Local Elections

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is disappointing that the Minister continues to refer to the Isle of Wight as “the Solent”, which is a body of water where nobody lives. She says that our council elections will take place next year unless there are exceptional or extenuating circumstances. Can she please confirm unequivocally that her plans for a mayor and a local government review are not exceptional or extenuating circumstances that are sufficient for cancelling our elections next May?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

We are clear—I will keep saying this, and we have consistently said this—that we want to move forward with elections. The decision to delay the elections last year was not taken lightly. We all believe in the democratic process, and we all believe that it is absolutely right that leaders must face the electorate, so we will never, ever take the decision to cancel or delay an election lightly. There will have to be extenuating circumstances. Our plan and determination at the moment is to crack on with local elections.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking]

I do not think that the Bill does that. It enables Ministers to force councils to reorganise. It keeps power in Whitehall. It does not devolve powers to councils. I have mentioned a number of times in questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that my council is crying out for more powers over the houses in multiple occupation that are affecting our town centre. As I said in Committee, a tiny part of the Bill is good and deals with the licensing of e-scooters. We all know what a scourge e-scooters represent across our constituencies up and down the country. That is the tiny good thing in the Bill, but the Government do not need a Bill to do that; they could legislate very quickly to give councils the powers to deal with that issue. Instead, we have to wait for months on end to solve a small issue through this Bill.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend understand why my Isle of Wight constituents reject the idea of a new mayor being imposed upon them under the name of “Hampshire and Solent”, with the Isle of Wight name disappearing? My constituents do not live in the Solent. Indeed, nobody lives in the Solent other than fish.

[Lewis Cocking]

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his constituents. We had a long discussion about that issue in Committee. I completely agree that “Isle of Wight” should be in the name of that combined mayoral authority. The Isle of Wight has a good local identity. It is important, when we create these new strategic authorities, that we take local people with us. We will not take the people of the Isle of Wight with us if we do not include such a significant community in the name of that combined authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government must come forward on that, as we are yet to hear solutions for councils with large amounts of debt. Councils are being forced into reorganisation and to have conversations about who they want to be joined with, but some of them have no choice, because it is a matter of geography, and sometimes they might not be able to join with the partners with which they have strategic and shared services.

In summary—

[Joe Robertson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lewis Cocking]

I will not take any more interventions, as I have been more than generous—

[Joe Robertson]

rose—

[Lewis Cocking]

Oh, go on then; I will take one more intervention.

[Joe Robertson]

My hon. Friend is very kind to give way, perhaps with a little pressure from more senior Members sitting just in front of him. He poses the question of whether there is a combined area where all the unified communities link well together. Sadly, I can give an example of a forthcoming area where they do not: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The only link between the Isle of Wight and Hampshire is through the ferry companies which are entirely privatised, unregulated and controlled by private equity groups. This was the perfect opportunity for the Government to ensure that fare regulation was given to the mayor, so the mayor had that strategic transport authority across the whole area, but the Government have so far failed to do that, which is why I brought forward an amendment that I will speak to later. Does my hon. Friend have a view on this missed opportunity to bring ferry companies within the regulatory framework of, say, rail and buses, which is perfectly consensual among parties in this country?

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I signed his amendment, as that issue is important. It goes back to what I said at the beginning of this debate: the Bill is not ready to go any further. The Government should have thought about this. The amendment is logical and seeks to achieve what the Government want to achieve on, for example, buses; it seeks to achieve lots of the same things around other strategic transport and other active travel routes, so it should be in the Bill. It has cross-party support from both Members representing the Isle of Wight, and goes back to the cross-party working on the Bill Committee, where we put forward logical amendments that seek to benefit the strategic authority that the Government want to create in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The new mayor who is elected for that authority is going to have one hand tied behind their back, because he or she will not have the powers to join those communities together and really create the economic growth.

I am against the principle of what the Government are trying to do in this Bill; just because they have “community empowerment” written at the top of the Bill does not mean that it will empower local communities, and I urge the Government to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Beales]

I certainly agree. The costs that result from the visitor economy are not adequately met by the tax revenue for local authorities or mayoral authorities.

[Joe Robertson]

My constituency is popular with tourists. In the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), I invite him to visit my constituency; I think he missed our Health and Social Care Committee visit last year. Airbnbs are a big challenge, and are detrimental to the business of some small hoteliers, who are really struggling to keep their businesses going. Can the hon. Gentleman offer a small thought on that?

[Danny Beales]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, another colleague from the Health and Social Care Committee, for his offer to come to the Isle of Wight; I would be very happy to do so. I could experience the ferry issue, which I am sure he will talk about. I agree with his comments.

Revenue derived from tourism often goes directly to the Treasury, rather than funding the local services needed to create and respond to the tourism economy. The tourism levy proposed in new clause 31 would be a relatively small charge on visitors to our cities, and would create a new source of revenue for local growth initiatives.

A tourist levy would not be unique to London; British tourists regularly pay a tourism levy when we visit other high-profile cities across the world, including Paris, Rome and Berlin, to name just a few. Many will not even have noticed the charge of a couple of euros a night on their bill, but this funding source makes a positive difference to those cities, so why not have one in our cities in the UK? The creation of a tourism levy in those places has had no significant impact on visitor numbers, and none of us would be put off from our trip to Paris, Barcelona or Rome because of it.

A tourist levy would also be fairer to the residents of London. We all know that mass tourism brings disadvantage and pressures, as well as many benefits and advantages. A tourism levy would ensure that visitors paid their fair share for the upkeep of our city, just as British tourists do when travelling abroad. With 38 million visits to the UK every year, half of which are to London, there is a clear opportunity to raise a substantial pot of revenue to improve the experience of residents and visitors alike in London. It could fund and support cultural activities, such as the Christmas and other light displays that we want to see around our city, but that have become more difficult to afford. It could pay for additional security for our town centres and high streets, whether it is Oxford Street or major town centres in our boroughs. It could pay for the much better public realm investment that we often clearly need, but that has not been delivered for many years.

Through this measure, which has been long discussed but which we have failed to deliver or grasp time and again, we could let areas decide whether to levy such a charge and enjoy the proceeds of that revenue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Beales]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I do not want to get in the middle of a disagreement across the Chamber, but she has made her point expertly.

Greater strategic oversight of the licensing system is vital, and authorities must take strategic policies into account when making decisions. These amendments will not get rid of licensing decisions and powers at local level, but they will provide a better strategic framework. They will help to unlock the full potential of London’s hospitality, nightlife, culture and events economy, helping venues to stay open longer, expand and succeed where they are well managed. That is often the case, but they are held back by restrictive or outdated policies that have not been kept up to date. This approach will be good for business, good for the taxpayer and good for Londoners, helping to maintain London’s global reputation as a leading city for arts and culture. We also have to recognise that certain areas and sectors are often of strategic and cultural importance for our city and our nation, whether it is the music scene in certain parts of our cities, the live performance areas that have developed over many years, or areas such as Soho that are particularly important for the LGBTQ population. It is right that those areas have strategic oversight and protection, and that there are strategic policies to guide their futures.

I will also speak in support of the reforms on lane rental schemes, and to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader), who is now not in his place, for his contributions on this in Committee. Londoners, including my constituents, often express frustration—I am sure many of us hear it—about seemingly endless roadworks, with roadworks left unfinished while teams move on to the next place down the road and dig up another road before finishing what they have started. It often feels like there is a real lack of co-ordination and a lack of incentives in the system to work together, move quickly and resolve these issues. Lane rental schemes are a proven way of reducing such inconveniences to the bare minimum. Such schemes allow a highway authority to charge utility companies per day for works on the busiest roads at the busiest times. They work because they reduce the amount of time that roadworks occupy the network and encourage companies to carry works out collaboratively, minimising disruption to road users.

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Member is speaking about an important issue—that of utility companies seemingly closing roads without due consideration. Indeed, Southern Water tried to close the main road into Bembridge in my constituency from 1 December to 21 December; it did not consult with the local community, and only backed down after I intervened in my role as a Member of Parliament. It is the same for Ventnor on the Isle of Wight, so the hon. Member is speaking about a very important issue that probably affects every constituency, or nearly every constituency.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I remind Members again to keep within the scope of the Bill and the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon]

I was given assurances that conversations with Ministers would continue, and they have continued. I will say more about that a little later. Now, though, I have to say that I find it disappointing that a party I love could produce a Bill that ignores the wishes of Cornwall and what national minority status actually means. To those who mock, disparage and denigrate Cornwall’s constitutional position on this island, I say, “If you try to ensnare us in an unholy alliance with a part of England, that will rebound negatively.” The impact and consequences of an unamended Bill would be felt across Cornwall for decades—perhaps for 50 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) suggested earlier. The relationship with Westminster would decline, and the current simmering resentment and disillusion would be baked in. Regrettably, it will not surprise me if the calls for full fifth-nation status for Cornwall simply grow if the Bill is passed unamended.

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Member speaks very eloquently, and many of the issues that he is raising resonate with me and with my constituents on the Isle of Wight. We are being forced into a union with Hampshire, where 93% of the new electorate in the new combined authority will live and where some powers currently exercised by our unitary council, Isle of Wight council, will instead be exercised by someone whose largest responsibility rests with the 93% of the population who do not live on the Island. If the hon. Member cannot achieve what he seeks to achieve on the Government Benches I worry about what I might be able to achieve, but it is good to hear another voice speaking about those same issues.

[Perran Moon]

There is a fundamental difference between the position of the Isle of Wight in relation to the mainland and the position in Cornwall. It is the difference between identity and legally binding national minority status. One can identify with a football team, a pop band or a place, but that does not give it legally binding provision as does national minority status. That is the basis of my argument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I, too, was pleased to sit on the Public Bill Committee, but sadly I cannot spare the time to review everyone’s performance, so I will get straight to the point.

My amendments for new combined authorities in parts 1 and 2 of the Bill include amendments 91 to 93, which add action on poverty and socioeconomic inequality to the areas of competence of new mayors in clause 2. The Government have promised again and again to enact part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of a socioeconomic duty for England. If that were done, these duties would need to be created in the Bill. To leave them out for brand new authorities is such a gap, and I find it hard to understand why the Government are resisting. I hope that either this will be taken up in the other place and debated again or the section will be enacted for England imminently, such that it has to be done through Government amendments there. I would like to hear that promised by Ministers today.

I mainly want to focus on and propose my new clause 29. This would help every new mayor support the principles in the Climate Change Act 2008 in a fair way. The Climate Change Committee has noted the yawning gap between national ambition and local action, and the Local Government Association has called for that gap to be closed through the Bill. We need every mayor agreeing on the action they will take—their fair contribution to national targets—and being empowered to deliver for our crucial carbon budgets and lifesaving climate resilience.

My new clause would also help every new mayor to support the principles in the Environment Act 2021 for nature protection and restoration, and action on pollution, wildlife and the ecosystem that is our only home. It would also help every new mayor to support the principles in Ella’s law, the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill. The Bill awaits Second Reading and comes from cross-party work with campaigners from the Healthy Air Coalition and Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, the mother of Ella, whose death from asthma was the first to be recorded as due to air pollution.

New clause 29 is supported by the UK100 group of local authorities, the Climate Emergency campaign, the Better Planning Coalition, Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Healthy Air Coalition, Friends of the Earth and a host of others. An open letter has been signed by over 450 local councillors from all parties and by council leaders. Hundreds of businesses have written in more than once to Ministers and many of our constituents have been contacting MPs, too. I am very grateful to every hon. Member, cross party, who has signed it. The case is clear. I intend to press new clause 29 to a Division, so that we can, on all sides of the House, vote for the climate, nature and clean air duties that are so vital. I hope that the Government will pledge clearly today to introduce them all as full duties at the next stage in the other place.

In Committee, I also worked with campaigners to fill a big gap in health determinants set out in the Bill, to which new mayors would have to plan action under clause 43, the health improvement and health inequalities duty. The Government left out of the Bill any environmental impacts on health. I argued strongly for that in Committee and have again tabled amendments 87 to 90 to fix that. I am pleased and grateful to see that Ministers have listened to the evidence and added their own Government amendments 116 to 118 naming environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water as the health determinants they are.

However, my original amendments have not been withdrawn, as they spelled out that environmental factors should also specifically include water pollution and land pollution. This would have brought the goals of Zane’s law into the work done by new mayors to document and plan strategically to avoid horrific problems with contaminated land of the kind that led to the sudden death of Zane Gbangbola, when floods brought poisoned gas from contaminated landfill into his home in Chertsey in Surrey. I would like to hear explicitly from the Minister today that the phrase “environmental factors” in the new Government amendments includes that kind of contamination, and that the amendments therefore bring parts of Zane’s law into the Bill.

Finally, I want the Minister—and the Lords in the other place—to look seriously at the need for amendments 159 and 160, which aim to ensure that the local growth plans from new mayors will help protect culture in a strategic way. I have worked with the Music Venue Trust on the amendments, and its annual report each year makes awful reading, as our grassroots music venues suffer and close due to business pressures, unfair business rates valuations and planning and licensing issues. Those issues could be tackled effectively using the new strategies and powers of combined authorities and mayors.

The amendments cover not just music but cultural and community spaces of all kinds, including theatres and other performance venues. I believe that all areas of the country will benefit from the amendments being added at a future stage of the Bill.

[Joe Robertson]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in that I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor. I want to speak to new clause 48 in my name and new clause 39 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). The two new clauses seek to do similar things.

I thank Members across the House who have signed new clause 48, not only Opposition Members but those on the Government Benches, as well as from the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. It is my position that this support shows that new clause 48 is an objectively reasonable amendment to seek. It is about the principle of fairness: it ensures that the ferry services that connect communities all over this country of islands connect those islands, and the communities that live close to bodies of water, including rivers, under the same fare framework that trains and buses operate under.

New clause 48 sits in the following context: for generations, for decades, there has been a political consensus that train operators, whether they be state providers or private businesses, operate under a framework of regulation and licensing, and that Government have a say in how train fares and timetables are structured. The same goes for bus services. Indeed, even trains and buses in the private sector have, to a greater or lesser extent, been subsidised by the public purse.

Ferry providers in this country sit outside that consensus of regulation and licensing in public transport, so there is no comprehensive regulation that sets down how ferry operators may work. That has led to my constituents on the Isle of Wight relying on privatised, unregulated, unlicensed, foreign-owned, debt-laden companies for essential travel. Those companies are so profitable that they are regularly exchanged from private equity group to private equity group, including the Canadian pension fund. That is because private equity understands that it is a predictable form of income generation, as the service users—Isle of Wight residents—have no alternative but to use the ferry companies they control. There is no effective market, as the private sector operates properly only when there is competition. However, the bar to entry into the ferry services market is so high—a company would need to buy land and ferries, and ensure compliance with all maritime law—that there is no alternative to the existing providers. I use my constituency as an example. One provider, now called Wightlink, used to be part of British Rail, when British Rail was a public service; the provider was unfortunately sold off without any obligation on it, and it is private equity investment that has benefited from that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is giving a characteristically modest speech, given how much he has campaigned on this matter for his constituents, and is being very moderate about the aims and ambitions of the Government. It is a clear stated aim of this Government that local people should be able to demand local regulation and services, and powers for use by mayors. My hon. Friend will know that the local Conservative mayoral candidate, Donna Jones, has actually asked for these powers; if she is elected mayor, she would like to use them. Does that not provide a greater incentive for us to work together to ensure that the Government can give those powers to the new mayoralty?

[Joe Robertson]

It absolutely does provide that incentive. I thank the shadow Minister for remarking on my tone; I have always tried to work with the Government on this matter. I acknowledge again that this is more than a campaign—it is a core issue for my constituents, and for constituents on the other side of the island that I share with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West. Indeed, we are working jointly on it.

The measure would achieve unity around the idea of a mayor having responsibility for integrated transport locally. After all, local transport powers are a key plank of the Government’s plans for devolution. However, when the Government consulted my constituents—among the wider residents of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight—on transport, the consultation document that they put out to spark debate and consultation returns devoted 1,000 words to transport for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight on trains, buses, taxis, pavements, cycling and walking, but it did not include ferries or any mention of crossing the Solent, which every single one of my constituents needs to do at some point to access health services and educational opportunities that are not provided on the island, and to access employment and see friends and family, as everyone on the UK mainland would expect to do. I remind the House that in order to do those routine daily things, my constituents are reliant on the private equity groups that own and control ferry companies, and that have no obligation whatsoever to the residents of the Isle of Wight. They have no democratic accountability at all, and no responsibility to Government.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about his constituents’ need for joined-up transport. He spoke about the ferries, and about buses and trains. This is not just an economic argument; he talked about the importance of people being able to move around and connect with each other, and that has huge impacts for their mental health. I urge my hon. Friend to talk about the importance of democratic accountability, and getting strategic transport plans for our constituents across the country.

[Joe Robertson]

My hon. Friend mentioned two key words: democratic accountability. That is fundamentally what underpins this issue, and it is a principle that we expect to apply to all forms of public transport—except ferries.

I urge the Government to use this opportunity to create regulation and devolve it down. That way, they will not have ongoing responsibility for administering this issue, and the decision making will be made as close as possible to the individuals affected by the decisions. I am speaking for my constituents, but I could also be speaking for those elsewhere in the country. This is also about the economic wellbeing of the area. My constituents are heavily reliant on tourism. Indeed, the benefits of tourism are felt by 38% of our economy, but to visit the Isle of Wight, tourists must pay the price of the ferry. That is on top of everything else that they might want to spend when they are on the island.

Let us remember that the money paid to the ferry companies goes off to private equity investors, many of which are abroad, and some of which are foreign pension funds. Not only does that mean less money to spend in my area on businesses that employ local people, but it will put some people off travelling to the Isle of Wight at all. The Minister may want to see ferry prices as a large tax that people can avoid by simply visiting other places for their holidays. That is the tragedy of this situation. Indeed, tourist footfall has fallen on the Isle of Wight more than it has for anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

Before I end, I will back up my argument with facts. Earlier this year, the highest price somebody paid to bring a car back and forth to the Isle of Wight was £400. That is £400 for a sea crossing of 5 miles. The timetables have diminished since private equity took control. Once there were half-hourly services, but it is now more than an hour between services. Ordinarily, a company would not get away with doing this, because the consumer—the passenger—would go elsewhere, but the only “elsewhere” option is another ferry company that is also controlled and owned by private equity. It is no wonder that one of those companies was sold last month from private equity to private equity. The website of the new controlling group does not talk about the uncompromising pursuit of passenger experience. It boasts about the uncompromising pursuit of capital investment. That is capital investment for people who want to invest in that holding company.

I thank again all those who have supported this proposal. It was a particularly significant moment to hear the shadow Minister confirm that His Majesty’s official Opposition backs the regulation of ferry companies through my amendment.

[Andrew George]

rose—

Supporting High Streets

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Aphra Brandreth]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and it is one that businesses have raised with me directly. They all want to do the right thing, but they need the flexibility to be able to employ in different circumstances.

Just last week I met Richard, who runs several independent pubs across Cheshire, including the Boars Head near Wybunbury. Like many landlords, his biggest worry is not just his own business, but his staff. Because of higher costs and new employment burdens, he has been forced to make difficult choices. He is concerned that he will not be able to offer part-time jobs this Christmas to give young people some extra cash—and, more importantly, some experience—and help him meet the demands of the festive season.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is speaking eloquently about pubs. Does she agree that one of the best ways to support pubs is to give them a fair excise regime, and that that falls on the Government?

[Aphra Brandreth]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes an important point. Supporting pubs is vital, because they really are at the heart of many of our high streets. Since last year’s Budget, tens of thousands of jobs have disappeared across hospitality and retail. That is Labour’s record, and it shows exactly why we need a Government who understand business, back enterprise and believe in delivering growth.

Another vital high-street service is the post office. As there is no bank in my constituency, post offices are indispensable, but many struggle to keep their doors open. When the branch in Kelsall shut, I launched a petition to save it; I am grateful for the support of nearly 350 residents who added their names to the petition. I have since met representatives of the post office, which is actively seeking a new location, but as our high streets shrink, and as local businesses face mounting pressures as a result of the damaging policies of this Labour Government, finding suitable premises is increasingly difficult.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), whose passion I always admire, even if I rarely follow or agree with her arguments.

From the day you start your business until the day you pass it on, Labour simply sees a target to tax. Labour Members have shown that today. By contrast, Conservatives see a dream to back. Labour makes it harder to start a business, takes more from you as you grow, and leaves a tax bill for your children when you are gone. We on this side of the House back entrepreneurs. We give them the freedom to build, the tools to invest, and the chance to pass their success to the next generation. That is what our plan will deliver to get Britain working again.

Starting a business is a leap of faith, taken by someone with an idea and the determination to make it work. Conservatives understand that, because many of us have started and run our own businesses. Sadly, just one Cabinet Minister can say the same. I do not think that Labour Members detest enterprise and business; they just do not understand it, and see it as something that they must relentlessly tap. In 14 years under the Conservatives, the number of businesses grew by 1.1 million. We have built businesses, so we know what it takes to make them grow. This Government have not, and it shows.

I am sure that Members across the House love going into schools in their constituencies. The ones in Beverley and Holderness are brimming with budding entrepreneurs —young people full of ideas but lacking the tools to turn them into reality. Research by the Federation of Small Businesses found that, while 60% of young people want to own a business, only 16% ever will.

[Joe Robertson]

The British Retail Consortium has warned that £7 billion of costs have been put on to businesses because of national insurance contributions levied by this Government, and the Chancellor’s attitude was to say, “Well, the NHS is working.” Does she really think that the hospital budget should rest on the entrepreneurs in our constituencies?

[Graham Stuart]

We see it in speech after speech from Labour Members. Perhaps it is because of the careers they have had. They think the key to unlocking the high street, or indeed the wider economy, is public investment. It is not; it is about government getting out of the way. Of course we need a facilitating local and national government, but here are the fundamentals: it is not their money—the money of government—which businesses are allowed to have; and it is not their space, which businesses are allowed to occupy. It is our space—the people’s space—and government is there to facilitate and support, humbly. But humility is something that the Labour party never seems to display when it comes to dealing with business. All it ever does is seek to tax it.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Joe Robertson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

How does my right hon. Friend think my constituents on the Isle of Wight feel about being fused under a combined mayoral authority with Hampshire without having a single say?

[Sir James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of these proposals. For all Labour’s warm words about community engagement, community voice and communities actually having a say, that is a classic example. I have visited the Isle of Wight, not only in a personal capacity but as a guest of my hon. Friend, so I know full well that even though the county of Hampshire has many, many excellent things, the people of the Isle of Wight want to maintain their autonomy—and they should have the right to do so if that is what they want.

It is not just that local councils will lose control of their finances; they will also lose control of their powers, which are being stripped from them in this Bill. Mayors are gaining sweeping planning and transport powers without council consent or representation. Let me give an example: what if communities oppose punitive anti-driver proposals from a mayor in their local neighbourhoods? How can they make their voices heard? Who will win? Will it be the mayor who has been imposed upon them, or will it be the local communities? What will the accountability model be for those mayors? We can see nothing in the Bill about people holding their mayors accountable. There is no provision for meaningful scrutiny during the tenure of the mayoralty.

The Secretary of State made reference to the upwards-only rent reviews. I completely get that that is a superficially attractive set of proposals, but what assessment has been made of the effective valuation of commercial property, including properties that are owned by the local authorities themselves? If she is confident that this is such a good idea, why was there no scrutiny? Why was there no consultation on these proposals? Do Ministers really think that that is best practice when it comes to creating a stable investment environment and confidence for people spending money in the high street commercial properties that keep our communities alive?

The silence on those questions about the Bill is frankly deafening, because the Government have no answer. This Bill is not about empowering local communities, and it is definitely not about empowering local councils. It is about creating a cohort of puppet mayors controlled by the right hon. Lady’s Department. I respect her enormously, but her ability to strip power not just from local councils but from the Prime Minister is something well worth watching. I think we should at least be impressed by that. I put this to Labour Members: if this is about community empowerment, why does it reduce local representation? If it is about fiscal responsibility, why will it burden ratepayers—council tax payers—with debts that their local authorities did not create? If it is about more homes, why does it hamper and suffocate councils with increased bureaucracy?

Devolution can work, and indeed does work, when it is done properly. We know that it works because Conservative mayors have delivered. Ben Houchen saved Teesside airport, delivered the UK’s largest freeport with 18,000 quality jobs and secured Treasury North in Darlington with 1,400 high-skilled roles, all with a zero mayoral precept. Paul Bristow in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is ending Labour’s ideological attack on drivers. Boris Johnson, while Mayor of London, delivered the 2012 games and secured Crossrail. In the west midlands, Andy Street was a genuine champion for his region and a household name. Who has he been replaced by? A person who is not even a household name in his own household. That says it all. We Conservatives deliver. We delivered devolved government that delivers infrastructure, jobs and economic growth. What has Labour delivered? Higher costs and broken promises—[Interruption.] More tax, less delivery. That is the Labour way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

As I am sure all Members in this place do, I support the principle of devolution and empowerment—two of the words on the face of the Bill—but this Bill is about centralisation and disempowerment. For the Isle of Wight, it is about fusing our island with Hampshire under a combined mayoral authority, where 93% of the population live in Hampshire on the mainland and just 7% live on the island.

There is no empowerment, because island people will not have a say. This plan was last crystalised under the previous Labour Government, who gave islanders a say through a local referendum. Islanders voted no, and the previous Labour Government respected that vote. This Government do not respect my constituents enough to ask them whether they are happy to be fused with a much, much larger county that sits across the water. It is centralising because my local authority, the Isle of Wight council, will lose some of its powers. It will lose powers over strategic planning, so a mayor who represents largely Hampshire voters will be able to allocate more housing on the island, and any mayor who is interested in getting re-elected will, of course, be responsive to the much larger voter cohort in Hampshire.

There are three particularly offensive things about the Bill that the Government are imposing on my constituents. Our police authority is called Hampshire and Isle of Wight. Our health commissioning body is called Hampshire and Isle of Wight. Our fire and rescue service is called Hampshire and Isle of Wight. The vast majority of organisations that operate across our two counties are named after our two counties—Hampshire and Isle of Wight. This Government are going to call our mayoral combined authority Hampshire and Solent, potentially removing our name from all the organisations that the mayor will end up having power over—from our police, our fire and rescue service, our health commissioning body, and who knows what in the future. That will be done without anyone on the Isle of Wight having a say.

The second offensive thing about this proposal for my constituency is the powers that it gives the mayor over local transport. The authority will have Solent in the title, yet the mayor will get no contingent powers over the biggest transport issue facing my residents: crossing the Solent on ferries. Solent is in the name of the combined authority, but the mayor will get no powers over ferries. Our ferries are the only unregulated, entirely privatised, foreign-owned, debt-laden key transport provider in the UK.

The Government are prepared to nationalise railways, extend the arm of Government in buses and put more money into roads, but they are not prepared to do anything about my constituents being left at the mercy of foreign-owned, debt-laden companies. I will acknowledge that they have used some warm words, and the Minister has visited the island, but this is the opportunity to deliver on those words and put powers in the hands of the mayor to regulate cross-Solent transport.

To make a really important point on ringfenced funding, because the Isle of Wight will be fused with Hampshire, the mayor will be able to spend money as they wish across a homogeneous single zone. There is no special provision in the Bill to ensure there is ringfenced funding for the Isle of Wight that cannot be raided for Hampshire. The local integrated care board is already raiding money from our hospice to spend on Hampshire hospices. In the mayoral deal, we need powers to stop that from happening.

Finally, in the consultation of my constituents on the key issue of transport, the F-word—ferries—was not mentioned even once.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I commend the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for bringing forward this estimates day debate. It is a pleasure to serve under her stewardship on that Committee.

This country continues to feel the impact of Labour’s disastrous and anti-growth policies. The day-to-day spending of this Department is increasing by more than £2.4 billion—an increase of 22%—which is welcome, but it is clear that Labour’s plans to save on our planning system and the cost of local government are once again a false promise. The £2.3 billion extra being given in local government resources grants will not help our communities and local people, as £500 million of it is just to fund Labour’s detrimental increase in employer national insurance. That tax is hurting every business up and down this country, and it is placing unsustainable pressure on key sectors, such as the care industry and those who provide early years care.

Labour continues to U-turn on its commitments and policies. The impact of its changes to personal independence payments and its cruel cuts to winter fuel payments can be seen in the £800 million increase in costs for adult social care. That is yet another example of Labour’s headline mistakes costing money. An additional £399 million has already been allocated for the affordable homes programme, and continual rises for that are unsustainable. Labour will not deliver its target of 1.5 million new homes, with Savills recently predicting that as few as 840,000 homes could be built. That is significantly less than the 2.5 million homes and 750,000 affordable homes built under the last Conservative Government.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with the Government’s housing policy is that they are failing to identify the right places to build the right homes? Until they do that, they will not deliver these eyewatering numbers, especially if they are relying on greenfield rural sites.

[Mr Mohindra]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are fortunate that the Minister has a background in local government, so he understands those pressures. I look forward to further clarification on grey belt and building on brownfield first, which every constituency MP wishes to see, but it is not yet transposed on to local plans and the growth ambitions of this Government.

I was about to come on to green belt and the changes to the national planning policy framework. Those changes will not solve the problems that we all have identified as the bottleneck in increasing development on non-green-belt land. Labour’s policies unfortunately simply cause damage.

In the spring statement, the Chancellor claimed that the planning reforms would be the main driver of the reduction in borrowing that she has promised. However, there is no obvious reduction yet in the money given to local authorities, with the amount estimated for the day-to-day spending of local government up 22% from the main estimate last year. Although the Treasury might celebrate that as being 3% less than budgeted at the spending review, this dramatic increase, along with the increases of 30% in communities day-to-day spending and 27% to the communities capital fund, is simply unsustainable.

Labour continues to show how it prioritises areas where it has support to the detriment of rural areas, such as in my constituency, and areas in need of support around the United Kingdom. The cuts of £101 million in the levelling-up fund and £183 million in the UK shared prosperity fund are disappointing, and the non-delivery of the services grant and the rural services delivery grant will place pressure on services that are already struggling in rural and semi-rural areas such as my constituency, including bus services.

Instead, Labour is rewarding poor financial management by Labour-run councils and mayoralties across the UK, with £823 million being used for a recovery grant and a funding floor and the Labour-controlled Greater Manchester and West Midlands authorities receiving the first integrated settlements, which could cause an increase of over £400 million in spending.

Labour says that it is cutting local government costs by creating unitary authorities, but that is just placing greater control in their hands at the expense of local democracy. This estimate shows how little control Labour has over local government spending—and I will have to finish on that point. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will deal with these matters.

Affordable Rural Housing

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) on securing this important debate. She has only been in the House a relatively short time, but she has already established a reputation as a doughty champion of her constituency. Those she has the privilege of representing should be reassured by the fact that she has already assiduously conveyed their views and concerns to Ministers on a range of matters, including the one we are considering today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) and others who have made contributions to the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire raised a number of distinct issues on the provision of affordable rural housing and I will seek to respond to as many of them as I can in the time available to me. Before I do, I would like to make some brief remarks about planning reform and the role of the planning system in delivering homes of all kinds and meeting identified need for affordable housing, as a means of providing some important context.

It is not in dispute in this Chamber, I do not think, that the Government have inherited an acute and entrenched housing crisis, or that significantly boosting the supply of homes of all tenures is essential to tackling it. That is why we acted decisively to overhaul the national planning policy framework last year, to revise the anti-supply changes made by the previous Government in December 2023, and to introduce a range of pro-growth measures that will enable us to build the homes and infrastructure our country needs.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) on securing this important debate. I think it is true that all of us would like to see more affordable housing delivered for our constituents, but does the Minister agree that top-down housing targets for all areas of the United Kingdom are not always suitable? I am thinking of my own constituency on the Isle of Wight, where on average we deliver 300 homes a year and are committed, through our local plan, to deliver 450. The Government are asking us to deliver 1,000. Does the Minister agree that there have to be some areas of the United Kingdom where the standard method does not apply?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We think the changes we have introduced and the revised standard method are appropriate. Every part of the country will need to play its part in achieving our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes across the country. That is the scale of ambition we need commensurate with the crisis we face, and that crisis affects every part of England.

The Government believe in a plan-led system. It is through local development plans that communities shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need. Local plans must remain the cornerstone of our planning system and we are determined to progress towards universal coverage. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire will appreciate that I am unable to comment on her local plan or how her local planning authority may interpret national planning policy due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, but there is merit in me making some general comments on plan making in local authority areas that overlap with national landscapes, as is the case in her own area.

As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are committed to maintaining strong protections for our protected landscapes. We are clear that the scale and extent of development within such designated areas should be limited so that we are able to pass on their attractions and important biodiversity to future generations. National planning policy is clear that significant development within a national landscape should be refused, other than in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest, taking into account a range of considerations. That includes fully exploring the role of planning conditions and developer contributions to mitigate the impacts of development or support infrastructure provision as appropriate.

When it comes to plan making, local authorities are expected to use the revised standard method to assess housing needs. However, they are able to justify a lower housing requirement than the figure set by the method on the basis of local constraints on land availability, development and other relevant matters such as national landscapes, but also protected habitats and flood risk areas. Local authorities will need to consider these matters as they prepare their plans, but we expect them to explore all options to deliver the homes their communities need. That means maximising brownfield land, densifying available brownfield sites, working with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary housing growth and, where necessary, reviewing the green belt. They are then expected to evidence and justify that approach to planning for housing in their local planning consultation. An examination of their approach will be scrutinised by a planning inspector to determine whether the constraints are justified and the plan is sound.

I turn to the focus of my hon. Friend’s remarks—namely, the case for supporting rural communities to build new homes for local people, and in particular for boosting the supply of rural affordable housing. The Government are committed to doing so, and it was a pleasure to have the chance to discuss this matter with my hon. Friend last month. It cannot be right that, as a number of hon. Members said, young people in particular are often unable to remain in the villages in which they grew up. That harms not only them and their families but the vibrancy and long-term viability of rural communities.

English Devolution and Local Government

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

Absolutely. We will work with councils to deliver better services: that is what it is about for North East Derbyshire, along with all other areas that are coming forward. I have been in North East Derbyshire and understand the issues around potholes; our Government have been investing in delivery to end the pothole scandal that we saw under the previous Government.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The Isle of Wight council is already a unitary authority. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister is postponing our elections, can she confirm that that will mean the future reorganisation of the council is on the negotiating table? Otherwise, why would she be cancelling our elections?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member will know that the fact that it is an island produces limitations, but nothing has been taken off the table. We want to deliver reorganisation and deliver for the people of the Isle of Wight, and we will continue to work with him, as well as local leaders, to deliver that.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Joe Robertson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson]

The right hon. Lady speaks powerfully for her constituency, which I know has a specific issue.

We mentioned housing developers, and one housing developer has put its head above the parapet to support the Bill. I am grateful for the support of Thakeham, and it is to be applauded for supporting the measure. Developers should support the Bill for sound business reasons. There is a clear market preference for homes with solar panels, and a relatively small proportion of the price will be rewarded with a decent payback, and customers want them.

Politically, there is demonstrable cross-party support. In the last Parliament, 79% of Members were found to be supportive, and I suspect the percentage is higher in this new Parliament. The climate barometer tracks support for mandatory solar panels on new builds and found a clear majority of support among all parties’ voters, so doing this would place us at the centre of political gravity. Some 80% of Conservative voters, 89% of Labour voters, 92% of Liberal Democrat voters and 63% of Reform supporters responded to the survey in favour of mandatory solar panels for new build homes. Those same constituents rightly look to us to make the right and logical decisions on these matters. They back the measure because all the evidence points to clear benefits at every level, including the Government’s positive agenda on energy and climate.

MCS Foundation research has found that mandatory solar panels on 1.5 million homes would be the equivalent of two additional Sizewell C nuclear power stations, which should give us all pause for thought. For a country that struggles to build infrastructure, we must not look past these easier, small-scale wins.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing the Bill. He talks about the nuclear power that may not be needed if we have solar panels on houses. Does he have a view on how much pressure we could take off demand on green land for solar farms, because many people have concerns about that use of green land, if we had solar panels on new builds?

[Max Wilkinson]

My strong suspicion is that the market will help to decide the answer to that question, but it is inevitable that if we produce more energy from some sources, it will lower demand in other areas. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.

I visited Hinkley Point on a school trip as an 11-year-old and was told, very excitedly, that a new Hinkley C was on the way. I regret to tell the House that I am now 40 and, on current projections, Hinkley C is not expected to generate any power until I am at least 44. On the point of time, the new homes built today will outlast us all. If we can make them work better for the planet, they will be a lasting testament to this House’s efforts to tackle climate change, and they will offer protections against the energy shocks we have all endured too. That is what we have the chance to do today, if Ministers are willing to support the principles of the sunshine Bill. We cannot and should not let this opportunity pass us by, and it is our duty to build a political consensus here to match the consensus among members of the public.

So to paraphrase the great Morecambe and Wise in the song that shares the informal name we have given to this Bill, let our arms be as warm as the sun up above, and let us think about how much joy we can give to each brand new bright tomorrow—if only we can lower people’s energy bills and help to tackle climate change too.

Local Government Reorganisation

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

We certainly accept, particularly in the case of Woking, where the debt is significant, standing at over £2 billion, that the question of debt has to be addressed through the process, but it is for the process to address it. We cannot say up front how we will treat debt in different areas, because every area is different. I do not think that any Member would expect us to do that.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Residents of the Isle of Wight are expecting full elections this May. The no-overall-control unitary authority has asked the Government to be part of a priority devolution deal with Hampshire, but not local authority reorganisation, which is not on the table. We are not being asked to do that because we are already a unitary. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that there is no good reason to delay elections when the Isle of Wight council’s future and viability is not under discussion? That is an accepted point. Why should a democracy have to have elections when the council will continue?

Employment Rights Bill

Joe Robertson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and the contribution from small businesses to my election campaign earlier this year.

History is repeating itself. Labour’s antipathy and lack of understanding for business, and small business in particular, is rearing its ugly head again. This legislation will have ruinous results for those who desperately need a job and hope. The Federation of Small Businesses says:

“This legislation is a rushed job, clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned.”

The federation goes on to say that the Bill will increase economic inactivity. That is a rather sanitised way of referring to the ruined lives, dashed hopes and huge waste of human potential that the Bill will bring about. At the end of the debate, we need to hear from a Minister how the Bill will be changed so that it supports rather than undermines the 4 million additional jobs created since 2010 under the Conservatives.

The economic impact assessment, so rudely provided so late in the day, shows that the costs of the Bill will fall disproportionately on small businesses—something that we have heard no acknowledgment of from Government Members. Five out of nine measures will have that effect. Do Ministers have any plans to change that?

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that provisions that are bad for small business are also bad for workers, bad for taxpayers, and bad for those who rely on welfare payments?

[Graham Stuart]

I entirely agree, and places like the Isle of Wight, with so many hospitality businesses, will pay a particularly high price. We should celebrate and support our wealth creators, not burden them with excessive taxes and regulations that kill the drive to work, invest and create wealth. Yet that is the destructive path that Labour is taking, with a jobs tax planned for every worker’s national insurance contributions in the Budget in a couple of weeks, and this Bill to deter SME employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I congratulate those who have given their maiden speeches today and spoken with such passion for and about their communities.

There is much in the Bill that I support, and I support the sentiment behind it. I am sure there is common ground in wanting to improve conditions and rights for workers, but there is a balance to be struck, and I have grave concerns about some provisions in the Bill—those that increase burden and red tape on employers and on employees, and those that are a threat to and a drag on economic productivity.

My first concern is the unnecessary introduction of a new concept of statutory probation. As the law currently stands, workers get protections against things like unfair dismissal. Those long-standing principles have survived different Governments, and indeed survive in this Bill. The debate has been about when those rights are accrued—whether it is after two years of employment or one—and there has been a fluctuation. This Bill attempts to introduce those rights from day one, but then to row back on them by introducing a statutory probation period, during which, in the Deputy Prime Minister’s own words, there is only a “light touch” approach to unfair dismissal. It creates a new concept that is vague and unclear, and it will increase the glut of litigation in the employment tribunal. Indeed, it will need to do so to create case law so that employees and employers can understand what a “light touch” approach to unfair dismissal means.

My second concern is the increased burden on smaller employers. Indeed, that is contained in the Government’s own analysis, and much has been said about that, so I will turn to my third issue: specific burdens in specific sectors, such as social care. The Government’s own analysis says that the Bill will increase costs for employers, but employers in social care cannot bear any more cost. The Government have said they will bring forward reform of social care; that must come first, before this law is brought into force.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the crux of the issue is that the Bill is lacking in detail? The issues he is discussing have been identified and indeed referenced in the Government’s own economic analysis, and we cannot get into the detail of this debate without having that level of information on the face of the Bill.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree that the Bill lacks detail. It also contains a lot of powers that are intended to come about through secondary legislation. For example, we do not know how long that probation period will be, because it is not set out in the legislation.

Turning to the NHS, we understand that the Chancellor will increase the money to the NHS in the Budget but, as an employer, the NHS will have increased costs through this Bill. If national insurance contributions on employers are to be raised in the Budget, it will have that cost as well. That means there will be less money available to cut waiting lists. I urge the Government to delay this Bill, get the detail right and put some detail into it, and ensure that sectors such as health and social care get the support first so that, as employers, they can deal with the increased costs from this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I thank hon. Members for making their maiden speeches. As I have said before, I am a geographer, so it is a real pleasure to hear about our great United Kingdom and the different constituencies that we all represent.

Entrepreneurs in the towns and villages I represent across Broxbourne are working hard to take risks day in, day out to get our local economy growing and to create jobs, but I fear that the Bill could put all that at risk. Security in work should be available to everyone, but above all else it is getting the job in the first place that is the first vital step. Regrettably, the Government’s plan will only make it harder for businesses to hire new employees. Small business owners in my constituency cannot call on large human resources departments to make sense of these new rules. Increasing the number of day one rights will see them hesitant in making hiring decisions. As the Federation of Small Businesses has said, plans to give unfair dismissal rights from day one

“will inevitably deter small employers from taking on new people”

by raising the chance that new recruits will take their employer to a tribunal simply because they turn out to be unsuited to the role.

The principle of qualifying periods for workplace rights is sensible and fair. The Government must recognise that, because they have chosen not to include in the Bill a reform of the qualifying period of two years for statutory redundancy pay. A balance must be struck to avoid the burden falling too heavily on either the employer or the employee—especially for small business employees, who need the security and confidence that the qualifying period provides. It is clear that the Government’s plans do not strike that balance.

One thing I agree with the Government about is that we must get our economy growing faster, but this Bill, on which the Government have not consulted, is not the right way to achieve that. In this place, we should talk more about how to encourage firms to create growth.

[Joe Robertson]

My hon. Friend talks about growth. Does he agree that growth for small businesses is good for workers and that what is good for small business is therefore good for workers? Small business needs better protection in this legislation.

[Lewis Cocking]

I absolutely agree. If we do not create the next generation of entrepreneurs in this country through the education system, which the Government should be focusing on, rather than placing burdens on them—we have yet to hear the Government’s new Budget, which could increase taxes and put more burdens on small businesses—there will be fewer jobs in the market and fewer jobs for the people we are trying to represent and protect in this place.

It is Opposition Members who are standing up for small businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of my local economy in Broxbourne and the country at large. If we do not ensure a fair balance between workers and small businesses, small businesses will close and people will lose their jobs. I do not think the Government want that, so will they please reflect on the Bill, have a proper consultation and come back with something more suitable for small and medium-sized businesses across the country?