Caroline Voaden MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Tourism: Overnight Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, I have sat through several evidence sessions on this visitor levy, and I have yet to hear any operator in the sector say that they support it, so I do not understand to whom the Minister has been talking. A caravan park operator said that if numbers go down in the off-season, they will only be able to be open in the high season, which has a knock-on effect on jobs, the local pub and the local café. It has a ripple effect across the local economy. The Minister talks about growth, and we need growth in the sector, because young people primarily are employed in hospitality. Such jobs are vital for young people. Can he tell me in what world he sees the tourism and hospitality industry growing under this visitor levy?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Curriculum and Assessment Review · Hansard source

  More

  The Government have committed to providing an enrichment entitlement for every child, including access to nature. Evidence shows that outdoor education can be part of the solution to some of the biggest issues facing our young people, such as the mental health and obesity crisis, the rise in NEETs and a failing SEND system. However, when a fifth of children in the most deprived parts of the country never spend meaningful time outdoors, something has to change. A framework for schools is not enough; we need a step change. Will the Secretary of State back my Outdoor Education Bill so that every child can grow up outdoors with better mental wellbeing, physical health, attainment, attendance and employability?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Curriculum and Assessment Review · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps she is taking to implement the recommendations of the curriculum and assessment review.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  The sewage literally flows outside the King of Prussia in Kingsbridge, and customers have to be really careful when they step outside it every time we have heavy rain. Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the more than 800 people who signed the petition from my constituency that we have to look again at the water ownership model? It is just not working: bills are going up and up, while shareholders are still extracting money from the water companies rather than it going into upgrading infrastructure.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome much of what is in the Bill—the reforms to right to buy are overdue and the new protections for tenants experiencing domestic abuse are an important step—but it lacks the ambition needed to address the wider social housing crisis and does little to address a problem hollowing out village after village across South Devon: the disposal of social housing by registered providers. Since 2018-19, housing associations have sold over 25,000 social and affordable homes on the open market. In 2024-25 alone, they sold 5,250, which was the highest figure on record. In the South Hams, one housing association has sold 49 homes since 2022, with the heaviest losses in Salcombe and Dartmouth, where property is extremely expensive. In Kingswear, 36% of social housing stock has been lost in just three years. The primary school has since closed due to a lack of pupils. With so little affordable housing left, there is little prospect of new families moving in. Over the last five years, 3,600 new homes have been built across my constituency, yet more than 2,500 families remain in housing need. Most of those homes are at full market price, way beyond the reach of local people. I absolutely reject what was said by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon)—the answer is not to build more open market homes that cost £1 million. When a single social rented home became available in Malborough, 119 households bid for it, and in Brixham 190 people bid for one social home, yet councils have no power to stop housing associations disposing of the few affordable homes that remain. I am really proud that council housing was introduced by the Liberal party under Lloyd George. I am furious that the Conservatives enabled so much of it to be lost. Just this morning, I heard from a constituent whose disabled son was offered a bungalow perfectly suited to his needs, allowing him to live independently while remaining close to his family. The family were then told that the housing association intended to dispose of it. A home that could have transformed someone’s life is being sold—it is heartbreaking. I will also address the need for smaller developments of affordable—including social rented—homes in villages. We must build small amounts of social housing around villages so that young people who have grown up in the village can afford to stay there and older people can downsize, yet social housing providers are fixated on large developments on the side of towns. The future of rural communities depends on homes that local people can afford. Without real powers for councils to protect social housing and hold developers to their affordable housing commitments, we will keep watching schools shrink, shops close and villages empty out, one sale and one broken promise at a time. It is not good enough.

• 10 Sept 2026 · EU-UK Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  British farmers and fishers, and my shellfish exporters, continue to face unnecessary trade barriers with our largest export market. A 2024 report from the Centre for Inclusive Trade Policy found that exports of British food to the EU had dropped by nearly £3 billion since Brexit. Our farmers and fishers desperately need a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—and fast—to reduce costs and bureaucracy, and to allow them to export their produce to the EU, yet the second UK-EU summit was postponed following the resignation of the former Prime Minister, and we have had no update on when it will take place. I hear the Minister say that he met Mr Šefčovič, so can he commit to the summit taking place this year? Can he give our British farmers and fishers a date for when that will happen?

• 10 Sept 2026 · EU-UK Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  3. What recent discussions she has had with her EU counterparts on the future EU-UK relationship.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Education and Skills Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the announcement about technical education, which I think is really valuable, but approximately 40% of colleges have had to cancel or scale back trade and vocational courses because of a lack of staff, and around three quarters of colleges in England are unable to recruit the necessary staff to teach technical subjects. Could the Education Secretary tell the House where the workforce will come from to teach technical subjects in every school in the country?

• 9 Sept 2026 · Pica Eating Disorder: SEND · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair today, Mr Betts, and I thank the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) for bringing this important topic to the House and for raising awareness of it in this place. As the hon. Member set out, pica is a condition most commonly associated with autism, learning disabilities and some mental health conditions, whereby a person compulsively eats non-food items such as soil, paper, hair, small objects or chemicals. This, of course, carries serious health risks, including choking, poisoning and internal injury, and in the most severe cases, it can be a cause of death. The specific causes of pica are not clear, but the bottom line is that people with pica, especially children, need support and management to help keep them safe. Pica is disproportionately prevalent among children and young people with autism and severe learning disabilities. Research estimates that between 20% and 23% of young autistic children engage in eating non-food items. We know that the more severe a child or adult’s learning disability is, the greater the chance they will display pica behaviour. School staff working in SEND settings, including mainstream schools with SEND pupils, special schools and early years settings, are therefore considerably more likely to encounter pica than the population at large. The Government’s SEND reforms, with their focus on inclusion, will undoubtedly be a cause of concern for parents of children with pica, who need to be reassured that their child will receive the support they need if they are going to be taught in mainstream education. When it comes to SEND, we can probably all agree that the status quo is not working. The SEND system is failing children every single day. After years of neglect under the Conservatives, it is failing to deliver the outcomes that children deserve and is driving local authorities to the brink, so we welcome the Government’s commitment to improve outcomes. Their reforms are an important step in the right direction, but many questions remain about funding, staffing and early intervention—all questions that parents of children with pica need to know the answers to. The Liberal Democrats will continue to press the Government to ensure that vulnerable children, including those with pica, get the support they need. One Liberal Democrat who has done just that is my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). Unfortunately, she is unable to attend the debate, but her work to support one of her constituents whose child has pica illustrates how the system is currently failing such children. Her constituent lives in constant fear that as soon as she leaves the room, her child will eat something dangerous, such as carpet underlay, which could have fatal consequences. The National Pica Advisory Service—which I believe is represented in the Public Gallery—has been a vital resource for my hon. Friend’s constituent, for which I offer thanks, but it should not have to be. I repeat: children in the UK have died and will continue to die as a direct result of pica, yet no one is taking my hon. Friend’s constituent or pica as a whole seriously. Many medical professionals do not understand the condition, there is a fundamental lack of awareness and it is regularly dismissed as autism, even though it is a separate diagnosis. Importantly, there is a lack of formal support pathways and an absence of national guidelines, which is unacceptable. Children and young people living with pica and their families deserve so much better. Effective management of pica could include staff recognising the behaviour, understanding its triggers and applying consistent, safe strategies, such as de-picaing the environment, teaching children to discriminate between edible and non-edible items, and offering safe sensory or textual substitutes. If we are to have an inclusive SEND system that works for all children, including those with pica, schools and teachers must be equipped with the training they need to support these children. That is one reason why the Liberal Democrats would improve teacher training and continuing professional development, with a focus on identifying and supporting children with SEND, including those with autism, dyslexia or other neurodiverse conditions, such as pica. Being aware of this condition is the first step to keeping children safe. We have also consistently campaigned for putting early identification at the heart of any SEND interventions and reducing diagnostic delays by streamlining NHS processes and increasing funding for assessments. Awareness of behaviours such as pica is an important part of keeping pupils safe. Teachers and support staff need to be able to recognise pica when they see it. As a result, advice on recognising pica should be included in the new SEND training offer for teachers and support staff at a general level. However, although there needs to be a greater emphasis on teachers and support staff being able to identify conditions such as pica and other general barriers to learning as part of the SEND reforms, it should not be their responsibility to diagnose or offer detailed support. Knowing how to safely manage and support a child who is showing pica behaviour is a specialist skill, and more detailed advice and support must be available to teachers who have a child with pica in their class. That is why it is so important that the health element of an education, health and care plan actually means something. Currently, there is no legal footing for ensuring children, including those who have conditions such as pica or avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, can access the healthcare they need as part of their education, health and care plan. We Liberal Democrats were disappointed that earlier this week the Health and Social Care Committee’s amendment was not added to the Health Bill. It would have given statutory footing to the “H” in EHCP, and helped children with pica and ARFID get the health support they so desperately need. It is also why we need to ensure that teachers have the help they need in the classroom, with more specialist staff in schools to meet neurodiverse children’s needs. We welcome the Experts at Hand service, but we cannot create these people out of thin air. Given the lack of such specialists, the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to publish a credible workforce plan to recruit and train the staff needed and to encourage trained specialists back into the profession. Pushing the emphasis on to individual teachers to spot and manage learning needs without new specialist capacity is a cost-saving measure, rather than a genuine improvement in support for our children. Teachers cannot be expected to have every form of SEND training required to meet the specific needs of every child, while also having all the skills necessary to teach the class. We cannot shove the burden of SEND on overworked, burnt-out teachers and expect good results for all children with special educational needs, as well as all the other children in the class. It is important to note that inclusion-focused SEND reforms will be deliverable only if we reduce wider pressures, such as workload, on educators. I recently ran a survey of teachers and got just under 1,000 responses. Nearly half of those teachers said they were planning to quit the classroom in the next five years, citing high workload as a key reason. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for proper enforcement of teachers’ legally mandated working hours, the introduction of reasonable limits on overtime and for all schools to be required to introduce flexible working policies. Returning to the topic of the debate, the Liberal Democrats are clear that children with pica must be kept safe if they are to be taught in mainstream school, and their parents deserve that guarantee, which I hope the Minister can provide. Every child with autism, dyslexia or another neurodiverse condition, such as pica, deserves the chance to thrive in school and move confidently on with their life and into work. With earlier assessment, better training for teachers, inclusive education and more specialist support, we can unlock the talents of neurodivergent young people and help them to thrive in life.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and its tone, and especially the fact that he referred clearly to ethnic cleansing and an illegal occupation. We have to stop the E1 settlement, which is a red line for the two-state solution, so I welcome these sanctions. Although we had been told for a long time that they were not possible, it is really good to see them today. On the sanctions, there will be Israeli companies exporting from the green-line area and occupied territories; we will be relying on their honesty to declare that. Likewise, military hardware made in the UK might go to green-line Israel, but it might be deployed in the occupied territories. Will he explain how he can guarantee that the sanctions will work?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Private Investment: Local Leaders · Hansard source

  More

  Good growth in every postcode is a very catchy slogan, but it will mean nothing if it is not backed up with investment. Time and again, significant funding is announced for cities and urban areas, usually in the north, while the south-west is left with pennies in comparison. Yesterday, the Chancellor once again announced investment in the north with no mention of investment in the south-west. That might be due to political expediency—I could not possibly say—but what are the Government going to do specifically to encourage growth in the south-west?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this debate. It is clear that the media landscape is changing, and changing rapidly. For many young people today, the first time they encounter a major news story is not by opening a newspaper or even turning on the TV; it is when a video appears on their social media feed, selected by an algorithm that is designed to keep them watching. Ofcom’s data tells us that three quarters of 16 to 24-year-olds now get their news mainly from social media. That represents a huge shift in how young people are understanding the world around them and comes with real dangers. Algorithms are not necessarily designed to inform us; they are designed with engagement in mind. That means that, for social media platforms, attention rather than accuracy is the priority. As politicians, we know that this comes with real implications for our democracy. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said about the importance of young and new voters having access to reliable news sources. We welcome the Green Paper, which recognises the change in our media landscape. However, the transformation is creating another challenge for our traditional broadcasters. Public service broadcasters have a vital and unique role in the UK’s media landscape. They provide trusted news, educational programming and content that brings communities together, but as audiences and advertising move online, the financial pressures on these broadcasters are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Just look at the BBC. From finding out who is voted off at the roundtable on “The Traitors” to listening to the shipping forecast, and from tuning in to 24/7 news coverage to watching educational content, the BBC is a quintessentially British service, loved and relied on by millions across the country. That vital public service, however, is under significant financial pressure, as made clear by the recent cuts to the BBC workforce and many of its much-loved programmes. As a former Reuters journalist, I firmly believe in the mission of public service broadcasters such as the BBC. It should be celebrated and protected. It is welcome that the Green Paper recognises the importance of prominence for these unique services, but what is missing is a clear commitment to protecting the BBC itself—its independence, universal availability and ability to remain a properly resourced public service broadcaster. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a permanent BBC charter to enshrine the BBC’s core mission and mandate for generations to come. Do the Government agree that the core principles of the BBC must be protected in a permanent charter? Another key matter for us in the Green Paper is the Government’s proposed transition from digital terrestrial television. The Green Paper sets out two possible deadlines—2034 or 2044—for switching off Freeview, with digital terrestrial television guaranteed only until the end of 2034. On that, we Liberal Democrats completely disagree with the right hon. Member for Maldon. I represent a very rural constituency, and I can tell the House that it is the most reliable and, importantly, free way in which people in my constituency and across the UK watch television. Today, 12.9 million homes use terrestrial television, including around 2.6 million that rely on it exclusively. In fact, more than a quarter of all television viewing in the United Kingdom last year was through Freeview digital terrestrial television. It is the single most popular way for viewers to access programming. It disproportionately serves older people, people on lower incomes and people in rural areas—precisely the groups least likely to have reliable broadband. The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) focused on people who live in canal boats, but there are hundreds of thousands of homes across the country, thousands of them in my constituency, that still do not have a reliable wi-fi connection today, and 6% of adults in the UK lack any home internet access at all. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) made an extremely valuable point about the need for terrestrial TV when communities are navigating any kind of storms, floods or other natural disasters.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I am deeply concerned about what it means for some of us in the rural south-west, as there are villages that will never get fast broadband. Setting a switch-off date without first closing this gap risks cutting off the communities that the Green Paper says it wants to protect. We are also concerned by the cost implications for commercial radio. If it is lost, we will reduce the plurality in our media landscape. If we move to an internet-only model before universal broadband is genuinely in place, we do not just inconvenience households; we risk isolating them from local democracy, local information and local culture altogether. For my constituents, that is the difference between staying connected to what is happening in their community and being cut off from it entirely. We cannot ask people to give up a service that works today in exchange for a promise of connectivity that has not yet arrived. We have already seen the Government water down their commitment on superfast broadband. It was initially promised that there would be next-generation gigabit broadband for every home by 2030, but at the spending review in June last year, the Government changed their target to 99% of premises having access to a gigabit-capable connection by 2032, so it is getting slower already. Contracts delivering superfast broadband have been scaled back in the past, after only those areas that were easiest to reach were connected. The Minister will therefore have to forgive me for being less than confident that we will have universal broadband by the sooner deadline of 2034. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will refrain from any Freeview switch-off until every household, including in hard-to-reach rural constituencies like mine, has reliable wi-fi in place? Can he give my constituents that promise today?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  From the LGR options that were on the table for Devon, the Government opted for a Labour-led proposal to create three urban growth areas, with all the rural bits that were left behind dumped together into one huge, unworkable authority that divided communities, had no economic hub and had little chance of being sustainable. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that she will review the decision, although it is not clear how the review will happen, who will do it or how long it will take. Will she commit to meeting all Opposition Members who represent rural Devon so that we can discuss the best proposal for the for the biggest number of people across Devon? The one we had was going to leave rural Devon behind, and we want to ensure that does not happen again.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation in Devon · Hansard source

  More

  The Government recently backed a proposal to replace Devon’s councils with four unitary authorities, which would expand the councils of Exeter, Plymouth and Torbay while leaving an unworkable rural Devon council spanning a 100-mile drive from Lynton to Salcombe. An online petition about this issue has been signed by 1,783 people. I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents who are deeply concerned about the risk posed to vital local services. Devolution should be built from the ground up, not imposed by Whitehall. The plan made a mockery of that. It is not what rural Devon wants. I appreciate that a review is now under way; I welcome it. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reverse its decision on local government reorganisation in Devon and to reconsider alternative options. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that the Government's decision to accept the proposal to expand Exeter, Plymouth and Torbay's councils and to create a rural Devon Council spanning over 80 miles from Lynton to Salcombe is unworkable and puts rural Devon at great disadvantage; further declares that the proposed reorganisation risks breaking up children's services which could put vulnerable children at greater risk, could lead to increased council tax, and would undermine local accountability; and further declares that devolution should be built from the ground up, shaped by local knowledge and consent. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reverse its decision on local government reorganisation in Devon and to reconsider alternative options. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003231]

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. Before moving to rural South Devon in 2007, I had spent all my life living in and around major cities: Edinburgh, Sheffield and then London. After nearly 20 years living in the rural south-west, I can honestly say that I had previously not understood rural life because I had not lived it. I have since come to realise that the rural-urban divide is possibly one of the deepest divides in our country and one that is too often overlooked, especially by Governments made up of city and urban MPs who simply do not understand the reality of rural communities and fail to see the deprivation that lurks behind the hedgerows. Those communities are often forgotten when spending decisions are taken despite a set of circumstances that mean we desperately need the Government’s financial backing. Incomes are lower due to the older average age, jobs are often seasonal and low-waged, people in rural areas travel almost twice as far as those in urban areas, and there is often no public transport. Healthcare is a challenge because community services have been cut, hospitals are miles away and hospital transport has all but disappeared. High-speed internet is crucial when services are scarce, yet broadband connectivity lags far behind urban areas. Banks, pubs and post offices are closing, hollowing out communities and increasing rural isolation. As the hon. Members for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham)—all of them from Cornwall—have said, the high number of second homes, high house prices and low wages massively exacerbates the housing affordability crisis. In Devon, the full-time salary to house price ratio is 10.6:1—well above England’s average of 8.7:1. Despite all that, funding is persistently driven into urban areas while rural communities are left behind. The previous Conservative Government forced councils to do more with less. Their policy to force local authorities to use their reserves to subsidise their revenue expenditure was deeply wrong and, as a result, six rural upper-tier local authorities are on the brink of issuing section 114 notices, which would effectively declare them bankrupt. The current Government have committed to providing multi-year funding settlements for local authorities, which we welcome, but for rural communities the 2026-27 to 2028-29 settlement falls well short. The withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant was a huge blow to councils in Devon, costing about £14 million, and no rural councils benefited from the replacement funding or recovery grant. The new formulas mean that local authorities in cities will have higher spending power than in previous years while rural shire districts will have less to spend. Under the local government finance settlement for this year, urban councils will receive 32% more per head in Government-funded spending than rural councils. Devon county council will receive £1,056 in core spending power per head compared to Hackney council’s £1,645 or Liverpool city council’s £1,598. It does not cost 50% more to provide services in Hackney or Liverpool than in Devon. In fact, I would argue it potentially costs less because of the rurality. Furthermore, the Government’s 2026-29 local government finance settlement does not include any explicit support for rural upper-tier authorities. The new formula has included remoteness only as an uplift in the formula for adult social care. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) said, a rural child is not easier to service than a rural adult. It is utterly shocking that the Government do not believe that remoteness is relevant to the delivery of any other service, such as school transport or waste collection. It goes way beyond the additional time it takes to travel. Rural councils have several other considerations that urban councils simply do not have to contend with, including requiring more service centres due to the spread-out population and more professionals to cover visits across a huge rural area. They receive fewer responses to contract tenders, perhaps only getting one from the incumbent provider, which leads to a market with increased prices for services. There are physical constraints such as needing smaller refuse vehicles, especially on the narrow lanes near where I live in Devon. Those vehicles have to return to base to be emptied more often, and rural areas also need multiple depots for equipment and vehicles. Thus, they need more equipment to service the streets and more drivers. Pockets of deprivation, often hidden by prettiness, are particularly hard hit. Social mobility for young people living in deprived rural areas is one of the lowest in the country. None of this is considered in the new funding formula outside of adult social care. I urge the Minister to review that. Quite simply, the new system of allocation does not recognise that the sparse and isolated nature of rural areas drives higher costs for the delivery of essential services, creates challenges in recruitment of staff for key services and requires local authorities to provide a greater public subsidy for the provision of public transport. This is very much in keeping with a Labour Government that have persistently failed to acknowledge that every service is harder to deliver across rural areas. Let me use Devon to illustrate why this service delivery is so tough. Rural Devon is a drive of over 100 miles from north to south. It would take me 10 hours to walk across just my constituency, which is a fraction of the county, and nowhere near the biggest. I am not sure how Manchesterism will translate to rural areas, but we cannot apply the same principles to a city of 3 million people and villages with just 10 houses and expect to see the same results. The trajectory for rural councils over the next three years is deeply concerning. The very limited increase in Government funding will require service reductions or significant increases in council tax or business rate income to maintain core spending power. As has been said, rural residents will pay 17% more in council tax per head compared to urban residents this year, yet Government funding will be directed towards urban authorities. The Government are relying on a regressive council tax to fund services in rural areas that it was never meant to. As a result of this funding settlement, by 2028-29 urban councils will have seen a 20% increase in Government-funded spending power, compared to only 2% for rural councils. How can that be fair? These are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; we are talking about people’s lives. From the growing number of children with SEND who cannot access the support they need to the closing of vital community spaces like libraries and leisure centres, this lack of funding has a real impact on people. We are concerned by the Government’s decision to allocate additional funding within the local government finance settlement on a need and demand basis. It will jeopardise the sustainability of rural local councils. The Liberal Democrats oppose the three-year local government finance settlement, which does not go far enough in providing a truly fair funding settlement to all local authorities across the board. We urge the Government to provide rural councils with a funding settlement that reflects the true impact of rurality and sparsity of the areas they serve through the application of the fair funding formula. The ability to provide services to people in my constituency and across rural Devon will only be made worse by the proposal for four unitary authorities recently chosen by the Government for the local government reorganisation in Devon. I urge the Minister to bear with me on this. That proposal from Labour-run Plymouth and Exeter will see those two cities massively expanded, to the great delight of their Labour MPs, and a new urban growth area based around Torbay, leaving a fourth authority—the bits that were left behind when the urban areas were gouged out—stretching 70 miles from Ilfracombe in the north to Salcombe in the south, but 100 miles by road. That authority will have to maintain a road network not dissimilar to the whole of Luxembourg’s with no major town to offer opportunities for growth and regeneration and the most deprived area of Devon to support.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister says there is an area cost adjustment, and yet the leader of Devon county council says that Devon lost £14 million because of the rural services delivery grant, which was removed. How can those two things be true? If a grant that takes account of the fact that it is more expensive to deliver services in a rural area is removed and the council is £14 million short, the extra cost of rural services delivery has not been recognised.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. It makes no sense to any of us in Devon. I have spent the entire summer listening to constituents who are deeply distressed about what has happened, which leaves them in a rump rural local authority with no option for economic growth or regeneration.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rural Upper-tier Local Authorities · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. The Government ignored local voices and went with the proposal that came fourth out of five in a public consultation, but was backed by Labour council leaders and Labour MPs who had the ear of Ministers and wanted to expand their cities. None of my constituents want it. I have spent the whole summer listening to distressed residents, as has my neighbour, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). The chosen proposal was a blatant prioritisation of economic growth for the cities of Plymouth and Exeter at the expense of the economic and social cohesion of rural Devon. How do the Government expect this council to be financially viable when they deem remoteness irrelevant to the delivery of every service except adult social care, and when no one can even work out where the authority could be based? How can rural Devon expect growth in every postcode when there is clearly no consideration of the economic growth potential for rural Devon in the chosen proposal? The Prime Minister talked yesterday about supporting rural areas and not creating a two-tier country, but the Government have created a two-tier Devon. I urge the Minister to listen to the many Devon MPs and the local people, go back to the drawing board on the reorganisation in Devon, look at the alternative options that were on the table, and pick one that will not leave rural communities struggling even more than they are now. If we are to have any hope of bridging the urban-rural divide, a fair funding settlement for rural councils and local government reorganisation that works for rural areas must be the start. If the Prime Minister wants a political system and economy that works for every person in the country, the Government must change the way they value and recognise rural communities.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rewiring the State · Hansard source

  More

  The First Secretary of State talks about a broken political model that will cost jobs and opportunities, and I am afraid the decision that the predecessor Government made on local government reorganisation in Devon is exactly that: it will create a two-tier Devon, leaving one area behind. It has carved out three urban growth areas and dumped together all the bits that are left behind in a vast rural local authority of 100 miles from north to south with a road network equivalent to that of Luxembourg, leaving communities divided with little chance of ever being sustainable. This rural local authority has no chance of the same growth opportunities that the other ones have. This goes against everything the Prime Minister believes in about devolution being done from the ground up with the consent of communities, not from the top down from Whitehall. He told me that himself in July, so I urge the First Secretary and the Minister for Communities to listen to me, to other Devon MPs—perhaps not the Labour ones—and to the thousands of my constituents, and to review this decision.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Criminal Justice Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to say this all in one breath, Madam Deputy Speaker. Prison governors talk about the revolving door of prisoners, with almost half reoffending, but those who go through the LandWorks rehabilitation project in South Devon reoffend at a rate of just 5%, with 90% of them going into employment and back into the community. It is proven to be a success; it works. Will the new Minister for Prisons please come to South Devon to see LandWorks and what it does? It is magic—it is cheaper than prison, and it works. We need to roll this out across the country.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member says that banks have to make profits. Last year, Lloyds made £6.7 billion in profit. Does he agree that £6.7 billion is such an incredible amount of money that asking banks to put more money into maintaining services for customers across rural Britain is not an exceptional or particularly demanding ask? The money is there. Nobody needs to be making £6.7 billion of profit a year.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. It is really important that we protect access to cash. My residents do not want to feel that they are being forced into a cashless society. Small businesses used to use the bank’s night safe, but that option has now gone.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the provision of face-to-face banking services in rural areas. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. Banking services in rural areas have been decimated. While big banks make billions in profits, they close branches with impunity, turning their backs on customers and leaving small businesses struggling with the impact. Last year, Lloyds reported a £6.7 billion pre-tax profit and yet in the same period it shut 218 branches, with a further 95 to close this year. Sixty-four per cent of all bank and building society branches that were open in January 2015 have closed in the past 10 years, numbering more than 6,000. In my constituency, which covers about 450 square miles, we have one bank branch left, and I wonder how long that will be there.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I will come on to the legislation passed by the previous Conservative Government in just a minute. In rural areas, poor internet, non-existent public transport and a higher proportion of elderly residents who are less likely to manage their money online mean that losing the local bank can have a huge impact. The wipe-out in rural areas is mind boggling. A staggering 86% of people in rural areas have seen their closest bank branch—which 10 years ago was within a mile—close. For them, there is no alternative bank to switch to. As banks have closed, the impact of losing access to banking services has been disproportionately felt by those in rural areas, who simply cannot go to another bank in town. Instead, they are left navigating sporadic or non-existent public transport, having to set aside half a day for the outing just to visit the bank. It can be a major mission in a community that is poorly serviced.