Perran Moon

Yes, from anyone looking at the map and seeing that we are surrounded by sea on three sides, to the origin of the name “Cornwall”—“foreigners at the end of the peninsula”—it is very clear where our cultural heritage lies. My objective on devolution is clear: bold, flexible and meaningful powers that strengthen our communities and allow Cornwall to overcome many of the challenges that we face, as well as exploiting the huge opportunities ahead of us. This is not devolution simply to fill a point on a map. It is devolution for housing, transport, economic development and the cultural wellbeing of our people. It must recognise Cornwall’s unique geography—which my hon. Friend has just mentioned—culture and economy, and not force us into a model designed for English metropolitan areas with a completely different set of characteristics. It must be a bespoke devolution arrangement for Cornwall. The reason behind that is that the Cornish are the only people in the UK with national minority status who do not yet have access to the highest levels of devolution. This is our moment to deliver powers and funding to Cornish communities for the Cornish economy to flourish. It is not a case of special treatment; it is a case of fair treatment which respects our national minority status. Of course, these constitutional and cultural issues matter because they shape outcomes. They shape lives. Cornwall is a beautiful place, but anyone who represents Cornwall—or indeed lives there—knows that behind the postcard image lies a humble but brutal truth. The “Pretty Poverty Report” published last year sets this out with clarity and compassion. It describes the inland deprivation that hides in plain sight: low pay, seasonal work, insecure housing, fragile transport links and limited access to essential services. This is why an English metropolitan devolution arrangement will not cut it in Cornwall, I am afraid. The realities of life in Cornwall are found in the stories we hear every week: families priced out of their own communities; people commuting impossible distances, because local wages simply cannot cover the cost of rents; young people leaving the duchy, because opportunities are too few and housing too scarce; and costly public services that are barely fit for purpose. But Cornwall does not wear its hardship on its sleeve. It is not always visible. And that is precisely the problem. Government tools, including the indices of multiple deprivation, still fail to adequately capture coastal deprivation, rural isolation and seasonal economies. They systematically underestimate the challenges faced by remote coastal communities such as ours. And when you underestimate need, you underfund solutions. The Government’s fair funding review, and specifically the remoteness adjustment included last summer, is a step in the right direction. The Treasury’s Green Book review was also welcome, recognising that national investment decisions have historically undervalued place-based need. But those steps can only be the beginning. The message from the “Pretty Poverty Report” is clear: we need more accurate measures, more responsive funding mechanisms and more sustained investment.