cost its £6.5 million out of its already very small budget.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will she set out the Government’s thinking about how those risks will be managed? In particular, how will the legal requirement to set an in-year balanced budget be met, and how does imposing a requirement for an additional and separate opinion, with a separate timetable, represent a reduction of the burden on the local authority?”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The assumptions made about the pension fund are critical to the setting of the council tax, which is a statutory process. This is not the only set of relevant accounts that must meet that same test. Local authorities have limited but varying degrees of control over the parking revenue account, housing revenue account and dedicated schools grant, but all are ringfenced for specific purposes and all can create significant financial liabilities that fall on the council tax payer in the event that something emerges within them that had not previously been considered. Although I understand that the Minister thinks that separating out the requirement makes life easier for some parts of the Government, it can none the less create significant issues in the council tax fixing process.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In many ways, the clause reinforces the concerns that I set out earlier. The Minister said that this was an area where no value was being added and that it was the Government’s intention to reduce expectations. In fact, the clause increases expectations: it requires the publication of a separate opinion on the pension fund’s accounts. As I set out earlier, the concern we all recognise is that, where there is a shortfall, the local authority is required to make up that shortfall and, where there is potentially a surplus, it may choose to reduce the pension contributions that it makes on a regular basis, as is already the case. We have seen examples across the private sector in the past when that has been significant in both negative and sometimes positive ways.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I invite the Minister to reflect that she may have inadvertently misled the Committee. Each local authority has a statutory duty in respect of its own pension fund. There are some pooling arrangements and common standards, but if a local authority in one place has chosen to invest in something that has gone down, it will have a shortfall that will not be replicated in the neighbouring authority that has invested in something else. It is not the case that there is one single scheme. Each of the individual schemes will have an impact on the local authority that employs those members; they are not part of some amorphous national scheme.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our concern is that we risk creating a number of complex structures for rental agreements that in practice have the same consequence, but without the benefit of upward-only rent reviews, which is that landlords’ certainty about their position in turn encourages investment in our high streets, the availability of the units we want to see, and those units not being turned into residences or repurposed for things other than business. The loss of upward-only rent reviews as part of the toolkit of available options undermines the confidence to invest in our high streets, and in turn undermines the objective, which we all share, of ensuring that they remain vibrant and successful. That is the purpose of the amendments, which I am sure we will come on to in due course.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have some concerns, which are reflected in the amendments I have tabled. As we just heard, countries approach this issue in different ways. Broadly speaking, it sounds like one of the reasons why Ireland did not see an impact on the market was that what was implemented was the end of upward-only rent reviews almost in name only; there were still many other mechanisms that achieved the same outcome, even if that specific one ceased to exist.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to make the same point again, but I will not go back and repeat it. We remain very concerned about the loss of freedom of contract that this represents. Clearly, this is consistent with the Government’s direction of travel. The Minister refers to protecting businesses, some businesses will benefit from this and others will lose out, including property investors who are critical to the success of our high streets and commercial sectors. They are facing rapidly rising business rates and increases in national insurance, all of which are hammering our commercial sector and resulting in a very large number of job losses. We see this as part of that picture. We encourage the Minister to think again, reflect and perhaps change direction on this matter.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would be helpful if the Minister could provide a clear assurance that the existing provisions that guarantee an additional separate grant to fund elections to take place will continue to apply, as has been established practice for a long time. Will the Minister also tell us—or at least give us a steer—whether the Government intend to introduce further legislation to defer elections again, so they will not take place as scheduled next May in councils that are set to be abolished, or do the Government have a different intention? That may well affect how we vote on these new clauses; we oppose the deferral, delay or cancellation of elections, but we need to know the Government’s intentions so that we understand what we are voting for or against.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is what the laws that we have passed actually do, so as far as the law stands, all the councils set to be abolished are due to have elections on their current footprint next year unless the Government return with further legislation to cancel elections under different provisions or to defer them again. The risk highlighted by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole remains a live one. Multiple Ministers and two different Secretaries of State have assured us at the Dispatch Box that there will be elections, but without giving any specific commitments. In many places, in the normal cycle of events, there will be district elections. If the new mayoral authorities come into being, there may be mayoral elections. If there are not, under the current legislation, those existing counties will go to the polls next year.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although they do not employ many people, so they were not as hit by the national insurance rise as the big local authorities that do social care, the town and parish councils that support those neighbourhood plans—and the district councils that support such work in the local areas—have been particularly hit by the loss of funding. Ensuring that funding is there to deliver the vision that we set out when we were in government for neighbourhood planning is really important. New clause 5 is about the ability to deliver local elections. The Government are in a bit of a mess on this issue: the messaging on devolution is that there is no point in having elections to councils that are about to be abolished, which I think we would all agree with, but the legislation simply defers the elections for one year.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will try to deal with the two main issues raised by the new clauses, in reverse order. We all recognise that last year’s Budget was a disaster for local government. The rise in national insurance alone was a £1.5 billion net cut, but the loss of funding to support neighbourhood plans, although small in the grand scheme of things, was one of the most challenging elements. As we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, it is at that neighbourhood level—in the locality—that the buy-in of our constituents for new homes is often first secured. The inability to support that work any longer is particularly challenging for very small local authorities.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Are the elections to the county councils that are about to be abolished going to proceed next year, or are the Government going to introduce legislation to delay them again?”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On a point of clarification, when the process of reorganisation was embarked on, local authorities were told quite clearly, in accordance with long-established practice, “If you are due to have elections but we are going to abolish your council as a result of this process, we will not hold elections to that council again, because it is not going to exist.” However, the legislation introduced to Parliament simply delayed the elections for 12 months. All those authorities, including Surrey, which was today announced as the pathfinder, are, as a matter of law, expecting to have elections next May, but on the undertaking of Government they are not expecting to have any further elections to the existing authority again.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The UK and the US spend the lowest proportion of household expenditure on food in the developed world. Indeed, the proportions have reversed since the 1950s, and housing costs are now the highest factor. One of the Opposition’s concerns about the purposes of this Bill, and about where the Planning and Infrastructure Bill was going, is that the focus on units and achieving targets will mean losing green spaces, particularly gardens and spaces outside people’s homes. When we pass this legislation, it is through the local plan that we will be able to ensure that we are not using allotments to plug a massive gap that has arisen because of those housing targets, but are instead building the types of homes that people want to live in, particularly those that include outside space.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is tempting to make reference to all sorts of detailed points of local government finance that we could bring up in a debate about allotments. However, I purely want to make a point about where this issue sits, which I think other Members have touched upon. The Opposition are big fans of allotments, just as everybody else is, but the local plan is the mechanism by which that should be delivered. We all know—particularly those of us, like myself, who have lots of allotments in our constituencies—that there are often waiting lists for some of the more desirable sites and also huge numbers of vacancies on others. When allotments on their current scale were introduced in the 1950s, food was one of the biggest costs that households faced. Today, the UK has some of the cheapest food in the world, relative to household budgets.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is clear that the country’s finances are facing an exceptionally challenging time and have deteriorated exceptionally fast. Local government, in particular, has a £1.5 billion black hole that has been created purely by last year’s Budget, as a result of the national insurance rise, notwithstanding any previous challenges that may have existed. There will naturally be a temptation to see an unlimited, uncapped and unrestricted mayoral levy as a means of tapping taxpayers’ pockets further. We need to make sure that that is constrained in a proper democratic manner.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our key concern is that these new authorities do not become a means of addressing shortfalls in other areas of Government spending or simply backfilling some of those costs. The Minister likes to talk about a financial mess, and it is noteworthy that the Government have borrowed over £80 billion in this financial year alone already. We heard the Chancellor talking about a £22 billion black hole, which she alleged existed after 14 years of Conservative Government. I use the term “alleged” advisedly, because the Office for Budget Responsibility, which did the calculations, swiftly came back and said that it did not stand by the figure used by the Chancellor. That is £22 billion after 14 years versus £80 billion since the start of this financial year alone.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a long-established principle—it has been implemented for a good, long time now—that there should be some degree of constraint, and that consent should be required before a local authority seeks to proceed with a council tax rise above a certain level: 5% is the current figure. It seems to us a reasonable principle that the new mayoral authorities should be subject to the same constraint to ensure that the tax rises, which would of course be inflationary, notwithstanding the impact they would have on household budgets, would be subject to a similar process of democratic consent, rather than being something that a mayor can simply proceed with without needing to go down that route. That is the objective of the new clause, and it will be interesting to hear what the Government have to say about it.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The need for this new clause has become greater as the Committee’s consideration of the Bill has continued. The original legislation and amendments from the Government have set out that new mayors will have precepting powers that will apply to non-mayoral functions. That gives rise to a suspicion, particularly in the context of the Government’s frankly dire financial situation, that such powers will be used as a means of levying, through a mayoral precept, additional resources that will be funnelled not into the priorities of local government but—the Government having set out that they see these new authorities as the local delivery agents of central Government—into the priorities of Government.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. We have spent a good deal of time debating the importance of housing and the delivery of housing targets. If we reflect on the construction industry news that came out yesterday, it is clear that there has been an absolute collapse in confidence in house building. Here in London, around 4% of the mayor’s housing target is being delivered, despite his having been allocated billions of pounds for that purpose.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think the Minister will probably be aware that the net additional new homes target that we set ourselves in the last Parliament was 1 million new homes. While we were, frustratingly, slightly below that target, we none the less delivered, in round terms, 1 million net additional new homes in this country. The collapse, as the Minister well knows, has taken place since the change of Government. That is an unfortunate reality. We know that the Budget in prospect later in the year is a significant issue of a conspicuous lack of confidence and a desperate need to get construction activity going again.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given the Government’s desperate need to move somewhere in the direction of achieving their 1.5 million target, I am sure the Minister will welcome the new clause and ensure that the Government support it.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The purpose of the new clause is to ensure, just as we have sought to in the past in respect of private sector developers where there is a failure, that where a local authority or a mayor is in charge of a development, they are required to build it out in good time. That is so that we do not see a repeat of the situation where well-intentioned changes to the planning system simply result in more unbuilt permissions, while people who need homes do not have access to them, because that is not what is being delivered. The focus of the new clause is to ensure that the system does what it is intended to and actually builds the homes, as opposed to churning out more planning permissions.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is desperation in action, and we can see that happening, as can the whole world. We would like to see the Government succeed—we would like to see the country succeed in developing the new homes that it needs. However, it has been a continuous theme in our contributions to debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that we must ensure that the 1.5 million homes that already have planning permission in England get built, rather than focusing on tearing up the green belt and on more permissions that also do not get built. We know that in our capital city there are more than 300,000 new homes that already have planning permission, but on which work has not started.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Many interpretations can be placed on the facts, but it is very clear if we look at the numbers that Government borrowing costs are now significantly higher even than under Liz Truss. It has been a pretty disastrous period for Government finances. If we are to see the measures to which the Minister has just referred succeed, there must be some imperative around building. We cannot simply see a tranche of mayors granting permissions, assembling sites and failing to deliver in the way that Mayor Khan has in London.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Just as we would like to see that level of compulsion apply to private sector developers, who can be as guilty of this as Government—they might be land banking or looking at those permissions not as an opportunity to create homes, but simply as a means of creating a tradeable asset—we need a degree of imperative to hold the feet of those mayors to the fire to ensure that the new homes are delivered. I hope the spirit of the Government’s response signals their support for this amendment, which I will press to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a nice try by the hon. Member, but I think we know that there have been areas of deregulation where there is a high degree of consensus. In particular, we know that one of the reasons why some of those 1.5 million homes have not been developed is that, after local authorities have granted consent, delays are created by, for example, waiting for permission from the Environment Agency to proceed. There are elements of deregulation that I think we all support, and we can see how they would be of benefit, but where we have mayors such as the Mayor of London who are just abjectly failing, we need to make sure that there is a degree of compulsion so that the homes that our capital city and our country need are delivered.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Once they have satisfied the local authority’s returning officer that they meet the requirements—with evidence, as is currently the case—their home address does not need to be placed in the public domain, creating risk. We think the precedent that Mr Speaker set out in respect to Members of Parliament is absolutely right. The intent of the new clause is to achieve the same for our locally elected brethren. I am sure that to achieve that objective, the Government will be pleased to support the new clause.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The intent of the new clause is very much in line with the recommendations that Mr Speaker has recently made in respect of Members of Parliament. There has been a degree of concern about the intimidation and victimisation of politicians and the impact that has had on wider public debate. It has been a long-standing principle that a person needs to declare their eligibility to stand in a particular place, and in a local authority there are specific requirements connected to the local area that person is seeking to serve. However, it has been a widespread view for some time that there needs to be a degree of confidentiality so that members who are concerned that they will be victimised are able not to have that data, that information, placed in the public domain.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Giving them the same opportunity that we have as Members of Parliament seems an entirely reasonable and minimal measure of protection to offer. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Broadly, the same provisions should apply, so those councillors and candidates who prefer to keep their address confidential should be able to do that, as we can. Those who choose to take advantage of that additional degree of confidentiality—perhaps because they have a young family or caring responsibilities, or whatever it may be—should be able to take advantage of that. If we fail to include this measure in the Bill, I suspect we will see a number of local election cycles in which local council candidates will not have the same opportunity as we do. I will therefore be pressing the new clause to a vote. I encourage the Government, if they are not minded to accept it now, to consider implementing it when the Bill gets to the Lords, because we have a duty of care to our local councillors.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am afraid that I am not reassured. I am particularly concerned, because we know that “when parliamentary time allows” means this could be kicked into the long grass for a very long time. Given some of the incidents we have seen, which have affected both Members of this House and our locally elected peers, we know this has become a more pressing issue. Some locally elected members see it—as some Members of Parliament do—as an advantage to have their home address published, and we, as Members of Parliament, are free to make that choice. At the moment, we can say, “I wish it to be known that I live at this address,” or, “I wish it to be known that I live, anonymised, in a constituency”, which is how it is listed for Members of Parliament.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the hon. Lady share my concern that during the passage of the Bill we have heard from some Members that they have been given assurances from the Government? Ministers have clarified that no such assurances have been given. Indeed, in response to a written parliamentary question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), the Minister set out that there are no provisions in the Bill that would provide such identity protections. Does the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole feel that this is something to which we need to return? Despite an impression that assurances have been given, it is clear that they are not present.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Gentleman share with the Committee whether he has had any further assurances since that date to give us all comfort that the unique identity of Cornwall will be protected in the changes envisaged in this legislation?”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It falls to me, as the shadow Minister, to be the voice for Conservatives in Cornwall, who would absolutely agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says. There is strong cross-party consensus. The reason we tabled our amendments, which were very similar in spirit to the hon. Gentleman’s, was to seek an assurance that because of Cornwall’s unique situation, there would be provisions in the legislation that would protect it. The hon. Gentleman said very clearly that he had received assurances on the basis of which he had decided to withdraw his amendments. Since then, the Minister has clarified, in response to a written question, that there are no provisions in the Bill that would provide that protected status. Can the hon.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I echo those comments, Dame Siobhain. The Bill may be poor, but the organisation and support have been flawless— [ Interruption. ] And the quality of the heckling is without parallel. I know we will be returning to many of the topics of debate later on in the parliamentary process, so we will have the opportunity to relitigate and seek to deliver the necessary improvements to the legislation. I thank all the officials, all those who contributed to the Bill, and the witnesses, whose evidence has been so helpful.”
House of Commons28 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Constraining it would not be entirely consistent with what was said in previous proceedings about the use of precepts.”
House of Commons16 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“So we are not content that this is the best way to address the issue.”
House of Commons16 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, and to resume consideration of the Bill. The Opposition are proud that the general power of competence was introduced when we were in government during the coalition years. It was something that I, as a serving local authority councillor at the time, lobbied hard for. The then Secretary of State, now Lord Pickles, was very receptive to the view that local authorities should have a greater remit, rather than being constrained to do those things that they were specifically permitted to do by law. I have a question of clarification for the Minister. She said that the general power of competence could be exercised for economic purposes. Will the authorities have the full general power of competence, or will the power be constrained to a specific set of mayoral functions?”
House of Commons16 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is a need to ensure that all those statutory duties are squared off. Although we are not persuaded of the need for the amendment, we would like to hear what the Minister has to say so that we can be confident that those points have been fully taken into account.”
House of Commons16 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Opposition are not entirely persuaded of the argument for this amendment, although the point is well made. We will be listening attentively to what the Minister has to say. We are always very conscious that there is a risk with this legislation of creating conflicts. I know you have done a lot of work in the past in the field of education, Mr Stuart; we have seen that the well-intentioned education policy of school autonomy can come into conflict with the statutory duties placed on a local authority. We need to ensure that is resolved. As we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, education is a good example of where conflict can crop up—for example, a university technical college is part of the skills economy, but is also, for the purposes of the Bill, a school.”
House of Commons16 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have concerns about these measures; I will briefly explain why. As we have seen in the passage of the Bill so far, much of what is proposed for mayors will cut across different Government Departments. It could have financial and legal implications for constituent authorities, and there is plenty of scope for disputes to arise, not least where there might be different political control across different authorities. Our concern is that if we go down the route of using the negative procedure, there is a risk that the awareness of the issues in government will not be triggered and that what we will, in fact, be doing is setting up the authorities to fail by not having the appropriate procedures for getting the issues resolved at the first point where they arise, rather than waiting until they are the subject of disputes in the courts.”
House of Commons16 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 295, in clause 21, page 24, line 27, leave out subsection 3. This amendment would remove the requirement on local partners to respond to a meeting request from the Mayor .”
House of Commons16 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗