Cat Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Jul 2025 · Alcohol and Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right that we should look at the cost to our communities. This debate is specifically about alcohol and cancer, but other costs beyond its scope include the impact on the criminal justice system, productivity in the workplace and violence, particularly against women and girls. Alcohol carries many costs to our communities, but I would like this debate to be tight in addressing the impact on cancer and cancer deaths. I might sound dramatic, but I looked at a recent job advert posted by the global alcohol giant Diageo. It was bold enough to state publicly: “Our industry is facing unprecedented challenges from the WHO and its NGO network globally and regionally.” In response, Diageo is planning “a global approach to member states’ engagement, to increase support for our industry at the UN/WHO fora.” Although that is not surprising, I do not think it should be tolerated. It is for Governments to dictate our public health policies and to protect citizens’ health, as that is not in the commercial interests of multibillion-pound alcohol producers, which have no vested interest in protecting the nation’s health. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the NHS is often left to pick up the pieces of alcohol-related cancers, with preventable cancers costing the NHS £3.7 billion in 2023. In addition, findings published today by the Royal College of Physicians from a snapshot member survey report that 25% of respondents said that at least half of their average caseload is made up of patients whose conditions have been caused or exacerbated by alcohol dependence. A third of those surveyed report seeing alcohol dependence increase their caseloads. The Institute of Alcohol Studies reported that, in 2009-10, there were 1.4 million alcohol-related ambulance journeys—a staggering 35% of the total—and that alcohol-related A&E admissions accounted for as much as 40% of the total, approaching 70% during peak times. Alcohol is putting unsustainable pressure on our health service. The reality is that alcohol harms will increase. The number of alcohol-related cancers will in turn increase, and therefore the price tag for our NHS will go up, too. The national cancer plan, the men’s health strategy and the work to reduce violence against women and girls are opportune moments for the Government to recognise the role alcohol plays in all three areas, and I really hope that alcohol is given the required attention. We might expect almost 40 years of research to mean that the public are already very aware of the links between alcohol and cancer, but that could not be further from the truth. Recent polls commissioned by the World Cancer Research Fund for Cancer Prevention Action Week found that just 7% of UK adults know that alcohol increases the risk of cancer. That means that as many as 93% of us are essentially drinking in the dark, with little knowledge of the harms that our nation’s drug of choice is doing to our bodies. Even more worrying, one in four of those polled thought that no health risks at all were attached to drinking alcohol. We have a product that is linked to more than 200 different health conditions and injuries and is the leading cause of death, ill health and disability among 15 to 49-year-olds in the UK, but that staggering lack of awareness is leaving the public unable to make informed choices about what they are consuming. The situation is compounded by the fact that the alcohol industry is still not required to display the health risks of alcohol on product labels. It can pop a quick “Drink responsibly” line on the label, ignoring the addictive, harmful nature of its product, and walk away, washing its hands of the consequences. The industry has no interest in putting health information on product labels and, in fact, it is actively mobilising against it. I hope that the Minister, a strong Lancashire woman, will hold her nerve in the face of the alcohol industry’s activism. We have previously seen such activism from the tobacco industry and in relation to anti-obesity food labelling. For the benefit of public health, I urge my hon. Friend to hold her nerve and stand up to it. I now turn to the factors driving alcohol harms, which, if left unchecked, will continue to fuel more alcohol-related cancers, bringing misery to individuals and families caught in the crossfire. I for one am increasingly frustrated by the lack of motivation shown by one Government after another in tackling alcohol harms. Back in 2012 we had a promising national strategy, which over the course of that year was eroded and undone until very little remained. There has since been no national alcohol strategy, and the 10-year health plan’s prevention measures on alcohol fall far short of what is needed. With harm rates continuing to skyrocket, it is time to look again at what we can do to reverse that alarming trend. The UK has astoundingly few alcohol control policies to mitigate the harmful effects of high alcohol consumption. The World Health Organisation recommends policies to tackle the price, marketing and availability of alcohol, which it describes as the “best buys” for Governments to deploy to reduce alcohol harms. Looking at all three, I am afraid my analysis is that we continue to fail miserably, and I will address them in turn. In the UK, alcohol is more affordable than it has ever been. Overall, it has become 14% more affordable since 2010, but we can go back even further. Since 1987, off-licence wine and spirits have become 163% more affordable. Drinking patterns have also changed in that time. Almost 80% of alcohol is now purchased from supermarkets and off-licences for home consumption. That is driving people out of supervised and safer community drinking environments, such as pubs, bars and restaurants, and into the unseen confines of the home, where harms stay hidden. Policies such as minimum unit pricing in Scotland have been bold steps to tackle the affordability of alcohol. Public Health Scotland’s comprehensive evaluation of MUP concluded that it has resulted in alcohol-specific deaths reducing by 13.4%. Were the Government to implement MUP in England, it could be a public health legacy we could be proud of. Instead, we are watching as first Wales and then Northern Ireland are moving to implement MUP in their respective nations, leaving England as the outlier. I was baffled to hear rumours about MUP being included in the 10-year health plan and then subsequently removed. Will the Minister share her thoughts on that? Availability is the second of the WHO’s “best buy” policy areas, but I am afraid we are not doing much better on that. Without public health as a licensing objective, local authorities have their hands tied when it comes to rejecting licensing applications on public health grounds, including in respect of moves to sell alcohol in areas where there is a real and persistent public health concern, or in areas that are already saturated. Licensing laws also struggle to keep up with newer forms of consumption. Rapid home deliveries and online sales mean that those who are already struggling can have alcohol delivered to their door at any time, day or night, with almost no protections or safeguards in place. The WHO’s third “best buy” policy idea relates to marketing. I have particularly grave concerns about this, because we are lagging behind other countries when it comes to alcohol marketing restrictions. We do not have so much as a 9 pm watershed, despite alcohol being an age-restricted product. I started to prepare for this speech on my journey from Westminster back home to Lancaster last week, and it was shocking how many times I saw alcohol advertised on that one reasonably short journey. It was on billboards and bus stops, and I walked past posters on the tube platforms and in the walkways. On the final train, an advert on the screen advertised a thirst-quenching summer drink that was alcoholic. We all know the advertisements on the train Tannoy: “The café in coach C is open for alcoholic beverages”—they often come at 9 or 10 o’clock in the morning. Alcohol advertising is absolutely everywhere, and we know it works because companies spend millions of pounds on it. Advertising is doing one thing: it is driving people to drink more, more frequently, and exposing them to far more harms, including alcohol-related cancers. I suspect we will hear arguments in the debate about the nanny state and the importance of free choice, but in a world where we are surrounded by relentless messages to drink alcohol, are we really making a free and informed choice? We are bombarded by industry advertising, sports sponsorships, celebrity endorsements, influencer partnerships, brand logos and product placements in everything we see day to day. Is it surprising that consumption and the related harms are rising? The industry has been allowed to go far too far for far too long, and it is fuelling alcohol-related health risks. There is now a serious need for the Government to step in. I fear that, four years from now, colleagues and I will not be able to defend decisions on alcohol harm to the electorate if the current alcohol trends persist and nothing is done. Although I welcome the measures in the 10-year plan to address alcohol labels and improve consumer awareness, in some respects a lot of the damage has already been done by decades of inaction, misinformation and spiralling consumption. Forty years on, the public still do not know the real risks to their health or the growing evidence that links drinking alcohol to cancer. In this environment, alcohol-related cancer cases will continue to rise. It seems that the horse has bolted, and we now need robust prevention policies, alongside the promised improvements to alcohol labelling, to even begin to reverse the damage. The consumption of alcohol must be an informed choice. I acknowledge that some people are predisposed to the disease of alcoholism, and society must do more to support and better understand that, but those who decide to consume alcohol still do not have sufficient information to make that a fully informed choice. There is no safe level of drinking alcohol. As I have pointed out, alcohol is linked to at least eight cancers, and every day 46 people are diagnosed with alcohol-related cancers. My ask of the Government is no more than to give the public information about alcohol and clear labels that make the link between alcohol and cancer.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Alcohol and Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered alcohol and cancer. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting us the opportunity to debate alcohol and cancer. This issue affects all of us; it affects our constituents, our families and friends, and our local health services. I thank the Alcohol Health Alliance and the World Cancer Research Fund for providing me with detailed figures and materials that helped me to prepare for this debate. As parliamentarians, we often need to know a little about a lot, but I confess that even I was shocked at how little I knew of some of the latest alcohol harms and cancer risks when I started to investigate this issue. I find it astounding that although alcohol has been designated a group 1 carcinogen since 1988—the same grouping as both tobacco and asbestos—almost 40 years later, this is the first debate in this place on alcohol and cancer. That speaks candidly to the lack of awareness that perhaps many of us have about alcohol. Were we better informed, perhaps we would pursue more changes to the drinking culture in our workplace. I therefore sincerely hope that we can do this issue justice and raise awareness—both among Members of the House and members of the public who might be watching at home—about the harm that alcohol causes, including cancer. Given the poor record of numerous Governments on tackling alcohol harms over the past 20 years, that is perhaps the least we can do. It is hard to argue against public health experts who say that we are amid “an alcohol harm crisis.” The figures are frightening, and they have been rising at an explosive rate since the pandemic. For any other health condition, a 42% increase in deaths over a five-year period would be treated as a health emergency, but for alcohol it feels like just another day in the office. Those statistics are only for alcohol-specific deaths, and the numbers spike even higher once alcohol-related deaths are factored in. I will return to that later in my speech, but I would first like to set the scene on alcohol and cancer. The reality is that alcohol is toxic to our bodies. Risks are present even at low consumption levels, and they increase the more someone consumes. That has led the World Health Organisation to declare in recent years that there is “no safe level” when drinking alcohol. Evidence now links alcohol to at least seven types of cancer, including breast and bowel, which are two of the most common cancers in the UK, and oesophageal, which is one of the hardest to treat. The other cancers that alcohol can cause include mouth, throat, liver and stomach. In addition, a new study released in May by the International Agency for Research on Cancer presented evidence linking alcohol to an eighth cancer: pancreatic cancer. I am afraid that it gets worse. In the UK, 17,000 cancers a year are attributable to alcohol, which is close to one in 20. When it comes to breast cancer, which is the UK’s most common cancer, research figures from Cancer Research UK attribute as many as one in 10 cases to alcohol. We are already at a diagnosis rate of around 46 new alcohol-related cancers a day, and experts have warned that if the nation’s alcohol consumption does not start to return to pre-pandemic levels, we could see an additional 18,875 cancer cases by 2035. With 46 alcohol-related cancers already being diagnosed every single day, that would add up to the equivalent of an alcohol-related cancer diagnosis for every Member of this House in just two weeks, which I find simply staggering. I know those are big numbers, but they are not faceless figures. Each is someone’s mother, father, spouse, sister, brother, colleague or friend. The harm is disproportionate, and it is concentrated in our most deprived communities. Lancaster and Wyre is ranked worse than the national average in four of the six key alcohol harm categories, including hospital admissions, cancer cases and alcohol-related deaths. Government after Government have not got a grip on alcohol harm, and our constituents continue to pay the price. My interest in this subject started just over 12 months ago when local stats on alcohol-related deaths were released. I was shocked to see my area at the top of the English league table. I thank the Alcohol Health Alliance for supplying me with so much information, including my constituency figures, in the lead-up to this debate, though it makes stark reading. We are a year into this Government and, if nothing changes and we do nothing in this Parliament, my local figures suggest that I will have to explain to my constituents why we did nothing to stop another 195 alcohol-related cancer cases, as well as 225 alcohol-specific deaths and 9,400 hospital admissions in my constituency alone. Doing nothing is not good enough. Figures in the north-west are not much better, with alcohol estimated to cost my region almost £4 billion a year. That pattern is repeated across neighbouring regions, including the north-east and the west midlands. Time and again, our most deprived communities suffer the most harm from alcohol, despite often drinking less than their more affluent counterparts. Alcohol harm and health inequalities walk hand in hand: alcohol-related deaths, alcohol-related cancers and alcohol-related hospital admissions. Those are people’s lives. They are being chewed up and spat out by an alcohol industry whose main concern is delivering the highest profits to its shareholders and board members, at the expense of our national health.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As Chair of the Procedure Committee, I am often asked about how we legislate in this House. Many Members, and members of the public, have approached me about the speed with which the Bill is being pushed through. Moving from Second Reading to Third Reading in eight days does not give Members the time they deserve to scrutinise the Bill, and by denying the Bill the opportunity to go into Committee, we are denying disabled people and their organisations time and space to give evidence and ensure that the Bill is the best it can be. We all agree that the current system is broken. I have been a constituency MP for 10 years, and I have lost count of the number of times that I have sat in advice surgeries with constituents who have been failed by the current system. The need for reform is clear, but it is also clear that we need to do it in co-production with disabled people. One of my closest friends, Zara, is a disability rights activist—indeed, she was when I met her when we were 18. She taught me many things. She taught me that having a disability was no barrier to living a full and exciting life. She taught me never to dance too closely on the dancefloor of a nightclub to someone in a wheelchair, because you will lose a toenail. She taught me “nothing about us without us.” That is the thing she taught me that I value most, and those are the values with which I approach the Bill. When we legislate for disabled people without involving them, we make bad legislation—we make poor legislation, and I mean “poor” in many senses, because the Bill will push 150,000 disabled people into poverty. As a Labour MP and someone who cares deeply about reducing poverty, I cannot do that. PIP is an in-work benefit and enables many of my disabled constituents to be able to go to work in the first place, and the threats we see to it actually threaten their ability to access work. I have heard from constituents who are concerned about the fact that PIP is a passport benefit to claiming things such as carer’s allowance, and I seek reassurance on that from those on our Front Bench. Most people would agree that eligibility for disability benefits should be determined on need. The concessions we have had from Government this week lead me to think that that value is not shared, because we will see future claimants being judged differently from today’s claimants. That means that in two years’ time, when I am sat in my advice surgery hearing from a constituent who is struggling to access PIP, I will be asked a question about how I voted today. I will be asked to explain why, because that constituent’s diagnosis or accident happened later than somebody else’s who has been left with the same disabilities, one of them is eligible and the other is not. I do not think I can look my constituents in the eye and say that I voted for a fair system, because this is not fair. A two-tier system for disability is unfair, and I do not want to be able to justify that. The Timms review will not be out until autumn next year, and I am beginning to wonder what the point of it is if the four-point rule will already be implemented by that point. It is not easy to vote against my party Whip. I joined the Labour party 21 years ago—I added it up recently, and it was a bit of a shock that that was more than half my life. I joined because I believe in social justice and equality. I joined because people such as Zara taught me it was important to stand up for social justice and equality. I joined a Labour party that was reducing child poverty and introducing things such as the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and actually making life better for disabled people, and I have not changed: those are still my values today. That is why tonight I will vote for the reasoned amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I will do so because it is consistent with my values as a Labour MP and with the mantra that Zara taught me: “Nothing about us without us”.

• 14 May 2025 · Gaza: UK Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  Civilians are starving to death in Gaza. Aid has been held for 10 weeks and used as a weapon against innocent civilians. My constituents are rightly outraged by what they are seeing, and so am I. While I welcome the Minister’s words, what further actions can the Government take to send a clearer message to Israel that this absolutely has to stop? Will the Minister look again at sanctions? Will he look at arms export licences? And will he recognise the state of Palestine?

• 12 May 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment: Means-testing · Hansard source

  More

  In my 10 years as a Member of Parliament, I have run consistent campaigns throughout my constituency to raise awareness of pension credit and encourage hundreds of people to sign up to it, but I know that many of my constituents are just above the threshold and by no means well off. What assessment will the Government make of those who are not eligible for pension credit but will still face fuel poverty next winter?

• 12 May 2025 · Immigration System · Hansard source

  More

  Lancaster University, like all of the leading universities in the UK, relies on operating in a global market, not just for international students, but for academic staff. Many of those staff have been in touch with me already today and they are feeling upset by some of the language that has been used, particularly around the use of the phrase “island of strangers”. Will the Home Secretary say something to my constituents who very much contribute to the economy of Lancaster and to our cultural enrichment?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Child Rape Gangs · Hansard source

  More

  Before being elected to this place, I worked for a national social work organisation, and I know my hon. Friend the Minister similarly worked with victims of crime before entering this place. It is so important that we keep those victims at the forefront of our considerations. In the light of that, how does the Minister envisage the child protection authority working, and how will victims of crime be supported by it?

• 22 Apr 2025 · “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling · Hansard source

  More

  I am very conscious that I represent many trans, intersex and non-binary constituents, and that the representations made to me in my office over the past few days have had a very clear message that they are feeling particularly victimised and quite scared for their own safety. Some are trans women and some are trans men, who seem to be very much lost from this debate. The one thing that really unites them is that they are worried about their day-to-day safety, so can I ask the Minister to provide some assurance to trans people right across the country that the Equality Act is still there and can protect them from discrimination and harassment?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Health and Disability Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  Epilepsy is a lifelong disability that has huge consequences for the lives of those who have it, none more so than those mothers who had epilepsy and took sodium valproate when pregnant, and whose babies were harmed. Will the Minister take time to meet me and my constituent, Janet Williams, whose sons have been affected, to discuss how we can ensure that their quality of life is best supported by the Government?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Nuclear Power · Hansard source

  More

  13. What steps he is taking to support the nuclear power sector.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Nuclear Power · Hansard source

  More

  Many of my constituents were pleased to see the extension of Heysham 1 and 2 late last year, and they would like long-term jobs for the future in the nuclear industry created in the north-west. Does the Minister agree that it is thanks to this Labour Government that we are ending the last Government’s legacy of no new nuclear being built?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Lady on opening this Petitions Committee debate. As the previous Chair of the Petitions Committee, I know that 160,000 people signing a petition shows the strength of feeling, as very few petitions reach that threshold. Does she agree that that is a testament to the commitment of WASPI campaigners?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Sustainable Farming Incentive · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for coming to the House to make a statement. However, I woke up this morning to many emails in my inbox from farmers across Lancaster and Wyre. I invite the Minister to join me, because I am going to accept the invitation from my constituent Cath to visit her farm. Her SFI application was ready to go as she was coming out of the countryside stewardship agreement. She has therefore been left in limbo. Will the Minister join me in meeting farmers across Lancaster and Wyre?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Affordable Housing: Supply · Hansard source

  More

  8. What steps she has taken with Cabinet colleagues to increase the supply of affordable housing.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Affordable Housing: Supply · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the Lancaster Guardian for its recent investigative report into the reality for many families living in temporary accommodation in the Lancaster district? That is paired with a frustration I hear from local house building developers over delays in the planning process in the district. What more does the Minister think can happen in Lancaster to ensure that families in the district actually have secure housing?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Prime Minister on his strong leadership in his response to the fast-moving events of the weekend. Will he recommit to increasing international aid spending to 0.7% when the fiscal circumstances allow?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s update on the Government’s efforts to get aid to those in need in Gaza. Given the serious allegations of war crimes occurring in Gaza, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that they are properly investigated and that those responsible are held to account?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. I thank my right hon. Friend for securing the land purchase for the new hospital in Lancaster. Will he meet me to discuss how a new hospital will transform health outcomes for my constituents?

• 16 Dec 2024 · English Devolution · Hansard source

  More

  Although the Minister said in his statement that the proposal was the end of a top-down approach from central Government, to many of my constituents it looks like a one-size-fits-all model that works for Greater Manchester, which he represents quite ably, but does not necessarily work for the rural English counties. What assurances can the Minister give my constituents—and me, frankly—that this approach will not be imposed on local areas against their will? How will he measure consent from a local area that this is the approach they want?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Devolution: Lancashire · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister pick up on the points raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain) and myself around Cumbria and Lancashire, which are very rural counties? Does he have any thoughts on the challenges of being a mayor in a disparate and spread-out area rather than a neat metropolitan area?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Devolution: Lancashire · Hansard source

  More

  I understand very well why the hon. Gentleman’s constituents feel that way. I was very involved in the consultations around the reorganisation in Cumbria, not least because there was a strong bid by the Lancaster district within Lancashire and a desire to go in with South Lakeland and Barrow councils to form a bay authority, which would have matched what the community looks at and where its identity lies. The north of Lancashire has always looked to the north, into what we now call Cumbria—which, of course, was fictitiously created in 1972, as I alluded to earlier. In my opinion, much of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to this day remains part of the red rose county, but I would certainly not support his constituents being further inconvenienced by a local government reorganisation. I think he will enjoy the arguments I am about to make about a mayor for Lancashire. We may find common ground on which we can form an alliance. We need something that works for communities. The communities represented by these structures should feel that they represent them and work for them. It is hard to see how a rural county that stretches from the edge of Merseyside and Greater Manchester right to the edges of the Lake District national park—from the Irish sea to the Yorkshire border—can truly be represented by just one man. I make no apology for saying “man”. The vast majority of mayors elected have been men, and I see no evidence to suggest that Lancashire might suddenly buck the trend. Since 2012, Lancashire has elected a police and crime commissioner; it is the only post elected across the whole of Lancashire, and it has only ever been held by a man. Clive Grunshaw served from 2012 to 2021, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) served from 2021 to 2024, and since May this year Clive Grunshaw has been in post again. I must declare that I have a good working relationship with both men. Clive was my constituency Labour party chairperson for many years, and the hon. Member for Fylde is now my constituency neighbour, and we are finding common ground on many constituency issues. My issue is not with those individuals, but the point is that they are both men. In fact, no woman has ever stood as a political party’s candidate for police and crime commissioner. That does not bode well for a future mayor of Lancashire. In 2012, there were four candidates for police and crime commissioner—Labour, Conservative, UK Independence party and Liberal Democrats—but all were men. In 2016, there were again four candidates—Labour, Conservative, UKIP and Liberal Democrats—and all were men. In 2021, there were four candidates—Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats and Reform—and all were men. In 2024, there were three candidates—Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats—and all were men. Asking Lancashire to adopt a mayoral model of devolution is asking us to devolve power from women council leaders, roughly half of whom are women, to a man, as mayor. After all the progress the Labour party has made in increasing women’s representation in Westminster, we have more women MPs than ever in Lancashire—six out of 16, so there is still work to be done—we risk undoing that progress. There are women council leaders at Lancashire county council; at one of our two unitary councils, Blackpool; and in six of our 12 districts—Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Rossendale, South Ribble and West Lancashire. There is clearly something about this model of local government that seems to create a more equal gender balance among leaders, and I fear that we are taking power away from those women leaders and regressing to a model that favours men. So here we are: Lancashire Day 2024. We are a county that has changed and embraced change many times before. We have a rich history, a strong cultural identity and a diverse range of cities, towns and villages across the rich landscapes of our red rose county. Local councillors and I have questions for the Minister, which I hope he can address.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Devolution: Lancashire · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. Devolution must not be done to Lancashire; it must be done with us. We have examples of successful councils, as he outlines, and we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We all want to see Lancashire move forward, be successful and embrace change, but not in a one-size-fits-all way. The Minister will be aware that I sent him an advance copy of my questions, and I hope that we can get some clear answers. My local councillors want to know whether politicians or civil servants will decide what can and cannot happen in this round of local government reorganisation, as well as how much weight will be given to community wishes and voices—that is a feeling not just from my local councillors but from hon. Members present. They also want to know whether current district authority boundaries are fixed, or whether, should Lancashire be divided, an authority can be split into two unitary authorities. Which is more important in local government reorganisation—ceremonial county boundaries or functional economic areas? What weight will be given to the mirroring of health and NHS footprints? Often the NHS is organised in a far more practical way than is local government. What reassurance can my constituents have that their local council will not suddenly feel a million miles away from where they live, and that it will still be relevant to their lives? When it comes to a representative democracy, how can we ensure that Lancashire’s representatives continue to look more like the people we represent? How can we ensure that both rural and urban voices are heard, and that coastal communities are not forgotten? How can we ensure that we continue to make progress towards 50:50 representation of women and men in elected office? I continue to be of the belief that Lancashire is the finest of England’s counties. We are everything. We are diverse and we are beautiful, and we have a proud history going back 842 years. I want to progress with a future as bright as our past. Happy Lancashire Day.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Devolution: Lancashire · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my friend for that lovely intervention and celebrate the links between the west coast of England and Northern Ireland—long may they continue and prosper. The outline of the 1972 boundaries looks much like the Lancashire of today. The ceremonial county of Lancashire is divided into 14 local government districts. Twelve are part of our two-tier non-metropolitan county of Lancashire, which is administered by Lancashire county council—the 12 districts of the non-metropolitan county are Burnley, Chorley, Fylde, Hyndburn, Lancaster, Pendle, Preston, Ribble Valley, Rossendale, South Ribble, West Lancashire and Wyre—but Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen are unitary authorities formed in 1996, before which each district was part of the non-metropolitan county of Lancashire. Lancashire has 16 Members of Parliament, and I consider myself honoured and privileged to be one of them. I served the Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency from 2015 until the last general election, when I was re-elected to serve the newly created—or potentially recreated, depending on how far people’s memories go back—Lancaster and Wyre constituency. As part of my work getting to understand my new patch, I tried to work out how many local councillors I had with a shared geography in my constituency. Unfortunately, I quickly became overwhelmed, and I would like to put on the record my thanks to the House of Commons Library for its assistance. I asked the Library for the number of county, district and parish councillors who represent areas within the Lancaster and Wyre constituency, but it turned out that even it did not have access to a complete dataset of the number of councillors in each of those types of area. However, it did provide me with an analysis of the number of county electoral divisions, wards and parishes in the constituency, which got me started. I ask Members to bear with me, because not all the geographies exactly match up, as I explained, but this will give some idea of the number of councillors at play. When it comes to elected representatives, we have one police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, who covers the whole of Lancaster and Wyre. There are eight Lancashire county councillors elected to serve across eight divisions, including Lancaster Rural East, about a quarter of which is in my constituency. Turning to district council wards, all eight of the Wyre district council wards are within the constituency boundary—that is nice and neat—along with 11 Lancaster council wards, including Skerton, half of which is in a different constituency. In total, that makes 19 wards. However, wards in Wyre and Lancaster can be represented by one, two or three councillors. This is where hon. Members might need to start making detailed notes if they are trying to add up how many councillors I have. There are 27 Lancaster city councillors and 15 Wyre borough councillors in the constituency, which totals 42 district councillors for Lancaster and Wyre. Much of the Lancaster and Wyre constituency, and indeed much of Lancashire, is parished. Many parish councillors—I pay tribute to them—are incredibly active and engaged with their communities. There are 27 parishes within the boundaries of my constituency: seven in the Lancaster area and 20 in the Wyre area. That figure includes two Lancaster parishes that are only marginally within my constituency, with the majority of the parish in a different constituency. The parishes in the Lancaster part of my constituency are Aldcliffe-with-Stodday, Cockerham, Ellel, Heaton-with-Oxcliffe, Morecambe, Over Wyresdale, Scotforth and Thurnham. The parishes in the Wyre part of my constituency are Barnacre-with-Bonds, Bleasdale, Cabus, Catterall, Claughton, Forton, Garstang, Great Eccleston, Hambleton, Inskip-with-Sowerby, Kirkland, Myerscough and Bilsborrow, Nateby, Nether Wyresdale, Out Rawcliffe, Pilling, Preesall, Stalmine-with-Staynall, Upper Rawcliffe-with-Tarnacre, and Winmarleigh. Looking at the websites of those parish councils—I had to assume that they are not carrying any vacancies—I found that there were 194 parish councillors in Lancaster and Wyre. I quickly realised it would take me a long time to have a cup of tea with all of them. If we add those to the 42 district councillors, eight county councillors and one police and crime commissioner, we discover that the Lancaster and Wyre constituency has not only one elected Member of Parliament, but 245 other elected officials who can claim to represent it. If that was replicated across Lancashire’s 16 other parliamentary constituencies, we would have almost 4,000 representatives across the red rose county. I am not sure how many elected representatives the Minister serves alongside in his constituency, but I will guess, given its metropolitan nature, that the number is not quite so high. Why does Lancashire have so much local government, and is it a good thing or a bad thing? To be fair, I think there are pros and cons. Sometimes, my constituents can get confused about which councils are responsible for what. The district council collects their waste and recycling, but the county council processes it, and that can seem quite muddled to a lot of folk. But it is not just my constituents who get confused and frustrated; I confess that I, too, have been known to exclaim in the office that some trees are pruned by the district council and others by the county council. When I have an angry constituent frustrated by a tree on the end of the phone and am not clear which council is responsible, it is no wonder our constituents get frustrated too. The upper-tier local authority, Lancashire county council, often generously, shall we say, offers to relinquish its responsibilities to parish councils. I have seen that trend more and more. That may take the form of the county council giving up the maintenance of assets from its estates department, such as the Esplanade shelter in Knott End—which it has just realised, after 113 years, that it does not formally own—or asking parish councils, instead of its transport department, to buy their own electronic speed indicator devices. It feels grossly unfair that residents are doubly charged, through council tax and parish council precepts, for the same maintenance and transport services. But is the answer pushing a one-size-fits-all model of local government that works for England’s metropolitan areas on to a rural county such as Lancashire? Lancashire’s local government looks the way it does because it has evolved to meet the needs of the communities across our vast and diverse county. I mentioned the commitment and enthusiasm of parish councillors. Those are completely unsalaried posts. Passionate volunteers give up their time to organise village gala days, Christmas lights, Remembrance Sunday parades and so much more. We would be foolish to underestimate the dedication of our parish councillors and their commitment to the communities they call home. Similarly, district councils help residents feel more connected to local government in a county that has many towns and villages with distinct identities. They do not always have strong transport connections between them, and are separated by vast swathes of countryside. I can see the attraction on the part of the Government to neatly divide the whole of England into broadly equally sized unitary authorities, with metro mayors sitting above them. It makes the Government’s job easier to have a one-size-fits-all approach.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Devolution: Lancashire · Hansard source

  More

  I give way to my friend from Northern Ireland.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Devolution: Lancashire · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a devolution deal for Lancashire. It is a pleasure to serve under the chairship of a fellow Lancastrian Member of this House, Mr Dowd, on this very special day. I begin by wishing everybody fortunate enough to have been born in the red rose county, and those who have chosen to make it their home, a very happy Lancashire Day. Very shortly, schoolchildren across Lancashire will be tucking into their special school lunch, which I believe includes a favourite of mine, butter pie. I can highly recommend it with some nice warming baked beans on the side, washed down with Lancashire’s finest soft drink, Vimto. The county of Lancashire was established in 1182 and came to be bordered by Cumberland, Westmorland, Yorkshire and Cheshire. An awful lot of history happened between 1182 and the 1970s. Since we only have half an hour, I will not go into that now, but if Members are keen perhaps we can apply for a longer debate on it. By the census of 1971, the population of Lancashire and its county boroughs had reached over 5 million, making it the most populous geographic county in the UK. I suppose that is partly why, on 1 April 1974, under the Local Government Act 1972, the old county was abolished, as were many county boroughs. The urbanised southern part largely became part of the metropolitan counties of Merseyside and Greater Manchester, with Lancashire over the sands to the north becoming part of a newly formed Cumbria. It is a great pleasure to have members from the Cumbria, Merseyside and Greater Manchester parts—