Local Government Reform: Huntingdonshire
Carolyn Harris Excerpts(1 month 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
Ben Obese-Jecty
I wholeheartedly agree. I will come on in detail to explain why the financial implications are so grave. I hope we would heed the warnings from those who have been through this process before, to ensure that the same mistakes are not made again.
Dr Shabina Qayyum, leader of Labour’s city council, was quoted by the BBC as saying that claims that option D was being pursued for political purposes were “insulting”. Given that she and her Labour group were whipped by Labour to vote for it, I suggest that the lady doth protest too much. It will be interesting to see how Labour members vote this evening.
Option D rips Huntingdonshire in half, creating east and west Huntingdonshire. There is a significant risk in attempting to disaggregate Huntingdonshire district council. There is a lack of precedent and absence of lessons learned, not to mention the destruction of local identity in Huntingdonshire, already stronger than identities elsewhere in Cambridgeshire, particularly in separating Huntingdon and St Ives. Disaggregating Huntingdonshire district council would come with greater transition costs and affect service delivery.
It makes no sense to place Huntingdon and Godmanchester, separated only by a narrow stretch of the River Great Ouse, into completely different unitaries. Brampton and Buckden will be split apart; Kimbolton and Great Staughton will be in different unitaries. Those village pairings currently sit within shared county divisions, upon which the wards of the new unitaries in Cambridgeshire will be based. To split them in two means that those divisions will need to be redrawn. The local government boundary commission for England can redraw them only once the unitary exists, and even then those divisions are unlikely to be at the top of the list for redesigning.
The option D business case states:
“Option D is grounded in a deep commitment to the unique identities, diversity and aspirations of each of the proposed unitaries.”
That simply is not true. There is no consensus anywhere in Huntingdonshire to suggest that splitting it in two is the preferred option for residents in my constituency. If Labour was not whipping its councillors to vote for it, it would not have any support at all.
Several of Huntingdonshire’s Labour councillors have either announced that they will not be standing or may not be here after next May. I ask those Labour councillors why they would wish for their legacy as a councillor to be that they voted to rip up Huntingdonshire. Defy the whip! The Labour apparatchiks whipping option D will not be the ones who have to live with the consequences of being part of a failing authority that they voted for. With the best will in the world, they are not going to remove the whip from any Labour councillor in Huntingdonshire. Politically, they cannot afford to.
Fenland district councillors like option D because it gets them out of being lumped with Peterborough:
“Peterborough’s ability to expand is constrained by current boundaries. By aligning with north-west Huntingdonshire, the area opens up to the south and west, creating space for new communities, business investment and international companies”.
Tell me they are planning to use the north of Huntingdonshire as a dumping ground for their housing targets without telling me!
Be under no illusion, Mrs Harris: Peterborough is a basket case. It is estimated that 11% of Peterborough’s budget is needed simply to service its own debts, with 80% needed to fulfil its statutory adult and children’s social care obligations. How on earth does it plan to run all the other existing county and district functions on a 9% budget? Peterborough council’s debt gearing is 91%, against the national benchmark of just 50%. Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s local authority financial resilience index analysis, Peterborough is rated as high-risk for its overall level of reserves, its unallocated reserves, its earmarked reserves, its interest payable or net revenue expenditure, its gross external debt, its fees and charges to service expenditure ratio, its council tax requirement or net revenue expenditure and its growth above baseline. Huntingdonshire is not deemed to be high-risk in a single one of those categories.
Looking at the debt analysis based on the modelled options, Greater Peterborough is the single worst option for debt financing cost as a percentage of funding; it sits at 11%, which is the only debt financing cost deemed to be high-risk, and we should bear it in mind that the other two unitaries in this option each come in at 4%.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has informed the relevant people that he is mentioning them today in the Chamber? Can I also ask him to keep his remarks to questions that the Minister can actually answer? A lot of this seems to be straying off into an area that the Minister has no power to influence or respond to.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I apologise, Ms Harris; this sets the context for my later questions and the benefits of option E. Of course, the title of the debate is “The impact of local government reform in Huntingdonshire”, and that is the context I am trying to set.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Has the hon. Gentleman informed the people whom he mentioned that he would name them in Parliament?
Ben Obese-Jecty
I was not aware that we had to inform individuals who are not Members of Parliament.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Thank you. Option D literally saddles half of Huntingdonshire with an enormous debt burden, while allowing the rest of Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire to ride off into the sunset. The net investment income and debt financing costs for Greater Peterborough are £38.3 million. Compare that with option E: Huntingdonshire unitary’s costs are just £10.5 million, the lowest of any unitary in any of the five options.
When looking at the reserves analysis, we see a similar story. Option D provides a significantly lower level of reserves, leaving it more vulnerable to shocks. The reserves of Greater Peterborough are comfortably the lowest at just 16%, which is again deemed high-risk. By comparison, Huntingdonshire would be 42%. On employment, we need look no further than the percentage of universal credit claimants in the local authority. In Huntingdonshire, it is 2.8%, while in Peterborough is 8%, far and away the highest—it has the highest unemployment rate in Cambridgeshire. Moving to Greater Peterborough would immediately increase Huntingdonshire’s unemployment from 3.2% to 5%.
On improving children’s services, option D states:
“Authorities with higher prevalence of need (e.g. those containing Peterborough and Fenland) will face greater demand and cost pressures, potentially straining resources and impacting service delivery”.
On adult social care and healthcare, and the impact for frontline staff, it states:
“Teams currently set up on the geographical footprint of Huntingdonshire would need to be split leading to instability for front line and direct care workers”.
On special educational needs and disabilities, it states:
“The authority containing Peterborough is projected to see the highest growth in SEND demand, leading to disproportionate pressure on resources and budgets…Increased risk of uneven access to SEND support, with some authorities potentially struggling to meet rising demand or maintain quality”.
Greater Peterborough is also projected to have the highest prevalence of education, health and care plans and the greatest risk of SEND deficit escalation. At present, Huntingdonshire has the second lowest rate of EHCP prevalence in Cambridgeshire. This analysis strongly suggests that the system would all but immediately collapse.
Greater Peterborough will have the highest spend per resident for adult social care and for children’s social care, more than double that of the other two unitaries, as well as the highest SEND costs and the highest percentage of homeless households, nearly double that of Greater Cambridge. It is akin to the Berlin wall being put up overnight, condemning one half of Huntingdonshire to eking out an existence in the bleak Peterborough democratic republic, while the southern half enjoys the trappings of a slightly better existence in the people’s republic of south Cambridgeshire.
I stress the words “slightly better”, because anybody involved in discussions about local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire is well aware of what Cambridge city actually wants. From the very start, Cambridge city has made it clear that it only wants an option that couples it with south Cambridgeshire. Option C would add Huntingdonshire into that mix and, although I am told that throuples are all the rage in the more liberal parts of Cambridgeshire, we would clearly be an awkward third wheel in such a relationship. Cambridge city has no interest in Huntingdonshire. To wilfully pursue an unrequited interest in being linked with it makes no sense for any Huntingdonshire district councillor. Do any of our councillors honestly think that Cambridge city is interested in investing in Sawtry, Warboys or Somersham?
Cambridgeshire county council voted for option A, but again that was a vote gerrymandered by the ruling party. The Liberal Democrats, who now control the county council, whipped their councillors to vote for option A—and we should bear in mind that that was not a vote in which councillors were given a choice of all five options; they were simply given the choice of voting for or against option A. In what way is that a truly representative vote?
The county council claims that its phase 2 engagement reinforces support for option A, showing:
“clear patterns of support for option A.”
Support from whom? The county council goes on to say:
“The lowest levels of support for this option were from Fenland (26%) and Huntingdonshire (20%)”.
How can there be “clear” levels of support for an option that 80% of people in Huntingdonshire do not want? The Liberal Democrats voted for option A without ever having seen a business case; indeed, one has never been written. How irresponsible is it to vote for such a huge change to local governance that has never been financially scrutinised?
Although I freely accept that St Neots and St Ives, with their direct bus route to the city of Cambridge, see themselves as pointing south-east rather than north-west to Peterborough, it is clear that Huntingdonshire would be the poor relation in any unitary authority that had it aligned to the exclusive Cambridge city.
One of the biggest fears about option A and option C is that in aligning with either Peterborough or Cambridge, Huntingdonshire will end up on the periphery, likely to be cast aside as a sleepy backwater and a place to dump housing targets. We all know that investment from either council will honeypot around the cities. What does that mean not only for our market towns, but for our villages? How much capital investment will be spent in Sawtry or Ramsey by a Cambridge city council focused on option C? How much interest does a Peterborough city-led council have in Kimbolton, Earith or Great Gransden?
Local government reorganisation is potentially one of the most important changes in our region in a generation. Huntingdonshire is uniquely placed as the delivery engine for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, aligning with the Government’s goal for growth. Option E clearly meets the Government’s six criteria. Indeed, when all the options are scored against the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s criteria for local government reorganisation, option E easily surpasses option D and inclusion in greater Peterborough, and it only narrowly loses out to options A and C—and that is before factoring in the practical aspects of being governed by a Peterborough-centric or Cambridge-centric council.
Place identity should not be overlooked. Huntingdonshire, more than any other part of Cambridgeshire, retains the distinct and proud identity of a historical county. Consequently, the prospect of Huntingdonshire going it alone has been warmly received by local residents when I have had conversations with them about it.
For those concerned that a Huntingdonshire unitary authority would lack the necessary population size, the 2040 population projection sees its population grow to approximately 300,000. A central unitary authority based around Huntingdonshire could form the key link between a north-eastern Peterborough-focused unitary authority aligned with the strategic plan of Homes England, and therefore with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority’s housing and infrastructure objectives, and a south-western-focused unitary authority aligned with the national industrial strategy priorities around life sciences, AI and food production.
A central unitary authority focused on Huntingdonshire could then be fully linked into the region by accommodating a boundary change to deliver about 40,000 homes just south of St Neots at Tempsford new town. That could plug Huntingdonshire directly into the Oxford-Cambridge arc via East West rail and turbocharge delivery. As things stand, Tempsford will be split between three local authorities. Moving it to Huntingdonshire to become, in effect, Greater St Neots would make logical sense, and I would welcome the Minister’s view on this proposal.
Huntingdonshire is set to benefit hugely from the north Huntingdonshire opportunity zone, with defence a key component of the zone’s potential growth. Defence features prominently in both the Huntingdonshire local plan and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority’s local growth plan, in addition to featuring, by name, as one of the 12 high growth potential frontier industry clusters in the Government’s recently published defence industrial strategy.
I have talked many times before about the defence opportunity that exists in Huntingdonshire. Project Fairfax is a potential game changer for the region, not only for defence-specific firms, but for dual-use civilian firms that have military applications for their projects. Both fields are illustrated by the existence of Cambridge Precision, a small arms component manufacturer, by the forthcoming move of Marshall Land Systems to the constituency and, from a civilian perspective, by a company such as Paragraph, which has grown from a small Cambridge University spin-out to a cutting-edge tech company whose graphene technology potentially has military applications.
The potential to create a defence technology cluster is already clearly understood and has already been recognised. The Ministry of Defence announced Project Fairfax only last month. That followed months of work, during which time the potential to deliver the project was recognised by everyone up to and including the Prime Minister, who on 26 June reassured my constituents that
“this increased defence spend will bring yield to Huntingdon in the defence-specific sectors and in the supply chains.” —[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1279.]
Arguably, Huntingdonshire is already the most important location for defence intelligence in western Europe, with the Ministry of Defence currently uplifting the capability at RAF Wyton, where the National Centre for Geospatial Intelligence is based, alongside the development of the proposed tech cluster, and the fact that only a few miles down the road the US Government are investing heavily in their own capability at RAF Molesworth with a new joint intelligence analytics centre, costing in excess of $556 million, for nearly 2,000 personnel. The joint intelligence analytics centre and joint intelligence command AFRICOM—the US Africa command—both sit at Molesworth, alongside the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre, providing the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and Allied Command Operations with timely, relevant and accurate intelligence to support planning and execution of NATO operations. This is clearly a huge and permanent commitment.
In the current febrile geopolitical climate, Huntingdonshire is arguably—not to overstate it—the linchpin of how we meet hostile foreign threats head on. As a senior officer once described it to me, “World leaders make decisions on the information that comes out of these bases.” I therefore ask the Minister how confident she is, should option E not be selected, that a new unitary authority, be that Peterborough or Cambridge-based, will prioritise defence, given that neither appears to be fully aware of the responsibility that they will hold, let alone the opportunity, for a part of the region that sits firmly on the periphery of their geography and their thinking.
If the Government are serious about delivering on their defence priorities, and I assume that they are, given that they have greenlit such an ambitious project, they surely would not then risk its delivery by removing the key stakeholders responsible for driving its delivery, and handing such a crucial project to a newly formed local authority that has had no involvement in the genesis of the project and not even enough interest to mention it in its business cases. In going with an alternative option there is a significant and real danger that delivery of these projects stalls, goes into hiatus and loses the momentum crucial to their timely delivery. Huntingdonshire district council has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to deliver and move at pace and shown the necessary delivery expertise to get this across the line. Huntingdonshire is the location of a significant proportion of the region’s development and infrastructure pipeline projects.
Local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire is balanced on a knife edge as far as Huntingdonshire is concerned. Although the Government will not make a decision on what the structure of unitaries in Cambridgeshire looks like until next July, Huntingdonshire district council will have its one and only opportunity to make its voice heard at the vote this evening. This is a unique, once-in-a generation opportunity to set Huntingdonshire up for success, or condemn it to a future over which it will have no control. The historic identity of Huntingdonshire is a strength. It is an identity that local people do not wish to lose through being split or absorbed. We know what incredible opportunities exist for the region and how much potential it has.
I would ask any Huntingdonshire district councillor, ahead of this vote, to ask themselves why they should vote for anything other than option E. Do they back Huntingdonshire or not? A vote for any other option this evening—in the hope that Cambridge might take note when it has made it clear that it has no interest in partnering with us, or in the hope that Peterborough might take note when it clearly wishes to do nothing more than split Huntingdonshire in two and effectively asset-strip the northern half—could be catastrophic for the region. To vote for anything other than option E is to vote against Huntingdonshire; it is to vote for it to be split or absorbed, but not for it to have control over its own future. That would be unforgivable, and the electorate will not forget in the local elections next May. I am sure that these councillors, whether they consider themselves to be a faithful or a traitor, would not wish their last action of note as a Huntingdonshire district councillor to be throwing Huntingdonshire under the guided bus.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
The matter that the hon. Member has raised is not in the domain of the Government. I have allowed him to continue, as it is something he obviously feels very passionate about, but I cannot expect the Minister to respond to issues that have nothing to do with her brief.
Political Donations
Carolyn Harris Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks 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
Irene Campbell
I agree with my hon. Friend. To further close loopholes that allow foreign interference, the Committee on Standards in Public Life added that the Government
“should legislate to ban foreign organisations or individuals from buying campaign advertising in the UK.”
As public office holders, we are all beholden to the seven principles of public life, known as the Nolan principles: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. To dedicate ourselves to these principles, we must ensure that there is no question about the transparency and lawfulness of the donations that we receive. Any rules regarding electoral donations must reflect and represent those principles, which we hold dear.
The Labour manifesto promised to
“protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations”.
In December, the Prime Minister’s spokesman confirmed that the Government are committed to
“strengthening the rules around donations to political parties.”
Regarding the commitment to reviewing the rules on political donations, he said there will be a
“relevant update in due course.”
In her response to the debate in March, the Minister agreed that foreign money has no place in the UK electoral system, and that the current rules do not provide strong safeguards. She also made clear the crucial role that the Electoral Commission has, and the possibility that its roles and responsibilities may change.
There is much evidence and many policy interventions to be considered before the Government’s approach to electoral reform is published. However, now is the time for robust legislation that works. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and the contributions of hon. Members from both sides of the House.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I remind Members who wish to speak that they should bob, and they need to have been here from the beginning of the debate. Interventions—should Members take them—are meant to be just that: short and relevant to the points being made.
I point out to Members that if you mention a current Member by constituency, you need to have formally informed them beforehand, so that they will know they have been mentioned. I call Jamie Stone, Chair of the Petitions Committee.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. Conservative Friends of Russia, later renamed the Westminster Russia Forum, was founded in 2012 as a lobby group, posing as a think-tank, with absolutely no research published. It was founded at the Russian embassy in London by, among others, Vladimir Putin’s man in London, Sergey Nalobin, and Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the official Vote Leave campaign. The opening was attended by Boris Johnson and his wife, Carrie. To date, the public has never had access to the group’s activities or fundraising records, but, through this group, Putin’s regime had access to Conservative MPs and, according to one of Britain’s top spies, Kremlin money changed hands to influence the Brexit campaign.
We know that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), whom I will shortly email to notify of this mention, then leader of the UK Independence party, met the former Russian ambassador to London, Alexander Yakovenko, which the hon. Member initially denied. We know that Arron Banks, who donated millions to the leave campaign, met the Russian ambassador at least three times. We know that event organisers for the forum were largely London-based businesses but with an interest in Russia, and that, at its peak, events drew 170 attendees. We also know that the Conservative party took millions of pounds in donations from Russian oligarchs, and accepted such donations at least as recently as March 2022, after Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine and several years after its occupation of the Donbas and Crimean peninsula. The Westminster Russia Forum was disbanded shortly after the full invasion.
I consider it a matter of public interest that the full extent of the group’s activities and fundraising is published unredacted. The Liberal Democrats further call for the full, unredacted release of the Russia report to pierce the veil of secrecy of Russian influence in UK politics. We call for greater independence for the Intelligence and Security Committee to investigate Russian interference. The Conservative party declined to do so, and it is easy to imagine why. No longer should the PM have control over its membership, nor the authority to prevent publication of its reports, as Boris Johnson did with the Russia report. This is both a matter of national security and of public confidence in our politics.
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I think I made myself clear: if you are going to mention a Member, you need to inform them before you mention them, not after, to give the Member the opportunity to turn up. I suggest that you inform the Member concerned as a matter of urgency, Mr Thomas, and apologise for not doing so beforehand.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing the debate, and I congratulate Jeremy Stone on creating the petition, which received such a large number of signatories. It is great to see so many Members join this Westminster Hall debate, which builds on a previous debate on the Floor of the House. We have heard many passionate and principled speeches on a matter that should rightly concern all of us. Those speeches illustrate a shared desire to protect our democracy from those who would seek to disrupt it, and they help to illuminate our path forward on this vital agenda.
We inherit a precious democracy forged through centuries of struggle and reform. The Reform Act 1832 began to address electoral inequalities, and the Representation of the People Acts 1918 and 1928 extended suffrage to all adults, regardless of gender or property ownership. Our democracy has continued to evolve. The Government intend to continue that tradition by widening participation and extending the electoral franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.
Over the years, our democracy has shown its resilience and ability to adapt to challenges. Faced with concerns about undue influence in politics, Parliament has repeatedly risen to the occasion. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is a great example. The Act addressed concerns held then about political funding and established our modern regulatory framework. The UK has shown its capacity to preserve the core principles of democracy as the world changes and new threats emerge. Today, as democracies all over the world confront the challenges of foreign interference, we must again be vigilant and take action to safeguard what is precious.
Foreign money has no place in the UK’s political system, which is why the law is clear that foreign donations are not permitted. The only exception is for donations from certain Irish sources to Northern Irish political parties. That exception recognises the special place of Ireland in the political life and culture of Northern Ireland and is consistent with the principles set out in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Accepting or facilitating an illegitimate foreign donation is rightly a criminal offence: political parties are required by law to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of a donor and whether they are permissible, and there are rules that safeguard against impermissible donations via proxies.
Although it is clear that foreign donations to political parties and other campaigners are illegal, the Government recognise the continued risk posed by actors who seek to interfere in our democratic process. The current rules no longer match the sophistication and perseverance of those who wish to undermine our laws, and that threat must be addressed through stronger safeguards. That is why the Government committed in our manifesto to
“strengthening the rules around donations to political parties”,
including through enhanced safeguards against foreign donations. We are considering a series of new measures that would achieve that, such as enhanced checks by recipients of donations and tighter controls on donors, including more restrictions around company donations.
Many Members raised the notion of restricting the size of individual political donations. The Government do not plan to introduce such restrictions, as we are rightly focused on safeguards that protect against the threat of foreign interference. I mentioned at the start that we must protect what is hard won. It is vital that those who play a crucial role in our democracy can fundraise effectively and communicate their ideas with the electorate. Those who choose to participate in electoral campaigns must follow the strict accounting and transparency rules that apply to political donations, and the strict spending limits for election campaigns.
Members have mentioned the important role that the Electoral Commission plays in the UK’s democratic system as the regulator of political finance. The robust enforcement of political finance rules is crucial to promoting public confidence in our democratic processes, ensuring their integrity, and combating the threat of foreign interference. That is why we have also committed to reviewing the powers of the regulator to ensure that it has the tools necessary to fulfil its duties. I can assure Members that we are currently weighing evidence from stakeholders, including recommendations from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Electoral Commission. [Interruption.]
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. The debate is now suspended for Divisions. We will suspend for 15 minutes for the first vote and 10 minutes for every subsequent vote. Everyone who has spoken in today’s debate is expected to return for the winding-up speeches.
Cameron Thomas
I am delighted to hear that the Government will give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote. Do the Government intend to appropriately educate 16 and 17-year-olds about the right to vote?
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
Order. I do not think I should have allowed that first intervention, and I certainly should not have allowed the second. This is completely out of scope. Can we stick to the motion?
Rushanara Ali
Hon. Members have raised a number of issues. That particular point is important, and I have addressed it in other debates in Parliament.
I look forward to working with colleagues across parties on the subject we are debating today, as well as on the broader democracy agenda. We will get this work done well only if we work across parties as much as possible, while recognising, of course, that there will be some differences. I think we can all agree that if we want the next generation to be prepared and active in our democracy, we must work together to ensure we get this agenda right.
I reiterate my commitment to working with colleagues on this important agenda. The work to protect our democracy is a cross-cutting and UK-wide effort that extends beyond political finance regulation. Working with the intelligence agencies, the devolved Governments, the police and external partners, we remain vigilant against the full spectrum of threats, from cyber-vulnerabilities to the spread of misinformation and disinformation. Before the summer recess, we will publish a comprehensive document outlining the Government’s approach to electoral reform for this Parliament. Once again, I thank hon. Members across the House for their contributions to this important debate. I believe we all want a robust, vibrant and representative democracy, and that means taking the necessary steps to ensure we safeguard ourselves against foreign interference and uphold the integrity of our elections.
Coalfield Communities
Carolyn Harris Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Jogee
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) first, because I am smart, and then I will give way to the right hon. Member from Scotland.
Carolyn Harris
Very wise.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I am being contacted by a growing number of mineworker constituents who were enrolled in the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare (Gerald Jones), and all those constituents are understandably disappointed that they have not received the same justice as their former colleagues in the mineworkers pension scheme. That inequality is unfair, particularly as almost 5,000 women who worked in the industry and who were paid less were in the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that urgent action is needed to bring some parity to the situation?
Adam Jogee
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and I will touch gently on that issue. Her intervention speaks to her commitment to standing up for those most in need of a strong voice.
I will now happily give way to my friend from Scotland.
Short-term Lets: Regulation
Carolyn Harris Excerpts(1 year, 3 months 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
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that this is about the politics of justice, not the politics of envy? It is not just an issue of the taxation of furnished lets. There has been an industrial movement of properties—second homes—going from being registered for council tax to being registered for business rates, and people then apply for small business rate relief and pay nothing at all. Against that, we do not get the investment in affordable homes for local people. In Cornwall alone, £500 million of taxpayers’ money has gone into the pockets of holiday let providers, while those specifically created, for planning reasons, with planning restrictions are outside that—
Several hon. Members rose—
Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)
I remind Members that anyone wishing to speak needs to bob. I have to impose a four-minute time limit from the outset, as this debate is oversubscribed. You can all sit down until I have finished. I call Anna Sabine.