English Devolution and Local Government

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I recognise that senior officers and local areas will be working on this issue—they have been working on it to develop their proposals in the first place, so this has come from those areas. We have committed to financial and logistical support for those areas; obviously, they will come forward with what they need as part of that process, and we are determined to deliver that on a case-by-case basis. There will be local consultation in that process, and as I have said, to get to the point we are at today of approving areas for the priority programme, lots of work has already been undertaken, and there will continue to be consultation as part of that process. The details will be outlined in letters that are sent out. I do not envisage delays in the process. I have been clear about why I have refused delays to other elections, but these delays have been put in place specifically because we believe they can help the delivery of reorganisation for areas, and of better services within a tight timescale.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Dictators, not democracies, cancel elections, and 5.5 million voters in southern England are being denied the right to pass judgment on the performance of their councillors over the past four years—interestingly, in areas where Reform UK is expected to do rather well. In cancelling these elections, the Secretary of State has admitted that she does not know what will replace them, and it seems there is a serious risk, as previously mentioned, of areas not being ready in 12 months’ time. Can the Secretary of State be crystal clear about what will happen in that case: will those elections be delayed by a further year, or will they go ahead in May 2026?

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Member talks about dictators, but the leader of Reform has not faced an election to get to his leadership position—the only leader who has not.

We are not cancelling elections. I have been clear about the rationale, which is not unique or something that has not been done before. This delay is for reorganisation, and for further devolution so that people in local areas will get more powers from this Government. That is what we promised in our manifesto, and we will continue to deliver for people. I have strict and narrow guidance on which I allowed those areas to delay their elections, and I am confident they will be able to deliver. That is why I refused others. I am acutely aware that we want to ensure that people have a say in their local areas. That is what the devolution agenda is all about: giving local people more say and more powers.

Proportional Representation: General Elections

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

As we have heard in this Chamber, trust in politics is very important for a functioning democracy, but sadly the data shows that trust is collapsing. At the last general election, we faced the second lowest turnout in the last 100 years, with just six in 10 people voting. That tells us that far too many people do not think voting matters, whereas I hope we can all agree that every vote matters. That is why I pay tribute to the excellent lobbying group Make Votes Matter for proposing and promoting this issue. It is so important. How can we have a situation where only six in 10 people vote?

We have the most unrepresentative Parliament in living memory. The governing party has about 34% of the votes cast, but 63% of the seats in this great House. What sort of system is that? It is completely unrepresentative. My good party had 14% of votes cast, yet we do not have even a mere 1% of seats in the Chamber. As for the other smaller parties, the Green party had just under 7% of votes cast, but has about 0.5% of the seats in the Chamber. That is so damaging to trust in democracy.

We have 823,000 votes cast for every Reform seat; for the Labour party, it is a mere 23,000 votes for each seat. Voters still come up to me and say, “How does this work?”. People get confused, because as hon. Members have said, we have one system for the general election and another in the devolved nations. Why can we not have a single simple system that we know works, and that is used in so many democracies around the world—a variant of proportional representation? Not only does our system lead to misrepresentation when it comes to seats in the House, but its quirks mean that we have no representation on any Select Committee, despite having 4 million votes—14% of the votes cast. Trust in democracy collapses when something is as patently unfair as that.

This issue is so important, and we know we can do better. It is marvellous that Members from the Labour party recognise that. Indeed, at the Labour conference a couple of years back, its members passed a motion to that effect. Fairness is vital. If we do not have it, we have complete misrepresentation of the views of the people on critical issues, such as immigration and net zero, because we end up with a uni-party approach. It cannot be good for democracy if people feel that all their views cannot be represented. They think, “What is the point of bothering? I will carry on with my life.” We all know that more engagement from many people of all ages—young, medium and old—is vital for a functioning and true democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend is correct that there is a vast and quite radical system that elects the Israeli Government, where a number of extreme politicians on both sides of the aisle—

[Richard Tice]

On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?

[Paul Holmes]

No, I will not. I will finish responding to my right hon. Friend.

[Richard Tice]

I will make another intervention.

[Paul Holmes]

Well, I have not finished making my point yet and I intend to do so. The electoral system in Israel elects people from extreme wings, from both sides of the aisle, who have a disproportionate impact on the policies and outcomes of the Israeli Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Let me just finish this point. Some 68% of people voted no in that referendum, so the result should be respected for at least a generation, as the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) said in his thoughtful contribution. In 2011, the alternative vote was supported by a majority of voters in a mere 10 of the 440 local counting areas.

The debate raises some pertinent questions for other Members. Only seven months after they won a resounding and historical vote in a landslide victory under the first-past-the-post system, Labour MPs suddenly want to do away with the system that has provided them with their victory, and smaller parties want to gerrymander the system because they did not get as many seats as they wanted. Perhaps that is because Labour Members are already struggling at having to work directly for the constituents that put them in their places, because they are suffering from the biggest and most profound instance of buyer’s remorse since this Government took office.

I say gently to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), who outlined the possibility of a two-tier system where members can pick and choose what they focus on for their constituents, Members of this House elected under this system take on every issue for their constituents. My constituents in Hamble Valley have a direct link to me, and I will not pick and choose what issues I take up. Members in this House generally do not do that; we stand up for our constituents on all the issues that they think are important in this country and in their constituencies.

In a debate about our electoral system, the Liberal Democrats have once again shown that they are not worthy of having the word “democrat” in their name. They once again outlined that they have an opposition to voter ID, which guarantees safe and fair voting systems in this country and stops people from being able to take votes from people who are genuinely entitled to vote in this country, and they outlined that they now want to gerrymander the system to get more votes themselves.

I gently say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that she said that a lack of turnout meant the results of the election were not as valid as they should be. She is entitled to that opinion, which is perfectly reasonable, but her Bill on proportional representation passed with the votes of 62 MPs in this House, out of a total electorate of 650 MPs, by a majority of two. Taking her proposition, does that mean her Bill is less entitled to pass than other Bills because of the turnout of MPs voting on that outdated proposition?

Under proportional representation, direct accountability is often lost in the complexities of coalitions and backroom deals. Advocates of PR stress the need for the party share of the legislature to mirror the share of the popular vote, but that is the wrong test. It is more important to look at the share of the vote and the share of executive power. Over time, PR leads to a highly disproportionate relationship between votes cast and the share of executive power, which is unhealthy for democracy. First past the post ensures the brutal and efficient removal of governments when a ruling administration loses popular support, and they are rightly booted out and replaced with a new government facilitated often by a clear mandate from voters.

[Richard Tice]

On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will now.

[Richard Tice]

That is most generous of him. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that almost all other major democratic nations across the world use PR? Does that not prove that far from being outdated, it is contemporary?

[Paul Holmes]

If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting to the House that just because other people do it, we should follow suit, then he needs to go away and think about his policy proposition again. This country —[Interruption.] Let me finish the point. This country has elected more stable Governments than most European nations have under proportional representation. That is a proud and long-standing convention of this country and of this House of Commons. I suggest to Members from across the House that that is why the Conservative party believes and this House should believe in keeping first past the post as we go forward in other general elections.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Richard Tice Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I can certainly give the certainty that we are providing in law for a permanent relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, and we will fund that through a very targeted additional payment for properties of more than £500,000, which will primarily be the online retailers occupying big warehouses and distribution centres. It is a promise to shift from the online to the on-street, as I talked about.

Before we move on to vote on the amendment, I will make some progress. The House will know that tax policy and legislation are not subject to the same requirement for the impact assessments that accompany non-fiscal policy decisions. Nevertheless, the Treasury is committed to publishing an analysis of the effects of any multipliers at Budget 2025, which we hope will go some way to reassuring hon. Members that we will be considering the impacts of this policy carefully before the new rates are set.

The Government will continue to keep the policy and its effects under review as a matter of course, because we believe it is good practice to do that for all taxes. However, we want to make it clear to hon. Members that the Government have heard them, and we understand the importance of robustly understanding tax changes, which is something to which we have already committed. I hope this commitment to understanding the effects of the new tax rate when it is introduced will enable hon. Members not to press their proposed new clauses.

Amendment 9 would give local authorities discretion over whether the higher multipliers enabled by the Bill should be applied. The Bill would enable the Treasury, through regulations, to introduce permanently lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and to fund this by introducing higher multipliers for properties with a rateable value of £500,000 or more. As we explained in Committee, we do not have any plans to narrow the scope of the higher multipliers as doing so would reduce the funding available for the very targeted support for lower multipliers for uses that everyone in the Chamber supports.

That does not mean that local authorities will be unable to apply local discretion to rate bills. As was set out in contributions, local authorities already have wide-ranging powers for discretionary rate relief as set out in section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 where the authority is satisfied that that would be reasonable, having regard to the interests of council tax payers. We assure the House that those discretionary powers are unaffected by the Bill and remain in place. Given that local authorities will be able to use those discretionary powers to provide relief, including for ratepayers subject to the higher multiplier, the amendment is not required. I hope that assures hon. Members.

I turn to amendments 1 to 6, which would widen the scope of the lower multipliers so that qualifying manufacturing properties would become eligible alongside retail, hospitality and leisure properties. In the Bill Committee, the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) spoke of the vital importance of manufacturing to the British economy and of how providing them with a permanent cut to their business rates could help them to recover.

Let me reiterate the Government’s support for the manufacturing sector as a whole. It is said that Britain is a nation of shopkeepers, but it is also a nation of innovators, creators and entrepreneurs. Our manufacturing sector helps bring many of those ideas to life, and we understand its importance. But the Government must also support our high streets—the hoteliers, restaurateurs and publicans—and that is especially important with a property tax such as business rates as those sectors rely on good locations, which in the business rates system are often valuable locations. If they did not have that targeted support, they would feel the hit very strongly.

Through the Bill, we are delivering our manifesto pledge to protect valuable town centres and high streets by enabling the introduction of permanently lower taxes for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27, ending the uncertainty of the annual retail, hospitality and leisure relief that has been rolled over year on year since the covid-19 pandemic. We have been clear throughout the process that this tax cut must be fully funded. Therefore, against the current fiscal backdrop, a widening of the scope of properties eligible for the lower multipliers might dilute the support that the Government were able to provide, or its impact might even require a higher tax rate for properties with values of more than £500,000 to fund such new multipliers. However, we respect hon. Members’ points of view and agree that our manufacturing sector should be recognised and supported.

Advanced manufacturing is one of the eight growth-driving sectors identified as part of the Government’s industrial strategy. At the autumn Budget, the Government announced £975 million for the aerospace sector over five years, over £2 billion for the automotive sector over the same period, and £520 million for the new life sciences innovative manufacturing fund. That is how the Government intend to support the innovators, creators and entrepreneurs mentioned earlier. Because we have this package in place to support manufacturing, we cannot accept the amendments, but I hope that I have been able to provide hon. Members with reassurance as to our commitment to support the sector, which I am sure the whole House recognises is vital.

I turn to amendments 7 and 8. While clause 5 will remove business rates charitable relief from private schools, the amendments would introduce new provisions or expand existing provisions in the Bill to ensure that certain private schools remain eligible for business rates charitable relief. Amendment 7 would result in a fee-paying school retaining its relief if it wholly or mainly catered for pupils with special educational needs as defined under section 20 of the Children and Families Act 2014, whether or not those pupils have an education, health and care plan. Amendment 8 would result in a private faith school or a private school with a special character maintaining its eligibility for charitable relief if there were no maintained or academy school of the same faith or special character within the statutory walking distance set out in the Education Act 1996. Although amendment 8 does not indicate what may constitute a special character, we understand from previous contributions in the House that that would include schools that follow a particular method of education. Amending the basis on which fee-paying schools are eligible to retain their charitable rates relief in the manner in which the amendment proposes would undermine the Government’s intention to remove tax breaks for private schools. As we have said, the removal of the tax break is necessary to fund school support for the over 90% of pupils who are educated in the state sector.

The Government have carefully considered their approach to minimising the impact on pupils with the most acute needs. The Bill provides that private schools that are charities and that wholly or mainly—by over 50%—provide education for pupils with an education, health and care plan will remain eligible for charitable relief. As hon. Members will be aware, most children with special educational needs, with or without an EHCP, have their needs met in mainstream state-funded schools. If an EHCP assessment concludes that a child can only be supported in a private school, the local authority directly funds that place.

Where an EHCP has not named a private school, the parents or carers of the child may choose to place that child in a private school, but that is a choice made by the parents and does not detract from the assessment that the pupil’s needs can be catered for in the mainstream state-funded sector. In instances where a child’s parents disagree with the local authority’s assessment that their needs can be met in the state sector, the EHCP system is the most appropriate channel to resolve such disagreements.

The Government are aware of the concerns raised by hon. Members and others that pupils with special educational needs in private schools may lose their charitable relief. The Government believe that most private special schools will not be affected at all by the Bill. In fact, we expect any private special schools losing eligibility for private relief to be the exception; according to our assessment, they could be in the single figures. It is important that we keep it in that context.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jim McMahon]

I do not have time for any more interventions.

Private schools that benefit from the existing rates exemption for properties that are wholly used for the training or welfare of disabled people will continue to do so. The majority of children in England with special educational needs, with or without an EHCP, have their needs met in the state sector already. The Government’s ambition is for all children and young people with special educational needs or a disability to receive the right support to succeed in their education as they move into adult life.

As Members know, all schools are required to follow the Equality Act 2010, which includes fostering and promoting an environment that encourages respect and tolerance of children and families of all faiths and of none. We have listened carefully to arguments relating to exempting faith schools from the Bill, and we have decided that a carve-out for faith schools or schools with other special characteristics cannot be justified. For those reasons, we are unable to accept amendment 8.

Finally, amendment 10 would delay the removal of charitable rates relief from private schools by one year to April 2026. To eliminate barriers to opportunity, we need to concentrate on the broader picture of the state sector, where most children are educated. Ending the tax breaks on VAT and business rates for private schools is a tough but, in the end, necessary decision that will secure additional funding to help deliver on the Government’s commitments to education and young people. Together, these policies are expected to raise over £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30—essential funding to improve the education of the vast majority of school-age children. Delaying their implementation would forgo about £140 million, which, frankly, cannot be justified.

The House has heard a good range of amendments to the Bill, and I hope that I have been able to address them all. Although we are not able to accept the amendments, I hope that the assurances that I have outlined are accepted and Members feel able to withdraw them. If not, the Government cannot support them.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Social Housing Tenants: Antisocial Behaviour

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my excellent hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this debate. He has been most generous with some of his suggestions—almost unusually so, which I shall come to shortly.

It seems to me that we must have the courage to look internationally at what works elsewhere. We look to New York city in the early 1990s, which had a simple slogan: broken windows. It starts right at the ground level. What was a lawless city was transformed by saying, “We want no broken windows, no graffiti and no antisocial behaviour”. It worked. They flooded the streets with a visible security presence.

We know that having a proper deterrent also works. My hon. Friend was more than generous—unusually so—with his traffic light system of three strikes and out. I prefer a premier league football-style scenario: they get a yellow card and then they get a red card. The consequence would be that people would know that they, as a family, would lose their home if their youngsters misbehaved by, for example, revving their cars, smoking drugs or playing music from morning to dusk and throughout the night. These are the experiences that I hear about from my constituents in Boston and Skegness and in between. It is so unfair because, regardless of whether a person is a pensioner or they are going out to work to pay their taxes, mortgages or rent, it is unacceptable that those who live next door or nearby, who are not going to work, are causing absolute mayhem.

We have to have the courage to say that with rights come responsibilities. With the right to have a social housing home or a council home comes the responsibility both to look after it on the inside and to be part of the community on the street, in the housing estate and beyond. In the same way, the right for sick people, or people who are looking for work, to receive a benefit comes with the responsibility to contribute to society by looking for work. We must instil that within our culture. A deterrent is really important, so if someone does not behave, it should be two strikes and they are out and they should lose their home, in the same way that if someone does not look for work or misbehaves, they lose their benefits. If people understand that, maybe all of a sudden things will change.

We do not need more legislation—the legislation already exists. For example, public space protection orders can be used much more widely than they currently are, and councils need to be much braver in using them not just in town centres but in residential estates.

Police forces are massively stretched. In my county of Lincolnshire, the police force has the worst funding formula in the whole country. That is the subject of a review, and the situation has to change, but there are other things one can do. For example, housing associations could use PSPOs and private prosecutions. I have seen that recently, and we know it can work. Private prosecutions, rapidly used—they are always used by housing associations on nuisance tenants—would send a message: “Unacceptable behaviour has consequences. You will be fined. You will be prosecuted. You will lose your home.”

What is required is not more resources, but a proper focus on using the existing legislative framework and other aspects that are available. If we do that properly, we can make a significant difference, but it is a cultural thing. We have to make it clear to everybody that this selfish, horrific behaviour is unacceptable to communities, to decent, hard-working families and, frankly, to this country.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

We now move to the Front-Bench contributions, starting with the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this important debate, because all of us have experienced distressing constituency cases, which are a real problem for our communities. I agree with his description of the issue: it can cause mayhem and misery throughout our local communities.

I also agree that social housing should be a privilege, not a right, and that those houses should be kept in good order. When canvassing in our patch, we have all gone to areas with social housing and seen overgrown gardens with litter and furniture in them. That cannot be right for the people in those houses, and particularly the children, but also for the neighbours. It is simply not right.

It is good to see that we seem to be in violent agreement on both sides of the Chamber on the three-strikes policy, which I will talk about in a second. That seems to be a maximum, not a minimum. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) argued for a two-strikes policy, and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) argued for a one-strike policy. I am encouraged by that, because it is fair to say that everyone in the debate so far—I am interested to hear what the Minister will say—has said that we need to do more.

[Richard Tice]

Competition is a good thing. It may be that the Minister wants “no strikes and you’re out”.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That might be a bit tricky—people do deserve to live in a house as long as they demonstrate good behaviour.

My predecessor as shadow Secretary of State—now the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch)—has said:

“Those who break the law, make neighbours’ lives a misery, or treat the UK as a hotel they’re just passing through, should not be given subsidised housing…The public wants to know that only decent and hardworking people who have contributed to this country are given social housing.”

I agree with that point.

The Minister is a very decent chap, and I am really interested to listen to what he will say, but let us contrast those comments with what the current Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister, has said. She has confirmed Labour’s plans to ditch proposals from the Conservative Government to take away social housing from criminals, including those with a history of antisocial behaviour. The Deputy Prime Minister also binned the Conservatives’ commitment to prioritise social housing for those with local and British connections. I am very disappointed by that approach, and we need to revisit it. I very much hope the Minister will do that, based on what has been said in this debate. That is all despite the Prime Minister pledging a new clampdown on criminal and violent disorder.

I would like to pick up on what my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), said in his remarks. I totally agree with many of the points he made, but particularly on right to buy. I grew up back in the‘70s in a little town in North Yorkshire with large council estates. I used to deliver milk there as a young man, and those council estates were not in the best order. Some of the behaviours were not the best, and nor was the condition of some of the houses, because people did not look after them. One of the benefits of right to buy, as well as giving individuals the benefit of right to buy, was that the individuals who bought those homes also improved them significantly. With double glazing, extensions and smart gardens, the quality of those estates increased dramatically. It is therefore a real concern that the Government have decided to cut back and water down that policy and to make it more difficult for people renting social houses to buy them. That cannot be right, particularly when the Deputy Prime Minister herself—this is her policy—has benefited from those very opportunities. It is rank hypocrisy, and it cannot be right.

Building Homes

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

As a former house builder, I know some of the challenges about viability. I welcome the Minister and the Government’s focus on affordable housing targets and viability assessments, but there is a basic mathematical calculation about affordable housing: 20% of something is better and more than 50% of nothing.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman makes a somewhat cryptic statement. Perhaps the point he is driving at is related to golden rules. One of the changes we have made that puts pragmatism above purity is dropping the straight 50% requirement across the country, and looking at how we can get more locally sensitive rates by putting in place a 15 percentage point premium on local affordable housing targets. In the round, we think that will provide more certainty and maximise the delivery of homes coming through that route.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I congratulate hon. Members on their excellent maiden speeches this afternoon and declare an interest as someone who has been involved in the commercial and residential property sector for over 35 years.

The thing is, there are many good and noble intentions in the Bill. The Secretary of State outlined them and I think the whole House endorses them. She spoke about the need to balance rights between tenants and landlords. That is a matter of judgment, and I fully respect that the Government are making a series of judgments and decisions. The reality is, though, that in the last five years, the quantity of private sector properties available to rent in the United Kingdom has reduced by about 50%. As more restrictions and regulations are imposed, the quantity is going down. I think that is particularly so in Scotland, where there have been even tighter restrictions and the availability of properties for rent has reduced.

Of course, what we all want is the opposite—a greater supply of rental properties—but that requires additional capital for additional new homes to be built. That is a key objective of the Government that I think all of us support, but to ensure sufficient reward and attraction for that capital, landlords need to know that the balance of risks and rewards is appropriate and that vacant possession can be secured.

I am old enough, ladies and gentleman, to remember the ’70s and ’80s—[Hon. Members: “Surely not.”] I know. A two-tier market emerged between what were called assured tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies, for which vacant possession could be secured. Properties with assured tenancies were worth approximately only 80% of those with assured shorthold tenancies. I say to the Minister, in the Secretary of State’s absence, that the risk here is that if the Government get this wrong, the capital will disappear, the quantity of properties to rent will reduce and the quantity of supply to be built for the private rented sector will reduce.

I urge the Government to keep these measures under close review as the Bill passes through the House. If they get the balance wrong and it is made too difficult to secure vacant possession—particularly of properties with tenants involved in antisocial behaviour or not paying their rent—the supply will reduce dramatically.

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

I asked this question before and did not get a successful answer. Perhaps the hon. Member can tell us what will happen to those properties when landlords pull out of the market.

[Richard Tice]

It is a really good question, and I am happy to answer it. If the landlord pulls a property available to rent out of the market, it will go into the ownership sector and that property will not be available to rent.

We know that there is significant demand to rent, and I say to the Government that we want to increase the supply of properties available to rent. I therefore repeat the point that it is about risk and reward. The Government must make these judgments. I just say to the Minister that he should keep this closely under review. If the Government get the balance wrong, the market will reduce while demand will continue to rise, so rents will rise as the supply reduces. That is my concern. If the Bill passes—it is likely to—perhaps the Minister should review it in a year by looking at the data and seeing what is happening to rents, what is happening to supply and whether further tweaks and adjustments are needed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Pam Cox to make her maiden speech.