Alex Norris MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 May 2025 · Rebalancing Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend, with characteristic vigour, takes me to the next part of my argument. I do not see the finished devolution product being a shift of power from Whitehall and Westminster to a regional or sub-regional body that is far away from communities and the local authority. I think that transfer is an unalloyed good, but I do not think it is the whole job. That is why I was so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen was the one who opened the debate. Our plan for neighbourhoods is a step in that direction—we are saying that we want money and power to be held at a neighbourhood level, to shape place. We think that is the second part of devolution. The first part probably gets the most public attention—creating new mayors and new structures creates a lot of interest. For me, the magic is in that next stage, which is where communities really take control for themselves—and of their future. That is not just rhetoric from me; we have put our money where our mouths are. The £1.5 billion we have committed to the plan for neighbourhoods will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support for 75 areas over the next decade. It is hopefully a starting point. In April I had the pleasure of visiting two of the areas, Darwen and Rawtenstall, which are in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I was struck by the energy—my hon. Friend always has that characteristic energy, of course, but his former colleagues in local government had it too, as well as the neighbourhood board and all the folks who had come to play their role in that process. I was struck by how ambitious they were for their communities, and the plans they had. As I go around the UK talking to people, mentioning local growth and the plan for neighbourhoods, it is striking how they want to use the money to catalyse further investments in their communities.

• 14 May 2025 · Rebalancing Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise that Cornwall is different. That point is obviously established in multinational architecture as well. There is no doubt that there are differences in Cornwall. I know that my hon. Friend and his Cornish colleagues are making that case very strongly to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, and I am hearing that case as well. We know that that will continue. We need to have a programme that fits, and my hon. Friend will understand our need for coherence, too, but I appreciate the spirit in which he makes his point. I know there are differences in Cornwall, and those conversations will continue.

• 14 May 2025 · Rebalancing Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that child poverty is particularly cruel. It is cruel because of the hardship that those children grow up in, but it is also cruel because their potential is snuffed out before they have even had a chance, and we should want everybody to have a chance to play their role in their community. That speaks to the very important point that even within communities that are thriving, there are still some of those neighbourhoods. This is a conversation about towns, but it is also a conversation about neighbourhoods. The very poorest neighbourhoods exist in all parts of the country, and we should have a real neighbourhoods focus for how we tackle that. As I said, I think that these things interlock. I make no apology for believing that there is an importance in ensuring that our cities thrive. If our largest 11 underperforming cities got to the national average, that would be worth £20.5 billion; to the Exchequer, it would be £63 billion of additional output. That is a huge prize. I am thinking about Belfast and the incredible success story that is going on there in banking and finance, in the creative industries and in tech generally. These are incredible opportunities, which have the potential to change that community and change lives. However, it is right that colleagues here, such as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), should ask, “But what does that mean for Newtownards? What does that mean for Coleraine? What does that mean for Ballymena?” Those conversations are very much in the spirit that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen led us off in. We will as a Government—this has been part of the debate already today—look to back those projects that have a potentially transformative impact. Whether that involves the Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge corridor or unlocking the growth potential of our cities, we are going to do those things. We think that that should be at the core of our industrial strategy. I am talking about backing places with potential for growth, and growth with a degree of speed as well. There is the clustering that is going on. I am thinking about Liverpool and Manchester and some of the technology clustering. We are going to back those things. We think that is the right thing to do. But I want to give colleagues a real assurance that our approach has a lot more than that, too. As I have said, it is about power and it is about resources. With regard to the power piece, I am very proud of our devolution agenda. As a Government, we have built on what the previous Government did. They did good things in establishing the mayoralties that they did. We want that to go wider and deeper, which I will talk about in a second. In recent months, I have been working very closely with our mayors on the development of local growth plans, so that—again, in the spirit of what my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen says—rather than Ministers sitting in Whitehall with a map and working out where they think there might be some potential, we are saying to the leaders of those communities, “Get together with your community. Tell us where your economic future is. Tell us what the hurdles are to realising that economic future. Tell us what resources you need to deliver that economic future. We will agree those plans with you and we will back you. We will give you the power to do that. You can use tools, such as investment zones or freeports, but we want you to say what it takes.” I am very pleased to say that as we get to the spending review this year, we will see those plans come out. Whether we are talking about the Liverpool city region, the east midlands—my area—the Greater Manchester combined authority, the west midlands or elsewhere, people will see emerging very exciting plans that will be about a new vision, a new understanding of where this country’s potential and opportunities are, because suddenly they will be popping up all over the country. I am really excited about that, but we need more people to be part of the settlement. The devolution steps taken by previous Governments were good ones, but it could go much further, so we have made a commitment to a deeper devolution settlement—more powers across housing, planning, transport, energy, skills, employment support and more, so that locally those tools are there to shape place and to shape the economic future. I am delighted to say that Lancashire is soon to be part of this. We want more people to be in on that settlement because we think it delivers for their communities, so it is great that the Lancashire combined county authority is up and running. Of course, there are six areas in the devolution priority programme. That means that when those priorities are delivered and over the line, in addition to the devolution we have already, the proportion of England covered by devolution will rise to 77%, or just over 44 million people, by next May.

• 14 May 2025 · Rebalancing Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with that. When I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency, I was struck by the fact that he is in a valley, and if anything is wrong with that road, everything is wrong with that road and everything grinds to a halt. Of course the plan cannot be seen in isolation. I have only one minute left, and I want to cover the Green Book before I conclude. My hon. Friend made a very good case for updating the Green Book. As he said, a review is under way. That will ensure that the Green Book provides objective, transparent advice on public investment across the country, including outside of London and the south-east, meaning that investment in all regions gets a proper hearing and areas get proper backing for growth. I encourage colleagues to continue to talk to the Treasury, as I know they are doing, about what they want to see from a future Green Book to ensure that they are getting the investment they need in their communities. There has been a lot of energy in this room; there is always a lot of energy in the room when we talk about local devolution and local leadership. We have huge untapped potential in this country, and what it takes to tap into that potential, and that desire for communities to take control of their future, is a Government who support the transfer of money and power from this place to them to allow them to shape place. I am really excited to be getting on with that job, and to be working with colleagues in doing so. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

• 14 May 2025 · Rebalancing Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  I will shortly. That will cover the entirety of the north, which may well be the point that my hon. Friend wants to make.

• 14 May 2025 · Rebalancing Regional Economies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. It was a pleasure to hear the outstanding contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae). I am grateful to him for securing the debate, and I am grateful to my colleagues who have come and found a way to contribute to it as well. This is a very important debate. The frustration over the imbalances both between and within regions is felt locally, whether it is in Teesside or Cornwall or anywhere in between, so it is right that colleagues are interested in this. I have a whole argument to set out, but instinctively I will start with something I have said for a number of years, both when I shadowed this brief in opposition and throughout my time in government—something, most importantly, that the Prime Minister has said on multiple occasions: we see the fundamental transfer of power and resources from this place to local communities as a huge priority for this Government. We do that because we believe it is right that people should have a stronger say over their future, be it their economic future, their social future or the future of the fabric of their community, but we also strongly believe that that is what delivers. It is right that the No. 1 mission for this Government is growth, but if we are to get that, the heart of our growth mission must be making sure that everybody has good opportunities, and that prosperity is spread across the UK. This is hard to say, especially as a Minister, but also from Westminster itself: it is an inside job. When I became the Minister for local growth, a job I loved doing, I did not walk through a sheep dip that gave me omniscience over Lancashire, Teesside, the west Midlands or Halesowen. The experts are my hon. Friends, but more importantly they are their constituents. My role—and our job as a Government—is to get those resources and powers out to them, so that they can change their communities and shape their economic futures. That is an important and huge goal. It is very hard not to get into a conversation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) says, about either north or south, urban or rural and city or town, and that is a feature of this debate. But certainly when it comes to growth across those areas outside London and the south-east that have had the hardest time over the past few decades, I do not see these things as either/or’s. I think they interlock.

• 13 May 2025 · Local Housing Need Assessment Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for that clear direction, Mrs Hobhouse; it is very helpful. I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this important debate and on his leadership. He clearly articulated his concerns on the revised standard method for assessing local housing need. He set us off on a good course: this has been a very strategic debate, which is not always the case with debates about housing. I have a disclaimer that I and colleagues in the Department always read out at this point about our inability to comment on individual matters or individual local plans, but colleagues have not tempted us in that direction. That is very important, and it set the tone for an excellent debate. I will cover many of the points that the hon. Member and others made in the course of the conversation. The debate has been relatively non-partisan. I think the shadow Secretary of State slightly missed the memo, but I like him as much as he likes me, and I know he does not mean it and that his instinct is always to work constructively. I have no doubt that he and his colleagues will want to do so. At this very minute, colleagues from all parties are upstairs discussing in great detail the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will provide us with a vehicle for many important changes. Clearly, there will be lots of debates to come on very important amendments. Multiple members have said that we are in the middle of a really acute housing crisis. I get out of bed every day, as do my colleagues, because 160,000 children live in temporary accommodation. As mentioned by the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), that is the tip of the iceberg of the multiple millions who are under-housed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) said, their housing and under-housing has profound impacts on their opportunities and life chances. That has been in the spirit of this debate. We made that signature commitment at the election to build 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament exactly for those people, because they need decent housing to build decent lives and decent communities. Home ownership is out of reach for too many. Too few homes have been built, and too few are genuinely affordable. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the bank of mum and dad—that ever-present and indeed growing feature that now seems inevitable for people of my generation or those who are perhaps are a bit younger, but was not a feature of my mother’s generation. That is such an important issue of social justice. We must build more homes, and they must be in places where people want to live and work. The planning system has to underpin that, but as the hon. Member for Horsham said, the history of that is chequered. Indeed, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said, we have all had our stake in that. I certainly approach this in the spirit of humility. We want to get this right. I will now turn to the work of the previous Government. We must have a method that is clear and transparent. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) talked about what it looks like in detail. At least it is there in detail for people to say, “I don’t like this element of it. I think this is weighted wrongly”. It is clear, it is transparent, it is there, and it produces the numbers. That is the basis for plan-making. I do not want to make a political point out of this, because the right hon. Gentleman is proud of the previous Government’s record on housing, but we have had a little test of the alternative in the final year of the last Parliament, and there was a sense that targets were out the window. I do not think that was a very effective decision, and the impact on housing starts is a matter of public record. I do not think we have heard much of an argument for not having a method at all, but without one, the situation tends towards stasis. That is why last December, following consultation, we implemented a revised method that is aligned with our ambition of a million and a half new homes over this Parliament. There is one point that I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Horsham about, although I appreciate that it may well be a separate debate: I do not think we can decouple the national target and the local target. If the local target does not meet the national target or the national target does not tally with the local target, there will be disconnect and frustration. This target and this method point us towards 370,000 homes. The formula incorporates a baseline of local housing stock and is adjusted upwards to reflect affordability pressures. Areas where unaffordability is most acute see the largest adjustment. We think that supply is an issue here alongside demand—I disagree slightly with a couple of colleagues on that point. However, I think it is really important for those watching to hear this stated from the Front Bench: this method does not exist in a vacuum. It is the underpinning of the development of local plans, which have been and will be the cornerstone of our planning system. The plans take into account all the development needs of a local area, including affordable housing. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) about the challenges facing her local authority in ensuring that its plan holds, but the fact that it has that 30% target is a sign that local authorities can put on record the nature of housing that they want in their communities. Notwithstanding the point made by the hon. Member for St Ives, if it is an arm wrestle with developers, it has that guiding document at least to halt it, because we know that the alternative is a lack of planning that exposes communities. They make up the bedrock, and we want all communities to have one. York is always a prime example—I am overjoyed that York has got to that point after more than six decades. That community is better protected in terms of development, and it will also deliver more effective development. It is a win for all. I cannot concede the point made by the hon. Member for Horsham that councillors do not know enough; I think that they do. There is a point about local authority resourcing and planning, and we made that commitment at the previous Budget. We want councillors to have the skills to feel empowered, but crucially, as the hon. Gentleman said, local communities also need to feel empowered. I cannot agree that housing and development is not an election issue; I think that it is. The 1.5 million homes target was very much a feature of what we said at the general election. I want to empower local authorities and people to have their say on plans, because they are a bedrock. If they want development that is sustainable, of the right type and in the right place, perhaps on brownfield sites, the local plan is the route to that. It means engaging with it in a way that goes beyond the questions of, “Should there be development? Is our development target too high?” We need to get to, “Where is it going to happen? What type does it need to be?” That is, I believe, the way to deliver the development that they want. A number of colleagues, including the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), have mentioned local circumstances. Indeed, last week, he and I were talking about West Dorset in the context of having the right parking in the right places. Things like that are facilitators and enablers of place. The standard method is a starting point to inform the preparation of local plans. Once local need has been assessed, authorities can establish the number of new homes that are to be provided in the area. That takes into account evidence showing what land is available and any constraints on development—for example, those relating to national landscapes, areas at risk of flooding and other relevant matters. That approach recognises that some areas—as, I think, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said—will not be able to deliver the figure provided by the standard method. If they can justify that fully in their local plan during examination by an independent inspector, they can make that case. However, of course, they must only adopt a plan that is legally compliant and sound. It must be consistent with national policy, supported by evidence, and we want the views of local people to be taken into account. A point was also made about brownfield sites. We want local authorities to make sure that they maximise those sites, and I think local authorities want to do that too. We also want them to be sensible about where they review green-belt land. I think there are different types of land within the green belt. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire characterised it as a Trojan horse; that is not our intent. Who is best placed to make that assessment? It is, of course, the local authorities, by leaning into it. The right hon. Gentleman made an interesting point, as did the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, about whether it is a question of urban versus rural. I do not think that that is the case. Hon. Members will see in our approach to growth in city regions the importance of those regions to the economy; they are places where people want to live, or where people cannot currently access housing. As the Minister for town centres, I can say that we are enthusiastic in the Department about communities taking control of their town centres, notwithstanding challenges about permitting development. In future, town centres will not be purely retail; the mix will be retail, leisure and, of course, there will also be a need for accommodation. That mix should be locally owned. In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Horsham mentioned new towns. It will not be a case of: is it urban, rural or new town? It is going to be everywhere; the mix will be a bit of everything. Similarly, it will involve big builders and SMEs. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton shares my enthusiasm for getting SMEs building. It is going to be the entire mix. I am conscious of time, but I want to address the points made by the hon. Member for West Dorset and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about water and local housing. Of course, water is important. National policy is clear that housing must have water infrastructure. There are clear expectations that local authorities should work with each other and the infrastructure providers to ensure that housing has that infrastructure. I think that, in general, they are doing that and ensuring that the water supply is sustainable. The companies have a statutory duty to provide new water and sewerage connections. I appreciate that the subject needs to be seen in the round, but that goes back to the need to have an effective, comprehensive local plan, which local authorities can use as their guiding document. They can then say to the water companies, “We do not want you to look at 50 houses at a time; we want you to see it in the round.” That is the sort of leadership that we want. There are larger issues that colleagues have raised frequently. I would be stretching the scope of this debate if I talked about the behaviour of those who manage water, but we could have a whole new debate on it. Of course, there is an independent review ongoing on the regulation of the water sector for the UK and Welsh Governments. I assure the hon. Member for Strangford, as I often do, that we are very active in talking to the Northern Ireland Executive on a variety of issues, particularly on building safety. I always talk to my counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about their approaches. On strategic planning, this is a chance to have a higher level but still localised view of the best sites, working and collaborating with local planning authorities. That is an exciting innovation. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) asked how that will butt up against local government reorganisation. Of course, those partners will be part of that, but there will still be a local planning authority so that people can submit their views on a local plan. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, the hon. Members for Chichester and for Horsham and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) talked about affordable and social housing. There can be no doubt about the commitment of this Government and the Deputy Prime Minister to social housing, genuinely affordable homes and homes for social rent. We have already put our money where our mouth is by committing £800 million in-year for the affordable homes programme, and a further £2 billion injection at the 2025 spring statement. Alongside that, there are new flexibilities for councils and housing associations within the AHP and in how they use right to buy.

• 13 May 2025 · Local Housing Need Assessment Reform · Hansard source

  More

  That excellent innovation by the local authority reflects one of the needs that the public want to see met. In my final minute, I want to address the point that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton made about the Building Safety Regulator. It is right that we have a regulatory framework in place; we have seen the consequence of not having one. It has to protect people but also enable building. There is a moral imperative to ensuring that people are safe in their homes, but also to ensuring that people have homes. The BSR is a relatively new regulator—it has only been in place for a couple of years—and obviously the Building Safety Act 2022 is a relatively new part of the scene. We are working very closely with the BSR to ensure that its operational processes are as effective as possible. Where that is a challenge, we have made more money available. I speak with the industry about that in great detail, as I am sure the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton does, so he will know the conversations that we are having. I totally accept that we need to ensure that the BSR is working effectively, because it is a really important part of having a safe system. I reiterate our determination to build the homes that the country needs. Through the standard method, we have the right tool to get to 1.5 million homes. In that context, local people will have the leadership they need to deliver what that looks like locally.

• 6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  I am slightly loath to start a speech on the national planning policy framework—not least because I think you will smite me down, Mr Efford—but I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s points. We have of course consulted on the NPPF, and have published our changes as a result of the consultation. On the code of practice, our goal is to find a proper balance to ensure that parking charges and debt recovery fees are fair and proportionate, while providing an effective deterrent against the small number of people who deliberately do not comply. We intend to publish a consultation shortly—and I do mean shortly—to outline where the Government are and give everybody a chance to share their views. I encourage colleagues from across the House to take part—as always, I am available to meet any and all to hear their views—but I cannot say strongly enough that it is coming shortly.

• 6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend’s intervention shows that there needs to be, at the heart of this Government’s work, stronger local say about the full transport balance. The goals that he talks about are those of many of his constituents, who are the experts in ensuring the right balance. Whether that is in regard to bus services or planning, as raised by the shadow Minister, we want to ensure that the tools are in the hands of local communities, so that they can lean in and plan at a community level the amenities and assets that they need collectively.

• 6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that this is an urgent issue—that was a feature of all Members’ contributions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me when I say “shortly”. At the risk of getting into a debate about what is short and what is urgent, all I can say is that we want to get on with this at the best pace we can. We want it to work, deliver and hold up. Last time, in 2022, it did not survive its first contact with reality. We will publish the code shortly, but I ask for a bit of trust that I am getting on with it at the fastest possible pace. This has been a valuable debate, and I am grateful for the challenges that colleagues set out. I have heard them clearly and they will form part of my considerations as Minister. I hope that the constituents who have had their voices brought into the room feel that they have been represented. I hope those who think, “Well, this happened to me too, and boy am I frustrated about it,” appreciate that change is coming. I very much look forward to delivering that change.

• 6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate and for the spirit and intent with which they both spoke. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. I must say that I am generally not one for diary policing colleagues, and I always say to constituents that the number of people attending a debate does not always reflect the amount of feeling that exists about an issue. However, it is clear that both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have tapped into a real issue, and the range of colleagues present, of different political persuasions and from around the country, shows that. Something my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) said particularly stuck with me: I think that all colleagues have experienced, as I have myself, being contacted by frustrated, angry and upset constituents—good people, who go about their days doing the right thing, but end up battling a system that is not only seemingly unresponsive to their challenges, but is actually set up to challenge them and indeed to trip them up. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot spoke about the strength of feeling that exists about this issue, but they provided a purposeful and solution-focused approach to lead the debate, which has stood us in good stead. In the contributions that colleagues have made, they have clearly set out the “rap sheet” and the frustrations of their constituents, and I will respond to those points shortly. I hope that their constituents, and indeed constituents from around the country, can hear their voices in this debate; they have been very present. I have a little more time in which to speak than colleagues did, so I will start by saying, as they perhaps would not have had time to do, that there is an intrinsic importance and value in private parking. Parking is important for our motorists and, as some colleagues alluded to, it is also important for the resilience of towns, cities and communities across the country. People want and need—and must be able—to use their cars to do their shopping, attend medical appointments, go to work and take their children to the activities they need to go to. As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said, in many areas across the country, people are totally dependent on their cars and rely on the consistent and available provision of good-quality car parks. All our communities in our towns and our cities rely on having a mix of transport options, of which privately managed car parks are an essential element. That is how important and fundamental car parks are. If we individualise some of the challenges that exist, such as a number being keyed wrongly here or an overstay by two minutes there, parking might be seen as a granular challenge, but actually it is a hugely significant issue for the vitality of our communities. Like other colleagues, I have heard from those who represent the private parking industry, who say that 99% of the time there is a quality interaction, but we have heard stories in this debate that show that is too often not the case—and too often for seemingly avoidable reasons. I am grateful to hon. Members for setting out their cases. I am also grateful to those colleagues who highlighted that the issue is on the rise. We heard about the scale of it: as colleagues said, between 2012 and 2022 there was a near 500% increase in DVLA vehicle keeper data requests. Something must be done. As other colleagues said, a parking charge will be issued every two seconds during this debate. The system must be fair, and it must ensure that motorists can park without fear of an unfair charge. I will speak a little about what we intend to do as a Government shortly, but colleagues have set out an important road map—if hon. Members will excuse a totally unintended pun—for different improvements that could be made to the system. First, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) mentioned the clarity of the rules. My hon. Friend raised an important point about his assessment of his own capacity to comply or otherwise with rules. By instinct, I want to follow the rules to their fullest—I definitely do not want to get fined—but they can be difficult and unclear, and they ought not to be. They ought to be something that anybody can comprehend and follow. Similarly, my hon. Friends the Members for Derby South and for Shipley (Anna Dixon) talked about the importance of signage. It is important that that is not seen as a hurdle to clear—an invisible hurdle, something that people could have known if only they were 15 feet taller. There has to be fairness in ensuring that people know how to follow the rules. The systems themselves also have to work, as my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said. Kimberley, in my constituency, is in a dip, so it is often very hard to use the app because there is no connectivity. The systems have to be ones that people can access and use. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) talked about proportionate responses, so that, if people do not follow the rules, the penalties are fair and relate to the transgression. He also made important points about what parking can do in a tourism context. Like him, the last thing I would want is for someone to come to my constituency—perhaps to enjoy Nottingham’s fabulous night-time economy—and for the one thing they remember to be, “Oh, but I got a parking ticket, didn’t I?”. Those things stick, so the system has to be fair and transparent; if it is not, there is a knock-on impact. My hon. Friends the Members for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) and for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) talked about an appeal system. This is fundamental. People must be able to exercise their right to a fair hearing. People must also have confidence in the appeal system. Otherwise, they will not use it, and the virtuous feedback loop that is created when the appeal system demonstrates to operators areas where there might be challenges—why are they getting a lot of appeals on a specific car park? Is there a signage or technology issue?—gets lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) mentioned access to the DVLA database. The database is accessible where there is reasonable cause, which underpins the system. I say to her and other colleagues who expressed concerns that there can be consequences for operators who misuse the system. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about Northern Ireland. This is a devolved matter, but I reiterate a commitment I have given to him in relation to a number of other issues, which he very kindly mentioned: I talk to my counterparts in the Northern Ireland Executive frequently about a variety of issues, and I am always keen that we learn from each other. There are sometimes good reasons for doing things differently, but we must not create a lack of clarity by doing wildly different things. It is always interesting to hear what they are doing, and I am always keen to borrow the best of what is going on across the UK. Like a number of other colleagues, the hon. Gentleman also mentioned a local example from his constituency of the importance of political pressure in getting the right thing to happen. I think particularly of the five-minute cap issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and the constituent who was fined £2,000. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington mentioned the significant fine—a matter of public record—given to one of her constituents. Reading ahead to where I am going here, colleagues will know that pressure by hon. Members meant that that system was changed under the voluntary code of practice. That is a good thing, but that is not how a system ought to work. Similarly, in my community we had a number of complaints about the same car park. A member of staff from my office went and saw that one of the cameras had been knocked, so they were getting duff data. We were able to get that changed. That may have to happen sometimes, but that is not a system that is working. It should not rely on politicians intervening in individual cases to change policy. We can and will do much better. I want to reiterate—or iterate and then reiterate, perhaps—to colleagues our commitment as a Government on this issue. I hope colleagues have seen my strength of feeling on this issue. We are committed to taking action to protect motorists and drive up standards in the private parking industry. We have a helpful bit of support from previous Parliaments in that. I think that, other than the hon. Member for Strangford, only you and I, Mr Efford, will remember the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which started as a private Member’s Bill tabled by Greg Knight. That was a good use of the private Member’s Bill process. The 2019 Act places a duty on the Government to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the operation and management of private parking facilities. However, doing so was an exercise that confuddled four previous Prime Ministers and five Secretaries of State—one of them twice—not to mention goodness knows how many Ministers. The process was too slow and too chaotic. As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), said, the Government tried in 2022 but then had to withdraw the code of practice. I give the clear commitment from this Dispatch Box that as a Government we will deliver.

• 6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  I suspect that my reply to the hon. Lady will be the same as I have set out previously to a number of Members, either via written question or in correspondence. The timeframe is coming in due course. I will talk a little more about that, because we are having an important debate. We want to get this right, and I am aware of the potted and challenging history in this space. We want to get it right this time, and we are committed to delivering a code that recognises the importance of this issue to motorists and gets it right for them. The Department meets regularly with the AA, the RAC and other consumer groups, which have done such important work in this area, to ensure that the code we publish will act in the best interests of motorists and addresses their concerns. As would be expected, we have talked to the accredited trade associations—the British Parking Association and the Internation Parking Community—to ensure that we do not inadvertently make life harder for motorists along the way. I assure Members that we will engage with the issues that have been raised with the Department as we work towards publishing the code.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Wickford Town Centre Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  That seems an excellent deal and one that I will absolutely take. On devolution—if only we could go for an hour on that—I have followed a little bit what the right hon. Gentleman has said previously. I think that perhaps there might be a distinction between the Government’s plans with regard to devolution and with regard to local government reorganisation, because they are similar things but not the same thing. I would hope that the shift of power and resource to Greater Essex is a welcome thing, but I appreciate that he will make his views strongly on local government reorganisation between now and the autumn, when decisions will be made. To conclude, the right hon. Gentleman made a very strong case and it is clear that he is going to give that leadership to his community. We want to see his community have the powers and resources to shape the place themselves, so that they can do their bit. We will do our bit, too, all with the common goal of improving Wickford town centre and town centres across the country. Question put and agreed to.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Wickford Town Centre Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree—one thing that I wrote down as the right hon. Gentleman was speaking was that I would not want to be Asda in this case. Asda does excellent work in Nottingham, but if it thinks that the right hon. Gentleman will go away quietly or be distracted by other things, it is very mistaken. He has a long career of showing that he will persist until eventually he gets what his constituents need, but—exactly as my hon. Friend says—that requires us to be in the room to have those conversations. I hope that Asda leans into that, because that will be very important indeed. The conversation about town centres is one that we are having across the country. As a Government, we want to see growth in every corner of the UK—that is at the heart of our plan for change. We want that economic growth to raise living standards, and we want to support places to deliver the changes they need. That is an important message from this Dispatch Box, because we believe we have a really important role to play in the improvement of town centres, but equally profoundly, we have a responsibility to get the tools and resources out from this place into those communities. As much as I want to match the right hon. Gentleman’s energy and will seek to work with him in any way I can, I believe that those 40 people who came to the town council meeting last night are the experts. They ought to be given the tools and resources to make sure they can do the job, and that is very much my role as Minister, as well as doing what we can alongside that. That is a pretty clear theme that runs through our devolution agenda. We are delivering the biggest ever transfer of power from this place to the regions. We have set out in the “English Devolution” White Paper how we think mayors can drive growth in their areas, equipped with integrated funding settlements and a range of new powers across planning, housing, transport and skills, all of which have been a part of this debate. Of course, Greater Essex is one of the six areas that were announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 February as members of the devolution priority programme, so this is something that is very much coming to Essex. It is important that those powers and responsibilities exist at that level—that will lead to Greater Essex being part of the Council of the Nations and Regions, as well—but it is important that power is held locally, too. I was really pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the establishment of the business improvement district; I am also the Minister for BIDs, and I am passionate about the impact they can have. If there is a useful moment for me to meet and speak with that BID, I would be very keen to do so. I take every opportunity to talk to business improvement districts, because their insights about challenges and opportunities—as one would expect and hope—very much inform the work that we are trying to do. As I have said, we want to put tools into local communities’ hands. Building on the work of the previous Government, we are very pleased to have commenced high street rental auctions in this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman talked about long-term vacant sites and the harm that individual vacant sites can do. We all have them in our own communities—they really bring down the place. The reality is that vacancy is rot for the vitality of high streets. It becomes a self-defeating cycle of further vacancy, increased crime and antisocial behaviour, a loss of identity, a loss of hope, and a loss of the belief that things can get better. Vacancy is rot, and it must be tackled. There are good short-term measures that can be taken. I am really pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman’s council was willing to use section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but high street rental auctions are a good addition to those measures, compelling owners not just to clean up sites but to use them usefully. These are new powers that enable local authorities to require landlords to rent out persistently vacant commercial units, which will help to bring business back to the high street and drive growth across the country. They give local leaders the power to auction the lease of commercial properties that have been vacant for more than a year, providing business and community groups with the right to rent and giving local people the ability to shape and improve their high streets. All local authorities, including Basildon borough council, are able to use these powers, and some resources are available to support them in doing so. I encourage all local authorities to reach out to us, because we are working with early adopters, but we want everybody to have access to those powers. We have a lot of insight already, and we would be very keen to have that conversation with any local authority. We will build on that by introducing a community right to buy, as was set out in our manifesto. That will give communities the ability to acquire assets of community value and not have that sense of the inexorable loss of much valued institutions. As I say, this is about the shift of power to local communities, but it is also about national Government doing their job. In particular, I would like to talk about banking hubs. The right hon. Gentleman has previously mentioned banking challenges in his community and I think it is a challenge that many right hon. and hon. Members have. I am really pleased to hear what he says about Nationwide. If I was going to be a bit cheeky, I might say that there is a value in the building society model; a certain ethos and community mindedness is clearly played out there. On top of that, we are working very closely with banks to roll out 350 banking hubs to ensure critical cash and banking services, and face-to-face support. I know that that is important in Wickford; it is also important in Nottingham and Kimberley in my community. If and when I get the chance to meet the Wickford business improvement district, I know that it will talk about business rates. They are a significant overhead and a real challenge. Through our reform, we will create a fairer system that protects the high street and supports investment. The recently enacted Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2025 enables the introduction of permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure from April 2026. That is a permanent tax cut that will ensure those sectors can benefit and grow. In addition, we know that having a really good licensing regime is very important, but it can also be a barrier. Earlier this month, the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister announced their licensing taskforce to see what we can do to remove some of the barriers to growth in the hospitality sector and the wider night-time economy. There will be more to say on that and other issues affecting businesses and high streets in our forthcoming small business strategy. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned planning and transport, so I want to pick up on both those threads before I close. Again, it is really important that they are locally shaped. For local transport plans in particular, local authorities and local communities are the experts, and they should have the power to set and shape. We want to give them greater tools and we want to give parkers greater tools. We will shortly announce our plans for a new code of practice on parking, as set out in the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. I am really pleased to hear about the success of the station. For many people who visit Wickford, it will be the very first thing they see, so it should be a quality offering that shows the quality of the town. On local plans, the right hon. Gentleman tempts me a little bit. I am conscious that there is a consultation opening in the autumn. I know that he and his constituents will make their views very clear, as they should. The key thing for us as a Government is that, yes, we know we have set a significant target of 1.5 million houses in this Parliament. We know that that has to be locally delivered. We know that that involves a planning number, but the agency within that should still be a local one. That is why local plans are so important. It is why Basildon having one is so important and why the consultation later this year will be so very important as well.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Wickford Town Centre Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on securing this important debate, which of course comes on the heels of the debate on Wickford station in March. He set out an excellent case, but before I reflect on that I would like to associate myself with his remarks about Councillor David Harrison. I did not know him, but the right hon. Gentleman’s tribute clearly showed what a passionate, effective and deeply caring man David Harrison was for the town of Wickford. I offer my condolences to his widow and family; I hope they can take some comfort from what the right hon. Gentleman said and from the fact that David Harrison’s name will now be carried on the record in this place for as long as this democracy stands. I think that is a very meaningful and proper tribute to him. The right hon. Gentleman set out a passionate case for regeneration of the town centre. By definition, right hon. and hon. Members sit on different sides of this Chamber because we often have different views and different analyses of shared problems, but one thing that unites us is our frustration at the decline of town centres and the passion to do something about it.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Coalfields Regeneration Trust · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this debate and for raising not just the challenges faced by coalfield communities, but the exceptional work done by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in supporting them. I am always cautious. Indeed, when I was waiting for this debate I had a couple of emails from constituents, to which I replied that they should not measure the interest in Parliament always by the presence in Parliament. However, this is a rather exceptional turnout for an Adjournment debate at the end of the day. That shows the strength of feeling, and my hon. Friend has clearly picked an issue about which people feel strongly. He and other colleagues have made very thoughtful comments about the challenges facing our coalfield communities, what has worked to improve them and what might work in future. My hon. Friend excellently set out the challenges facing communities such as his and mine. The history is well potted but I think it bears repeating. Just two years, 1985 and 1986, saw one third of pits close, including many where my constituents worked. By 1994, with the industry privatised, only 26 mines were operational out of more than 200 at the beginning of the ’80s. Employment in coalmining plummeted to just 7,000 and the socioeconomic impact of those closures, especially at the community level, has been profound. It is important that we understand that in context: there are few, if any, more striking examples of chronic job loss in western Europe, with nearly all the burden carried by a few local areas and a specific segment of the workforce. That speaks to why we still have those challenges, which were felt then and which echo, in many cases for decades, down the generations, with coalfield communities facing poorer health outcomes, a shortage of quality jobs and social dislocation. As I say, I know that because it is my community too, and I feel the same strength and vigour as my colleagues about wanting to change that. In seeking to address those challenges, we should be proud, as my hon. Friend said, that the previous Labour Government established the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, an independent charity designed to fund projects that would increase access to employment opportunities, education and skills training, and improve health and wellbeing in communities, alongside developing enterprise. As colleagues have said, the results have been very good. My hon. Friend mentioned the former Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott—and boy, do we miss John. But you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will probably not thank me for also referring to another John, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), who was instrumental in setting that up. As Parliament’s leading Healey-ista, I can say that it is another example of him being proven right and the things that he has put in place having stood the test of time. It is a testament to the organisation that when funding was ended in 2015 and there was a transition to £30 million of revenue funding and £22 million of capital funding, the CRT put that money to work, building industrial developments to support growing small and medium-sized enterprises and bringing economic growth to areas that had been experiencing market failure. Since 2015, the value of that original capital investment has doubled to create an asset base worth £55.5 million, supporting 3,500 jobs. On top of that, the rental income from those industrial developments provides a self-sustaining revenue stream to support coalfield communities, generating £21.5 million of revenue for the CRT and the more than 850 community organisations it works with in order to address the social and economic challenges facing their communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said, the CRT’s investment in 2023-24 alone helped 70,000 people tackle their health, skills and employment issues. The case is very well made and I look forward to talking over this matter and the letter with Andy Lock and his colleagues. I can safely say, given that I think every person in this Chamber has written to me on this matter, that the case is very well made. As my hon. Friend hinted, I cannot run ahead of spending review plans, but I can assure him that the ideas are being taken very seriously because I know that the good people at CRT and the organisations they work with put their boots on every day to change their communities in a positive way, and we are very lucky to have them. In the spirit of what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said, I want to mention the context in which we want the CRT to operate, and how we want it to change. I forget the three words that my hon. Friend used about power, but I think what I am about to say is very much in line with that. This Government, and the Prime Minister from day one, have promised a shift of power and resources from this place to local communities. These are proud communities. In my community we are proud that we powered the nation, and we are angry at the challenges we face. We have all the ideas and the insights we need to change it, but we just need the power and resources. That is the job of this Government. I could speak all day about what we are doing on devolution, but across our country, including in coalfield communities, and with more to come in Cumbria, Cheshire and Warrington, we are giving that power to local communities to help them shape their place. There is also a place for localised placed-based funding interventions, and one that has aged particularly well—another John Prescott innovation—is the new deal for communities. We have started in that direction through our plan for neighbourhoods, which is a long-term commitment to communities to shift resources to them, and to give them that stability of long-term funding, backed by the support of central Government, and empowering them to take ownership of driving forward the renewal of their neighbourhood. We are learning so much from what has worked, and the CRT will offer a great partnership with the coalfield communities who are the recipients of our plan for neighbourhoods. Those include 15 coalfield communities, including Mansfield, Doncaster, and Wrexham. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme rightly said, our hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones), the Whip on duty, would be speaking for the people of Merthyr. He has been a terrific advocate for Merthyr and its plan for neighbourhoods. Those areas deserve that money and that support, and going forward we know that there needs to be greater support for coalfield communities across the country. One way that we can ensure that the mistakes of the past four decades and the lack of opportunities for some coalfield communities can be changed is through local growth plans—time is short, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I do not want to miss this point. We have worked hard with the devolved Mayors to come up with plans for their economic future. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) mentioned green industries and those huge opportunities, and I suspect we will see them as a feature of those plans. Our commitment to those communities is clear: they should come forward with their local growth plans, and we will ensure that in their aggregate they are linked through to an industrial strategy that changes the economy in this country. I talk about the loss of jobs in my community in the ’80s, and the great tragedy was the absolute absence of effort to replace them. It meant that a Labour Government had to come along many years later, and it meant that fantastic organisations such as the CRT had to pick up the pieces. Well, we will not do that. Our industrial strategy will be built on getting Britain building again, getting Britain making again, and on giving our proud communities the opportunities to again have the skilled labour that built them in the past and will build them again. This debate is of course related to our past and our proud industrial heritage, but it is also a debate about the future—I know that because I feel I have perhaps the most intimidating group of people here to try to mug me for my dinner money on the way out, so it is very much in my future. The case has been exceptionally well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I thank him for doing so. The case has been made strongly by colleagues in interventions, in correspondence, and in an early-day motion—my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) asks me every day about that, and his major criticism is that he thinks it is at least one zero short. I was surprised not to hear him say that, but I know colleagues will keep supporting that, and we will engage seriously with the CRT. We know how much it does and can do for our communities across the country, and I look forward to working with it in the future. Question put and agreed to.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Town Centres: Population Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to remind the House, and the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues, that they of course wanted the predecessor programme to the plan for neighbourhoods, but did not provide any money for it. That was a slight oversight, which we have been able to address in order to keep the promises that they made but would have had to break. On the point about trade union boards, I can understand why Opposition colleagues do not want the voices of millions of ordinary people in the room when decisions are made; they never do, and they never will. However, trade unions are not in competition with small businesses—far from it. There is room for both in the discussions, and both will add lots to those discussions.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Town Centres: Population Growth · Hansard source

  More

  We all want to see our town centres thriving. Through our plan for neighbourhoods, the Government are investing £1.5 billion in the future of towns and communities. The Government have also committed to strengthening the developer contributions system to ensure that new developments provide the necessary infrastructure. To address vacancy in town centres, we have given councils the powers to force the auction of empty shops.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Town Centres: Population Growth · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is exactly right—those two challenges can be taken on together. Creating opportunities for people to live in local communities brings footfall and reduces crime, which are both excellent things. She has heard what my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has said about our support for house building. We stand ready to support her community to make sure they can build houses in their town centres.

• 7 Apr 2025 · Town Centres: Population Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that question, and for the spirit in which Burgess Hill is taking on the need to build housing in its community. We believe that sustainable housing with complementary infrastructure will drive the local economy—it will drive footfall to town centres and help bring private investment to high streets. Clearly, something interesting is happening in Burgess Hill, and I would very much like to visit.

• 7 Apr 2025 · East Midlands: Local Authorities and Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think we could litigate in the remaining 22 minutes whether Long Eaton is in Nottingham or Derby. My hon. Friend is perhaps better qualified than me to say so—but when I go to see him, I see a lot of Forest shirts. He is right to highlight the work of his council. It has not had very long in power, but it has taken a very progressive and ambitious approach to shaping place, and I am always proud to work with James and colleagues. I will mention a couple more investments. Infinity Park in Derby will receive £1.5 million for a research and development facility within EMCCA’s investment zone to support the advanced manufacturing and nuclear sectors. North East Derbyshire will receive £1 million to create southern access to the Avenue site, improving access for vehicles and pedestrians and enabling future development. These developments show the vital role of devolution in unlocking the potential of regeneration across regions by putting investment back into the hands of local people. EMCCA has not even had its first year, but the impact has been monumental, which gives us the perfect opportunity to recognise and reflect on the outstanding leadership of Mayor Claire Ward. She has had less than a year in post, but she has made a great impact in all the areas I have talked about. Projects are being developed on brownfield sites because of her leadership, and the reality is that decisions made in the east midlands should be taken by the people of the east midlands. That is why we will continue to back Claire. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned freeports, and that is just another sign of our wanting to get the powers and resources to EMCCA so that Claire can show that leadership and we can all collectively drive forward the region. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling made very important points about integrated settlements. He will not be surprised to hear that Mayor Claire makes exactly the same points to me and other Ministers on a daily basis, and the points are well made. Turning to the important contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), I think the insight about transport is best played through our combined authority. Again, it is incumbent on us at this Dispatch Box to deliver the right powers and resources to do so. There is of course the age-old problem—I say that, but it is actually quite a new one—of an east midlands mayoralty that does not quite cover all of the east midlands. I am delighted that the region is on the cusp of its second devolution success, with the upcoming election in less than a month of a Mayor for the Greater Lincolnshire combined county authority. That will bring £750 million of investment over 30 years, with an initial £20 million of capital funding to drive place-based economic regeneration. That is a great step forward and part of—something we are making good on in the English devolution White Paper—our commitment to a significant shift of power and resource from this place to local communities.

• 7 Apr 2025 · East Midlands: Local Authorities and Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) for securing the debate, and for raising both the economic challenges and the opportunities faced by our communities in the east midlands. He and I have been friends for a long time and have talked about these issues a great deal, as members of our council in our day and, perhaps, over a pint in town from time to time, so it is a personal thrill for me to be able to talk about them here, on the occasion of what I believe is his first Adjournment debate. I agreed with much of what he said, and I shall now say a little about the potential and some of the investment that the Government are making to change the trends that he described. The midlands has the largest regional economy outside London, and there is plenty for us to support—

• 7 Apr 2025 · East Midlands: Local Authorities and Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I very much do agree. It should be a point of great pride—and, again, it is one of our huge assets—that we have the biggest pure freight airport in the country. Frankly, our geographical location means that all journeys involving the transport of goods tend to come through our region at some point, but with the airport they do so very directly. My hon. Friend raises, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling did, the fact that one of our challenges in the east midlands is linking up our opportunities by having the right access and the right public transport. I think that is absolutely crucial, and it must be the next dimension of our efforts. Having had exactly the same conversation with Andy Reed—formerly of this parish—who is chair of the business board in Leicester and Leicestershire, I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) of our commitment to making sure that, although there are devolution gaps at the moment, people in Leicestershire can also secure a bright and more sustainable future for their communities. We will work with them in whatever way we can. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling was exactly right in saying that we cannot forget the importance of our local councils. I am very proud to be a former member of my council. Having seen how hard it has been for local authorities in recent years, I am also very proud that, at the recent Budget, we started the journey of rebuilding local finances. I think we will start to see much better services as a result—and we have to—and people will feel that change. Before I close, I want to cover my hon. Friend’s point, which he said with a degree of boldness, about local government reorganisation. Having made the case strongly for the devolution of power, as I think I did, my hon. Friends will know that my belief is that decisions are better taken locally than in this place, and we will certainly shift power in that regard. I think we must have a degree of responsibility in that where we add tiers of government, we rationalise other tiers. I am thinking of parts of my constituency that have five tiers of government: they have an elected mayor; they have me and this place; they have a county council; they have a borough council; and they have a town council. I do not think it is unreasonable that we should want to bring forward that reorganisation, but my hon. Friend made very significant points about the importance of getting the voices of local communities into the room, and the moment for that is now. In the next few months to November, when we expect proposals to be submitted, we have an opportunity to have those conversations. We are at the proposals stage, and we are going to make sure that communities have the right insight to make the right judgments about their future, and we will facilitate and be part of those conversations. To conclude, the thing that frustrates me about my city and our region is that we have had four really difficult decades—there is no doubt about that—and we see that in the physical and societal scars all across the area and in the memories we have lived with. For too long, we have talked about—or even worse, been talked about—in the deficit: what is wrong with us; what we do not have. I am really pleased with the spirit of this debate. The spirit of debate about our region over the past year, and certainly in the new Parliament, is one that talks about the opportunities in the east midlands, which are huge and abundant. We as a Government will back them, but most importantly it will be local leaders, the elected mayor, council leaders, local Members of Parliament and the local community who shape, deliver and drive that. I think that is the right way around and I cannot wait to see what we, collectively, can achieve. Question put and agreed to.

• 7 Apr 2025 · East Midlands: Local Authorities and Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend adds a very thoughtful and well-judged counterweight to my love letter to Nottingham city centre on behalf of Derby city centre. Perhaps she knew it was just too far beyond me to overcome our traditional rivalry, but she did so better than I could have done. Derby has some very exciting days ahead because of the investments, and because of the creativity of local leaders and the local community in enhancing that space. On the final part of her question, it is important that we get them the tools and resources to do so. I will talk a little about local government finance in a second, but we want to make sure that councils have the power—whether through high street rental auctions or similar—to shape their community.