Manuela Perteghella
MP for Stratford-on-Avon · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“Despite the whole-of-Government effort to tackle the climate and nature crisis, I fear that there is still a misalignment of policies across Departments, as we have seen with the dilution of environmental protections in the revisions to the national planning policy framework.”
“Intimate image abuse is increasingly being used to threaten, control and exploit women and girls after relationships break down, yet the police have no power to require the deletion of those images if they were obtained consensually. What steps is the Minister taking to close that gap and better protect victims?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 504 lines we hold for Manuela Perteghella, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 11.
“I will not press the amendments to a vote, although my hon. Friends might table them again on Report, but I will press new clause 51 to a vote later on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment , by leave, withdrawn.”
“I beg to move amendment 352, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert— “(d) include an overview of the views of town and parish councils in the local authority area about the plan.” This amendment would require information about the views of town and parish councils in the area about a mayoral combined authority’s local growth plan to be included in the plan.”
“Amendments 353 and 356 would go further, requiring active engagement with those councils by, for example, sharing draft proposals and the evidence behind the proposals for local growth plans, and giving councils a real opportunity to provide feedback before local growth plans are made. By requiring consultation at a parish level and genuine involvement in devolution decisions, and by valuing local voices, these provisions resist the top-down approach. In my constituency we have brilliant parish and town councils. When the district councils are abolished and a new unitary council is made, it is likely that towns and parishes will be asked if they wish to take on more services and assets, including possible development sites.”
“Local growth plans are rightly a key part of the devolution agenda, because the plans guide inward investment and set priorities for economic growth, as we have discussed, as well as development and regeneration in combined authority areas. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about the importance of inclusive economic and growth plans. Inclusivity is necessary. Consultation and engagement are necessary. Currently, however, there is no statutory requirement for mayoral combined authorities to formally record or engage with town and parish councils in the creation of these plans. These amendments aim to address that gap, increasing local accountability and inclusivity. Amendments 352 and 355 would require any mayoral authority making a local growth plan to include the views of local town and parish council.”
“I am hearing a lot from the Labour Benches about there being 800 or 350 parish councils, so we cannot engage with them, but there are different ways to engage, such as online consultations or parish fora to which representatives and clerks can be invited. That the mayor cannot engage because there are so many parish councils is not a factor; I am sure that the mayor will be able to.”
“No, I do not accept that. We are saying that there have to be minimum standards for engagement. In fact, amendment 354, reinforced by amendment 357, would allow the Secretary of State to create guidance on minimum standards for engagement. It would then be up to the mayor, but at least the engagement with our first tier of local government would be meaningful and consistent across all mayoral combined authorities. Setting minimum standards for engagement would provide a baseline for consultation across all mayoral authorities, but that consultation can be in different formats. Let us not forget that two-tier local authorities with county councils often have lots of parish councils and they already consult them on local plans, for example, so there are ways to do it.”
“I will press amendment 353 to a vote, because the changes are about the principle of genuine devolution and about giving real power to local communities, not concentrating it on the mayors. The amendment is essential to make the promise real, so I will press it to a vote.”
“The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If a district council is to be abolished, parish and town councils are asked to take on assets or sites that could be development sites, so they become stakeholders in the local growth plans. They will be the landowners, so not to engage with the parish and town councils that take on those assets will be damaging in the long term. Our amendments raise the quality and legitimacy of decisions by reflecting broader community input and inclusivity. They would, again, prevent a top-down approach. Crucially, they would set consistent standards nationwide, so that engagement is not left to the whim of individual authorities or mayors.”
“On country parks and forestry, charities that plant forests are providing apprenticeships because the number of our forest rangers has declined. After hearing about the post-16 education and skills strategy yesterday, it is really important to provide these apprenticeships and jobs in rural areas so that our young people can continue to thrive.”
“I beg to move amendment 359, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert— “(2A) In preparing a local growth plan, a mayoral combined authority must make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on areas which are rural, remote, or coastal.” This amendment would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on rural, remote and coastal areas.”
“Combined authority areas can be very different—there could be a very populous urban cluster of unitary councils, and there could also be rural councils, which have completely different needs. The amendments are fair to rural communities and advantageous to urban areas, because we know that when our rural areas thrive, so does the whole country. There are opportunities across our nation as a whole. Rural and coastal areas need focused attention—for example, supporting infrastructure such as transport networks, energy infrastructure and digital connectivity. There are families in my constituency who do not get any broadband connectivity, and their children have to go to cafés in towns to revise for GCSEs. Not having that connectivity also makes it very difficult for businesses to thrive, so we face unique challenges.”
“These amendments were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), and they focus on ensuring that rural, remote and coastal areas are properly considered in the Bill. At present, the Bill largely focuses on urban centres and large population areas. There is a bit about rural areas, but not about the differences between these often isolated geographical areas, and there is little specific recognition of rural or geographically isolated communities, despite their unique challenges and contributions to the economy. Both amendments would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits for those areas. In that way, we would ensure that the growth strategies are inclusive, balanced and relevant to the communities within the combined authority area.”
“We want those needs to be reflected in the provisions on local growth plans in the Bill. A one-size-fits-all approach will lead to not only rural deprivation but missed opportunities for our nation as a whole. In conclusion, the amendments are about equity, opportunity and smart growth. Rural, remote and coastal communities must not be left behind. Ignoring them would be a missed opportunity for the sustainable and inclusive growth that would power the whole region. Amendments 359 and 360 would ensure that all mayoral authorities plan meaningfully and strategically for every part of their area. For that reason, I will push amendment 359 to a vote.”
“That goes back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole was saying. We should not rely on the kindness of mayors to care about the whole of their communities; we need to ensure that local growth plans—which is what the amendments are about—include the needs of coastal, rural and isolated communities such as mine, where we do not have buses to take elderly residents to the nearest hospital. It is important that we make provision for local growth plans to consider the needs of rural, coastal and remote communities. Obviously, rural areas are not homogeneous. We know that they have different industries—for example, agriculture and the visitor economy—and the demographics are different. Lots of people come to my constituency to retire, for example, which tells us about the health provision that we need our area.”
“For such an important Bill, I do not think that we should wait four years—my community will be left behind by then. I do not want to wait for the ballot box; I want to give the mayor the tools to have inclusive local growth plans that take areas into consideration. That means they will be empowered to lobby the Government for transport networks or broadband connectivity in isolated areas and coastal communities, which are also, by the way, vulnerable to storms and flooding because of climate change, so they have very different needs.”
“(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.”
“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).”
“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.”
“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.”
“In the case of unitaries, yes. The district council in the town of Stratford-upon-Avon is still in charge of the visitor information centre, but that will probably go to the town council when our district council is abolished.”
“As I said, we need to ensure that the strategic authority has the tools to consult town and parish councils. In an area such as mine, which is to go through reorganisation and devolution, we do not know what will happen to many smaller parish councils.”
“Towns and cities across the country are proud of the role that they play in supporting the visitor economy, both domestic and international, but the system needs to be made fairer through a recognition of the costs, as well as the benefits, of such a high degree of tourism. The new clause would compel the Government to conduct a review into giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies. Scotland introduced the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024, which gives councils direct powers to apply tourist taxes. Wales followed suit with the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Act 2025, and now Manchester and Liverpool have introduced a voluntary levy. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole has introduced a levy.”
“That would promote sustainable tourism, because the authority, by consulting on the views of parishioners through parish and town councils, would be able to balance visitor growth with the needs of residents. That is very important for areas such as my constituency. In short, the amendment would empower local communities, strengthen democracy and make tourism strategies more effective and inclusive. New clause 41, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), would require the Secretary of State to review the idea of giving local authorities the power to introduce visitor levies in their areas. This is an important power for strategic authorities.”
“That is important, because town and parish councils know the attractions, infrastructure needs and growth opportunities of their areas best. If a theme park is proposed, the town or parish council will know exactly whether, for example, a bypass is needed. Engaging with them will ensure that tourism plans are grounded in the reality of each community. I repeat that the onus to engage should be on the strategic authority. The amendment would also ensure inclusive planning. We talked this morning about inclusivity. Small towns, villages and rural areas are often overlooked in broader strategies, but they are vital to our economy. By considering them, we support equitable growth across both urban and rural areas. The authorities would also have to report on how councils are engaged and what input they have provided.”
“The onus would be on the strategic authority to consult, not on the parish or town council to respond. The argument that there are 300 parish or town councils, so we will not bother to ensure that their voices are heard, really disappoints me. The amendment would require strategic authorities to consult town and parish councils when developing “tourism strategies, policies and investment priorities”. The amendment also asks the Secretary of State to issue guidance on minimum standards of engagement. Again, we must give the strategic authority the tools to engage with town and parish councils, which, I remind the Committee, are going to take on a lot of assets and services when district councils are abolished. Overall, the amendment is about giving local communities representation in tourism planning.”
“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.”
“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.”
“They also would encourage authorities to make evidence-based decisions across transport and planning, and also about the siting of heavy industry in an area, so we would like to hear the Minister’s views and assurances on these important issues.”
“As we have heard, poor air quality causes thousands of premature deaths every year and leaves many others with chronic illnesses, but these are preventable. We also know that pollution hits deprived communities and those near busy roads or industrial estates the hardest, yet without action, their voices will be ignored. By explicitly including air quality, we can create healthier communities, which will translate into fewer hospital visits and a better quality of life for everyone. By explicitly including air quality in the duty of combined county authorities and combined authorities to reduce health inequalities, amendments 253 and 254 would ensure that environmental factors are considered alongside social and economic ones.”
“I would like to speak to amendments 253 and 254. These are simple amendments, but they can make a meaningful impact and save lives. We want to add nitrogen dioxide levels and general air quality as a factor that combined authorities and combined county authorities must consider in their work to reduce health inequalities. That would ensure that environmental health risks were treated as core determinants of health, not as an afterthought. We have heard a moving speech by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. We know that nitrogen dioxide pollution and poor general air quality are major contributors to respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and they disproportionately affect vulnerable communities. Including air quality as a health determinant would protect the most vulnerable.”
“I declare that I used to work as a university lecturer before being elected. One of my constituents has already paid nearly £500 for their French visa, just to be able to undertake their year abroad as part of their degree. These costs will exclude students from disadvantaged backgrounds from vital international opportunities. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the excessive visa costs faced by British students undertaking international placements?”
“The Government say that they want to simplify the post-16 system, but the reality is that funding for further education remains chronically low. Will the Secretary of State look again at further education funding streams—for example, letting colleges reclaim VAT, as schools with sixth forms do, and extending the pupil premium to post-16 levels?”
“Mayors should include these important councils as partners and consult them on a range of issues. We must create a regular, structured forum for dialogue between all the key players in local government and public services.”
“For example, a town council in my constituency has been fostering important community projects. One of the initiatives is working with local businesses to make Alcester a neurodivergent-friendly town—a town for all. These councils are invaluable partners for combined authorities and mayors in the shires. Engaging with such bodies means that the combined authority and the mayor have direct insight into local issues. Put simply, the new clause would ensure that mayors regularly bring together local authorities and public services to co-ordinate on shared priorities and improve co-operation across the region. In rural areas such as my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, parish and town councils, as we have already discussed, are the first tier of local government.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. New clause 42 would make it a legal duty for mayors to hold regular meetings with local councils in their area; with service providers such as the NHS, police or transport bodies; and with town and parish councils. The power to convene would become a mandatory duty to convene. In particular, parish and town councils are included on the list of bodies that local mayors are required to convene meetings with. I used to be a parish councillor, so I know the important role that these rural councils play and the many services that they deliver. They also stepped up socially during the covid pandemic, including setting up food-share schemes and referring people to food banks if they lost their job. Town councils are also important.”
“These councils need to have a voice at the table of decision makers. The hon. Member has also been a parish councillor, if I remember properly from our last debate, so he knows how important they are as stakeholders in their local communities. There is a way of making this convening duty less cumbersome on the mayor. To be fair, though, if someone stands to be the mayor of 1.2 million people, they have a responsibility towards all of their communities.”
“Residents should be able to see that their local leaders are meeting openly and regularly, working together on the priorities that matter most to their communities. The new clause would ensure that. Fundamentally, the point of devolution is to bring power and decision making closer to the people whose lives are directly affected by those decisions.”
“I do not think we are seeing that at the moment. We are not seeing it with metro mayors or combined authorities, so that is why we would like to see a mandatory duty to convene. Mayors wield significant powers over transport, housing, skills and regeneration, and it is imperative that local councils and community representatives are included in conversations about how such powers are used. New clause 42 would also promote joined-up public service delivery, because regular meetings with all stakeholders, including the first tier of councils and local services, will eventually result in better co-ordination on cross-cutting issues, which could be regional. The measure would also—I will say this again and again—strengthen accountability and transparency in this new, exciting, revolutionary programme.”
“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.”
“I beg to move amendment 58, in schedule 12, page 162, leave out sub-paragraph (5). This amendment would remove provision for the Secretary of State to have the power to approve a Mayoral Development Order where a Local Planning Authority has not approved it by the end of the period.”
“I will speak mainly to amendment 58, because amendment 59 is consequential on amendment 58, which seeks to decentralise even further planning decisions from Whitehall. It would remove the power of the Secretary of State to step in and approve a mayoral development order when the local planning authority has not given its approval within the set timeframe.”
“I beg to move amendment 252, in schedule 12, page 163, line 19 at end insert— “(ba) After subsection (1BB), insert— ‘(1BBA) When exercising any power under this section, the mayor of a relevant authority must ensure— (a) any plans received comply with any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan for the area, and (b) any plans comply with any Land Use Framework applicable to the area’.” This amendment requires mayors to ensure that when making decisions relating to planning applications, the planning applications have regard to any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan and, or Land Use Framework in place for the area.”
“The frameworks have been developed through public consultation and partnership with local councils, businesses, residents and, as I have mentioned before, town and parish councils. Those efforts should be recognised and embedded in the Bill. The amendment is pragmatic and constructive. It would not remove any powers from mayors, but only ensure that those powers are used in a way that respects local frameworks and national targets, and supports the needs and interests of our communities.”
“By requiring mayors to check that development applications are consistent with the strategic frameworks and any strategic visions, the amendment would ensure that short-term decisions are made with a strategic mindset and a long-term vision, taking into consideration our national commitments to sustainable growth, sustainable energy, net zero targets and local priorities in a given area, which could be the visitor economy, agriculture, business and so on. Like the other amendments that the Liberal Democrats have tabled, the amendment would strengthen local voices in decision making. Our local energy plans and land use frameworks are documents and visions that are made by consulting local people.”
“The strategic spatial energy plan and the local area energy plans set out how an area intends to meet its energy demands and, most importantly, to decarbonise its supply and deliver the infrastructure needed for the transition that we all want to see to net zero. The land use framework also provides a strategic view of how land is allocated to balance the needs of housing, agriculture—in my constituency—and businesses. Education and skills are also important, including adult education, as are transport and so on.”
“The amendment would require mayors to ensure that planning approvals are consistent with the strategic spatial energy plan and the land use framework for their area. I want to tell the Minister that this is a friendly and collaborative amendment. We want development to be coherent with energy policy and land use. That is important, especially in rural areas that are off grid, or in areas vulnerable to flooding or with protected landscapes, for example. Without the amendment, decisions about housing, infrastructure and new settlements can be made without proper reference to energy needs, grid capacity, or wider environmental and land use priorities. In our view, that would be a great mistake. We have the chance to improve the Bill here.”
“(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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. My constituent, Cody Fisher, a young footballer, was brutally stabbed to death at the Crane nightclub in Birmingham nearly three years ago. Since that horrific night, his family and especially his mother have been campaigning tirelessly with two Governments to get bleed control kits and the use of metal detectors in late-night venues. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Government to support Cody’s family’s campaign to ensure that no more families have to endure the heartbreak that they have endured?”