Legacy of Jo Cox
Debate between Alison McGovern and Mark Francois(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern
I truly thank my hon. Friend and agree with what he said about the importance of that issue.
Of course, we must all thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). Words do not feel enough to describe the manner in which she has carried her sister’s legacy forward. She has made this House a far better place than it ever could have been without her, and I hope that she has felt the love today.
The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) talked about community, as so many others did. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) nearly got away with making a speech without dropping herself in it, and talked most powerfully about friendship and the loneliness that we feel, to which Jo was a singular antidote. I thank my hon. Friend for that and for her friendship.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) spoke about her predecessor, and I know that she is carrying forward the work of Caroline Lucas in that same spirit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) talked about our country, and I am glad that he did, but he also mentioned for the first time his personal experience of losing Jo. It is important that we are able in our grief to recognise that part of that grief comes from love, and the love that we have for each other. It is okay to talk about that.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) talked about being a good parliamentarian, which is important for us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) talked about the 2015 intake—as a 2010-er, I now feel like I missed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) is another 2015-er; I have never felt more disappointed to have been elected five years earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) talked about the Great Llanelli Get Together, which sounds wonderful.
My fellow 2010-er, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), knows about the subject of this debate more than most, and I am proud of her today, as I am every single day. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler): respect—that’s all I can say. We all support my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and the way she speaks up. I agree with so much of what she said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) told the House about the Pompey Belles, which I am excited about. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) sounds like she has done amazing things on loneliness in Leicestershire. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) to please give Evie my best; it was a cracking speech—well done.
It was wonderful to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) tell her story of friendship with Jo. I know that Jo’s legacy is not just here in this country but in around every corner around the world, and it is wonderful to hear that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) also showed just what an impact Jo had in every way on bringing women forward in our politics. Through all the contributions today, we have heard about the length, breadth and depth of Jo’s legacy, and why we need it now.
I want to make just make one slightly party political point and say that I am sorry Jo was not here with us to see this Labour Government elected, because although much of today’s debate has been cross-party in spirit—and rightly so—Jo was Labour to her core. Her love and determination is in all her friends on the Labour Benches. A feisty feminist, she was the first elected chair of the Labour Women’s Network. She would have been so proud of all the graduates of the Jo Cox Women in Leadership programme, of whom there are 18 in the House—I will not name them all for reasons of time, but they are an incredibly impressive girl gang, and I would not mess with any of them.
I like to think that Jo would have approved of our work to stop violence against women and girls. As a campaigner for children, and having spoken in the House about her educational attainment in her Yorkshire home, I suspect she would also have liked free school meals, new playgrounds, our investment in schools and the child poverty strategy, which will lift half a million children out of poverty.
I want to relay some words from the Foreign Secretary. Thinking of Jo as a West Yorkshire neighbour and friend, she recalls that Jo was a true force of nature who radiated purpose and determination and took sheer delight in the joy of life, which is why it is so devastating that she lost her life so young. Our first female Chancellor of the Exchequer added that it falls on all our shoulders to take forward Jo’s work, as she said in the Chamber after Jo died, and we have—most of all my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.
What Jo might have made of the fact that my party is yet to elect a woman as its leader, I cannot say. She was a proud trade union member and would have relished voting for new rights at work along with the rest of us.
On 16 June 2026, next week, it will be 10 years since Jo Cox was murdered in her constituency. We all remember her words, which are forever etched on the wall of the Chamber, just below her coat of arms, which is to the left of the Speaker’s Chair; designed by her children, it features intertwined Yorkshire and Lancashire roses, a mountain and the colours of the women’s suffrage movement. The words underneath, “More in Common”, have become a political movement among all of us who believe that the idea of community comes from our values, and not where we happen to be born or what we happen to believe.
At this moment, when some politicians are stirring division and hate, Jo’s legacy has never been more important. In the aftermath of her killing, people were inspired by not just what Jo did, but how she did it. She recognised that the curse of loneliness unites us all, because it could happen to us all, and saw the value in physical activity that would provide a language and connection however different people thought they were. Her activism for Syrian civilians united and corralled people of all political persuasions and none, because there is nothing more obvious and uniting than the fact that children made homeless by falling bombs should have a roof over their heads. Ten years after she was murdered, this type of politics has never been needed more.
If democracy is to succeed at all, it must be on the basis that it is for everyone. Stirring up fear tells people that politics is just for the powerful—just for those who can tolerate abuse or worse. That is not democracy; it is politics by intimidation, and it is the law of the bully.
Ten years after Jo was murdered, “More in Common” cannot just be words on the Chamber wall. It must be the operating principle for all of us who want to sit in the House of Commons. It is the standard to which we hold ourselves, not just a nice idea.
Ten years have passed, but in that time the case for Jo’s arguments has only strengthened. We desperately need people in every part of the UK to feel a part of their community. The hateful rhetoric that is now rife can be stopped only with a proud campaign inspired by Jo and all she stood for—to support our diversity and the idea that we are all equally part of our country, deserving to be heard.
That campaign is this. First, do not hate. No one needs to hate anybody. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley told us earlier, as they say in Yorkshire, “If you can’t say anything good, keep your gob shut.” Secondly, be a neighbour. Go to the coffee morning, volunteer, join the sports team.
Thirdly, be brave. I am different from Jo. She was the life and soul of the party, but I am the one in the kitchen talking about econometrics. I never felt, when faced with a challenge, her instinctive ability to just say yes and go for it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley reminded me this morning, it is about jumping in at the deep end and finding the shallows afterwards. I learned from Jo to be brave—that’s how you get things done in politics.
The fourth part of the campaign has to be for all of us to fight for our country. The United Kingdom is full of wonderful and good people. They need homes and jobs, and they need some joy in life. They do not need bitterness and hate. They need Jo’s love. If there is a fight to be had in this country, it is a fight for that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the legacy of Jo Cox.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today an honourable man has resigned, on a matter of principle, from a Government in disarray. The former Defence Secretary, as he now is, has resigned over the Government’s continuous failure to publish the defence investment plan or even to fund it. In his letter to the Prime Minister he said,
“your DIP financial settlement—which I was first given in full on Monday afternoon this week—falls well short of what is required for defence and the country at this dangerous time…it rises to just 2.68% of GDP in 2030”.
That is four years from now.
We have a war in Ukraine, continued instability in the middle east and a Department in total limbo. The man with day-to-day responsibility for overseeing the nation’s defence has just quit. Madam Deputy Speaker, have you been given any indication that the Government will come to the House before we rise at the conclusion of business today and make a statement on this chaotic situation and who is now in charge of the Ministry of Defence? Similarly, have you been given any indication as to when the Government will now finally, at last, publish the defence investment plan, which is essential for the security of this country? As the first duty of the Government, above all others, is the defence of the realm, they must surely come to the House in the next few hours and explain how this dreadful situation will somehow be rectified.
Power to Cancel Local Elections
Debate between Alison McGovern and Mark Francois(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for leading this debate, and thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it. I also thank the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition that has brought us here. Their engagement, as hon. Members have said, reflects the strength of feeling about local democracy, the future of local councils and the changes needed to get public services and stronger economic growth across England.
I stood to be a local councillor 20 years ago this year—standing for election for the first time. I remember it as a humbling and important experience. I share the views of all hon. Members about the foundational nature of democracy. I grew up in the Wirral. Some 52 years ago we had quite a number of councils there and it was part of Cheshire, but when I was born we had a unitary council, so I was born in Merseyside. Now, we are part of the Liverpool city region, with a metro mayor, so I am personally aware of how change can affect areas.
On the question of whether people demand mayors, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made the reasonable point most people are focused on the bread and butter. However, in my experience, having had a mayor for some years, the people I represent have felt and seen the benefit of that. I say to the right hon. Member, “Watch this space.”
I begin by acknowledging the concerns raised by the petitioners and expressed in this debate. Democratic legitimacy matters profoundly. People must have confidence that their vote counts and their voice is heard. They must also have confidence that the structures into which representatives are elected are sustainable, capable and fit to deliver the services on which communities rely. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) and I have engaged several times in this House—and will continue to engage—about the points that he rightly makes about Woking’s debt and what we must do to guard against such things happening again in future. Our responsibility is to safeguard both.
In many parts of the country, residents continue to live with a two-tier system that is inefficient, confusing and poorly suited to the demands of the modern state. That is why the Government are undertaking the most ambitious programme of local government reorganisation in half a century. We are replacing outdated two-tier arrangements with simpler single-tier unitary councils that are better equipped to take decisions quickly, create economic growth and support integrated public services.
This is where I slightly disagree with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, because bringing together, for example, housing and social services under a unitary council is a different arrangement. His characterisation of the situation as us not moving away from two tiers because there will still be an Essex-wide body is not quite right. The value of a unitary council is bringing together those services that are now apart. It is not quite the situation that he describes.
Mr Francois
My constituency is pronounced “Rayleigh”, by the way. My advice to the Minister is to cut your losses and drop the whole thing in Essex, because it is a shambles. However, under the Government’s plans we will have a unitary tier, and then a tier above that which is a combined authority drawn from some of those councils and a mayor. It is patently obvious that that is two tiers of local government replacing two different tiers of local government. To pretend that it is one is fantasy.
Alison McGovern
Just as the right hon. Member says—Rayleigh and Wickford.
In bringing together the functions of district and county councils we can integrate public services better. That we still need a strategic tier does not, in my opinion, undermine that argument. That is why with one council responsible for growth, decisions can be taken faster, opportunities seized more confidently and investment aligned behind a coherent long-term vision. This is not a bureaucratic exercise. As I just said to the right hon. Member, when housing, public health, children’s services, adult social care and planning sit within a single organisation, the public benefits. Support services can work around the whole person, not just the element of their life that happens to fall within a particular tier of government.
Nearly a third of England’s population live in areas where responsibility for services is split between two councils, and residents tell us that they struggle to know which council is responsible for what. As I have said previously, one county council recorded more than 140,000 incidents of residents contacting the wrong authority when trying to get help. That is not the public’s failure; it is a failure of a system designed for a different era.
Two-tier government is significantly more expensive than it needs to be, and across the country, taxpayers fund duplicate political and managerial structures: two sets of councillors, leadership teams, finance functions, planning departments and often different electoral cycles. Those inefficiencies waste tens of millions of pounds each year. That money should be directed to social care, children’s services, housing and neighbourhoods.
The petition focuses on one specific aspect of this broader programme of change: the powers available to Ministers to make changes to the timing of local elections in areas undergoing reorganisation. As Members know, the Secretary of State originally concluded, based on extensive representations from councils, that postponement would release essential capacity in 30 areas where councils set out detailed concerns about their ability to deliver complex structural change alongside running full elections. Those decisions were taken case by case, guided by evidence submitted through more than 400 representations, and reflected clear precedents for temporarily aligning electoral cycles with structural transition.
However, following the receipt of further legal advice, the Government have now revoked that decision. A fresh decision was taken quickly to ensure certainty for councils, candidates and voters. A revocation order was laid and, as such, all the elections that had originally been proposed for postponement will now proceed in May 2026. We have written to all affected councils and the Government are working closely with returning officers, administrators and suppliers to provide the practical support required to deliver those elections successfully within the required timetable.
Let me turn to a couple of the questions that Members asked. The hon. Member for Woking and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), asked me about legal considerations that applied to previous decisions. Those previous postponements were legal. As we know, the powers to postpone elections exist in statute and they are unchanged by the most recent decision. In a previous delegated legislative Committee, I committed to write to the hon. Member for Woking, as other Members who were in that Committee will remember. That response will be circulated in the usual way. The shadow Minister himself talked about the way in which Governments of all parties have handled legal advice. I am sure that I do not need to repeat the reasons why we would treat the advice we received in the way that we did; he knows those reasons well.
The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) and others mentioned the circumstances in Cheltenham, which show that there are circumstances in which the power that we have discussed today can be used. In addition, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned Margaret Thatcher extending and changing the terms of the GLC, so clearly there are circumstances in which it needs to be used.
Finally, a number of Members asked whether we would consider changing the law. The Government will engage with amendments to Bills in the usual way. We recognise, of course, that the reversal of the original decision places additional pressures on councils in reorganisation areas. As has been mentioned, last week the Secretary of State announced up to £63 million in capacity funding, on top of £7.6 million that has already been provided, to support councils to deliver reorganisation effectively. We are in touch with councils directly about those resources.
Let me turn briefly to the petition’s central concern: the powers themselves. Parliament provided these powers for the specific context of structural reform and previous Governments have used them in comparable circumstances, as has already been said today and as I have just mentioned again. However, we fully recognise the strength of interest among Members in how these powers are framed and exercised.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is now before Parliament, provides an appropriate forum for considering these issues. As I have just mentioned, the Government are considering amendments tabled to that Bill, and will engage with them in the usual parliamentary fashion. I do not intend to prejudge discussions in either House.
Looking ahead, the focus now is on supporting councils to run safe and effective elections in May, and on progressing reorganisation in a way that improves local services and delivers long-term value for money. The new unitary authorities that will follow will eliminate duplication, strengthen accountability and make place planning—including planning for housing, transport, economic development and public services—easier, as it will be within a single strategic framework. The new unitary authorities will also deliver significant savings, estimated at about £40 million a year in allowances and associated costs, with savings of at least £120 million over the first three years, which can be reinvested into frontline services.
Elections matter deeply—they matter to us all—and so does the long-term resilience of local government. Members will be aware that, after the past decade and a half, I have a significant job on my hands to get all local government towards a better and more sustainable future. When further legal advice was received, the Secretary of State acted swiftly to revoke the postponement decision and confirm that elections will proceed in May 2026. The Government remain committed to delivering simpler, stronger councils to serve their communities.
Local Elections: Cancellation
Debate between Alison McGovern and Mark Francois(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alison McGovern
Let me thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not agree with him on the substantive point he makes, but I have heard his views and will pass them on to the Secretary of State.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
“No taxation without representation.” Councillor Kevin Bentley, the dynamic Conservative leader of Essex county council, has been adamant that elections should go ahead. On 14 January, he wrote to the Minister:
“You may be aware that at our Full Council on 9th December I stated that Essex County Council would not be calling for the postponement of elections in May 2026. This continues to be our position.”
What was ambiguous about that? Is Labour simply running scared?
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for relaying the words of Councillor Kevin Bentley, whom it has been a pleasure to meet on a number of occasions. Getting a clear position is obviously important. We will do that quickly, and the Secretary of State will —[Interruption.] I don’t know; there may have been more context than that one quote, but the Secretary of State—
Alison McGovern
No, you’re fine. The Secretary of State will take into account those representations and others, and make a decision without any undue delay.
Local Government Reorganisation
Debate between Alison McGovern and Mark Francois(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern
I do not want to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is much I could say in response to my hon. Friend, who makes some excellent points, but I will just say that I have heard what he says, and I will do my best.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Labour’s process of local government reorganisation is descending into farce. Two days ago, the Secretary of State assured the House that next May’s elections were going ahead. Now, the day we rise for Christmas, the Minister comes here and says, “Well, they might not.” I back to the hilt the Conservative leader of Essex county council, Kevin Bentley, when he says that they must go ahead. He is right, but what about the lower tier? What about Labour-led Basildon, Labour-led Thurrock and Labour-led Southend? Are they allowed to run away and hide, just because Labour is tanking in the polls?
Alison McGovern
I am pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman has been in touch with local authority leaders. They will have heard what he has said, and I am sure that they can take his views into consideration when they respond to our letter.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Alison McGovern and Mark Francois(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend, who has a long-standing record of campaigning for those who have experienced rough sleeping or homelessness. Housing First, as we have discussed, is one way that areas can provide person-centred and trauma-informed support for people with complex needs, which is important in preventing long-term rough sleeping. Areas across England can use flexible funding, including our £255 million rough sleeping prevention and recovery grant, to do so. The Liverpool city region combined authority, which includes his constituency of Southport, received nearly £4 million of funding through the grant this year.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
We do need to build more homes, including more affordable homes, but they have to be built in an environmentally sustainable way. Why are Ministers, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, taking powers such that any planning application for more than 150 houses, if turned down by the democratically elected councillors, is sent straight to the Secretary of State? Why have local elections and elect people who know their own area to take decisions if they will simply be overruled automatically by someone whose whole mantra is “Build, baby, build and let the devil take the consequences”?
Alison McGovern
There we have it: in a question about homelessness, we have a Tory MP getting up and asking how he can say no to more homes. [Interruption.]