Alberto Costa MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2025 · Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  May I begin by welcoming the Government’s motion to put the assurance board on a proper footing, and to introduce a clear policy framework under which the ICGS will operate? As some colleagues have said, the ICGS is an extremely important parliamentary workplace scheme, covering all members of the parliamentary community—more than 10,000 people. Unusually for a body set up only six years ago—by a former Leader of the House, Andrea Leadsom—it has undergone a number of reviews, which have highlighted concerns about the operation of the scheme and made recommendations to this House. The most recent was the Kernaghan review, from which today’s Government motion has its genesis. The motion will set up in permanent form an assurance board to oversee the workings of the ICGS. I welcome the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on to that new assurance board on a permanent footing. Why are we here today? The ICGS has experienced a number of concerning process issues since it was set up, particularly in respect of the quality of its investigations and the excessive time delays in the processing of those investigations. If complainants and respondents are to trust the ICGS, it is of paramount importance for the assurance board to ensure that the issues encountered with the investigatory process are resolved, and that complainants and respondents are subject to a process with a credible and, importantly, timely outcome. As I am sure all Members agree, it is not acceptable to complainants and respondents that, in what is an internal workplace process, they must sometimes wait for years for an outcome on, for instance, bullying. The Committee on Standards is specifically prohibited from involvement in individual ICGS cases. Preserving the independence of those investigations is vital to the success of the investigations, and to the confidence of those who seek the aid of the ICGS and those who are investigated under the scheme. However, the ICGS is part of a wider standards landscape within the House, and the Committee on Standards has a useful voice in highlighting how the scheme is operating and in commenting on policy. In the standards landscape report produced shortly before the last general election, our predecessors—some of whom remain members of the Committee, particularly the lay members—noted that the Committee had not had time to consider fully the recommendations of the Kernaghan review. In paragraph 175 of that report, the previous Standards Committee recommended to the House that the new Committee, which I now chair, should continue to consider the analysis and recommendations contained in the review. As Chair of the Committee, I can inform the House that the Committee has since had discussions about the work of the ICGS with its outgoing director, Thea Walton—I thank her for the work that she has done—and that it is due to discuss that work further next week. Owing to the pressure of other work—notably the complex inquiry that we have undertaken at the request of the Modernisation Committee and the Leader of the House into outside interests and employment—we have not had time to consider fully all Mr Kernaghan’s recommendations and their implementation, but we will continue to make that a focus of our work during the current Parliament. Members may have noted that the proposed new assurance board would contain a member of the House of Lords Conduct Committee, but not a Member of the Standards Committee in the Commons. Dame Laura Cox, in her 2018 report on the bullying and harassment of Commons staff, recommended that processes to determine such complaints should be entirely independent of Members of Parliament, and that is the course that the House adopted. The House of Lords is responsible for its own processes, and its Committee retains a greater role than this House’s Committee in these matters. Let me emphasise that it is absolutely proper for MPs not to be involved in determining complaints, but there may be scope for involvement in the policy framework surrounding complaints. I have not sought to amend the motion today—as I have said, I welcome it—but given that involvement in policy does not equate to interference in complaints, and nor should it, it may be worth revisiting in future whether, since the Lords Committee will be represented, this House’s Committee on Standards ought to be represented as well. It might also be worth revisiting whether a valuable member voice—and by “member” I mean not just a Member of Parliament but a lay member of the Committee—beyond the House of Commons Commission might also be useful. I do not expect the Leader of the House to respond to that suggestion today, because it is proper for the Committee on Standards to consider this matter fully, as recommended and as approved by the House. Once it has had the opportunity to do so, it may well revert with further recommendations on how today’s motion might be enhanced as we go forward together, on a cross-party basis, seeking to ensure that we have the best parliamentary workplace scheme, with the appropriate parliamentary stakeholders included in this welcome assurance board. Let me end by acknowledging what some other Members have said about trade unions. Only a few hours ago, Unite’s parliamentary staff branch emailed all MPs about this very point. I think that the point that I have made about the Committee on Standards sits well with the parliamentary staff branch’s own views on ensuring that all relevant parliamentary stakeholders are included in this welcome assurance board.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clause 74 in my name. First, I thank all Members from parties across the House who signed up to my new clause. I also thank Mr Speaker and his team for the novel offer he made this morning on how we might have dealt with new clause 74. New clause 74 is very simple. It seeks to ensure that promises made to all of us as MPs by prospective developers when considering applications for large-scale housing developments are honoured. I have lost count of the number of developers who have made promises about so-called flagship housing developments, gained the support of the MP and other local community stakeholders, applied for outline planning permission and then been granted it on the basis of a good mixture of homes. In one case—that of Lutterworth East—a pledge was made by the developer to build a minimum of 40% affordable homes. Those developers give the pledge, obtain the support and gain outline planning permission, but then, a few months or a year or two later, they seek to renege completely on the pledges given.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would welcome that. The Government need to take into account Lutterworth East and to ask themselves why a Labour parliamentarian and a Conservative parliamentarian have had to go begging to the Government to look into the matter. The Government purport to want to see more social housing, more affordable housing and more accessible housing, but with Lutterworth East they have had the opportunity to look into that and have chosen not to rectify the issue. In concluding—I am aware that others wish to speak—I simply ask the Government whether they are willing to have a meeting with me and the Labour parliamentarian in question to discuss what they could do on this matter, given that the developer, incredibly, is none other than a county council.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  South Leicestershire is a mid-sized constituency measuring 15 miles by 10 miles, and it already has some of the largest-scale developments in any part of our country. We have the second of the new Titan prisons, which was recently completed; one of the largest holes in the UK at Croft quarry; Bruntingthorpe aerodrome, which currently houses one of the largest UK car auction sites, with 25,000 cars coming in and out at any point; the 4,000-home development at New Lubbesthorpe; and the prospect of a new garden village at Whetstone Pastures. We are surrounded by logistics parks; in fact, we are home to one of Europe’s largest logistics parks—currently doubling in size—Magna Park. At what point can we say that we are doing a reasonable fair share for our county, region and country? There are no nimbys in South Leicestershire; we generally support appropriate development. I generally support the objectives in the Bill, but there are one or two areas I would like to raise, one being the highly controversial proposed development known as Lutterworth East. I know that the Secretary of State and her team cannot refer to specific cases and that this matter is currently the subject of a call-in, but she and her team rightly say that new housing developments, particularly large ones, must have appropriate numbers of social housing and affordable housing. The local plan approved by Harborough district council and the Planning Inspectorate made clear that 40% of the homes in large-scale housing developments in my constituency must be affordable. In addition, the Lutterworth East proposal promised the people of Lutterworth that there would be no expansion of strategic warehousing as part of Lutterworth East on the basis that Magna Park—one of Europe’s largest logistics parks—is currently doubling in size. The problem that we have is not nimbys or a lack of building. It is that the local plan for South Leicestershire and Harborough is being completely ignored by developers. In this case, the oddity is that the developer is Leicestershire county council. Only last December it disgracefully applied to substantially vary the planning permission it was given in 2020 for Lutterworth East. It was granted a reduction from 40% affordable housing in Lutterworth East to 10%. That cannot be in line with the comments the new Government have stated many times about the need for social housing and affordable housing. It flies in the face of everything that the Secretary of State and her team are saying, including what has been said today at the Dispatch Box. I do not expect a response from the Secretary of State today, but I put on record my request that, if she is serious about wanting more affordable housing in large-scale housing projects, the call-in should be granted. If the call-in is granted, Lutterworth East will be restored to an appropriate housing development of just under 3,000 homes, of which 40% will be affordable. If the Secretary of State does not agree with the call-in, I am afraid she cannot stand at that Dispatch Box and claim that the new Government want to see higher levels of affordable housing, because what the developer is doing in this case is saying no to affordable housing. I conclude by stating my general support for the Secretary of State and her team’s objective of more homes. South Leicestershire is doing its part, but I put on record again that if she is serious about the numbers of social housing and affordable homes that need to be built, that call-in must be granted.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Local Government: Nolan Principles · Hansard source

  More

  That is an interesting point. I must confess that I have not considered it, so I would welcome any further information or a further briefing from the hon. Member on what he means by that, particularly in my role as Chair of the Standards Committee. The Nolan principles must ensure that elected representatives are held to account properly, at every level of local government. In Labour’s plan for local government reorganisation and a new structure, the way that standards are dealt with must not be neglected. I hope that the Minister will say a few words on local government reorganisation, and how he thinks the Nolan principles and any code of conduct might underpin that. I think we can all agree that the current regime is failing. Issues of misconduct, bullying and harassment in local government—parish, town, county and district—have become worse. I know of parish councillors in my constituency whose lives have been made a misery through months and, in many cases, years of verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment from fellow councillors. In Leicestershire, one instance of constant harassment and relentless, vexatious complaints resulted in a parish council officer dramatically resigning during a parish council meeting. I have no doubt that hon. Members have witnessed or heard similar stories in their constituencies. Those bad apples make up only a small minority of councillors but even so, according to a 2017 report by the Society of Local Council Clerks, “15% of parish councils experience serious behaviour issues… 5% are effectively dysfunctional as a result of them.” So where does the current regime fall short? First, there is no clear definition of bullying or harassment in the Localism Act 2011, which leaves it to monitoring officers to interpret vague codes of conduct inconsistently. What is serious in one district area is dismissed in another. Town and parish councils have no internal mechanism to investigate breaches of conduct. At the same time, principal authorities are also powerless to enforce meaningful sanctions, except in cases serious enough for criminal referral. The 2018 Ledbury town council case exposed a major flaw in the system. The council was forced to pay more than £200,000 in legal fees for trying to sanction a councillor through an internal grievance process. That highlighted a fundamental problem: parish councils lack the power to act independently, while principal authorities have no real enforcement mechanisms. Accountability falls into limbo unless there is clear criminal conduct. My speech is not about criminal conduct; it is about the issues that we as Members of this House are familiar with—bullying, sexual misconduct, harassment and the like. If the public were able to hold rogue councillors—the minority—to account properly at the ballot box, I would be less concerned, but the gaps in legislation are made worse by the democratic deficit, certainly at the parish level, where elections often lack enough willing candidates to ensure true accountability. In the May 2015 elections, for example, only 20% of eligible parishes contested their vacancies. The ballot box rarely holds councillors to account, and even if it does, it can often be too late. We know that accountability problems will be more pronounced in areas that have a unitary authority, which is the direction of travel under this Government, as parishes may be given even greater powers due to the abolition of district councils. I hope that the Minister can comment on what consideration the Government are giving to that specific point or, if he is unaware, that he will write to me after the debate. For now, I encourage the Government to consider the following steps to strengthen accountability, and to protect town and parish councillors and those who work for town and parish councils. First, I suggest amending section 27(3) of the Localism Act 2011 to give a clear definition of bullying that explicitly covers persistent verbal abuse, intimidation or behaviour that causes significant distress to other parish or town councillors or those who work for parish or town councils. That would give monitoring officers of principal authorities a firmer basis on which to act, and would set a threshold for escalation, distinguishing heated debate from harassment. The next step would be to mandate standards committees in all principal authorities, which would be tasked with impartial investigations, deciding on allegations and imposing sanctions. Those committees, supported by truly independent persons, would bring consistency, credibility and impartiality into an appropriate disciplinary system. Here in the House of Commons, as part of the Committee that I chair, we have seven lay members alongside seven Members of Parliament, and as the Chair, I do not have a vote other than in the event of a tie. That means that the seven lay members provide the impartiality that the House wants when disciplining its own Members.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Local Government: Nolan Principles · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his welcome intervention, which highlights another issue that I am not entirely familiar with. Although this debate is concerned with elected officials, he rightly asks about what happens if people charged with the oversight of the Nolan principles as independent officers move on to other jurisdictions. There is, of course, the contract of employment that underpins the individual’s duties, but there may well be a lacuna in that area. Again, I would welcome the hon. Member writing to me with a further briefing so that I can ascertain whether there is a link to ensure that that would not damage the mechanism that I am proposing to the Minister, which is for independent officers to have more appropriate oversight. As I have indicated, mandating in all principal authorities standards committees, tasked with impartial investigations and deciding on allegations, would bring consistency. Thirdly, I suggest amending legislation to make parish councils formally accountable to their principal authority, which currently is not the case. That could include annual governance reports, direct intervention powers for serious breaches, and the provision of training to prevent issues from arising. Those are basic, bread-and-butter issues in which we as Members of Parliament are encouraged to take a more active part, particularly when it comes to training. Parishes should retain autonomy, but the principal authority should act as a backstop for serious failures, reinforcing local governance without reverting to a centralised control such as the standards board. Finally, we must address the absence of robust sanctions. There is a total lack of sanctions when councillors at parish, town and local authority level have been found wanting, with the exception of criminal conduct, which is dealt with separately. The power to suspend councillors —say, for up to six months—for proven bullying or harassment is essential. Currently, a counsellor can shrug off the consequences and return to the next meeting unchecked. Instead of facing the consequences, effectively nothing is done. That has an impact not just on the proper functioning of the parish or town council, but on the staff working for that parish or town council, who may themselves be the victims of the bullying or harassment. Worse still, I have heard of cases where entire councils have resigned in despair, powerless against a single disruptive individual. Suspension would offer immediate relief to victims and signal that misconduct has a cost, as it does here in the House of Commons, and as we have proven over the past few years. Much of what I am saying echoes the 2019 review by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which called for councils to suspend councillors without allowances for up to six months. The Government rejected those proposals in 2022, citing risks to free speech, and I sympathise with that, but the new Government’s 2024 consultation on sanctions suggests a welcome shift. Perhaps the Minister can say a few words about that. We must not return to a time of bureaucratic excess and politically motivated complaints threatening freedom of expression. That is not what I am arguing for, and that is not what we see in the House of Commons. But with reports of bullying rife at parish levels and changes to local government structure in the pipeline, it is time to reconsider the recommendations of the 2019 Committee on Standards in Public Life report. I encourage the Government to take the opportunity they now have with local government reorganisation to make a positive impact by ensuring that what we see applied to all of us here in the House of Commons is mirrored in some form to other valued elected public officials.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Local Government: Nolan Principles · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Nolan Principles in local government. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. This year marks the 30-year anniversary of the Nolan principles, which are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Those seven principles embody everything that we, as elected representatives, should strive for on behalf of our constituents. They are the guiding principles for anyone in elected office. MPs and elected representatives at all levels of local government are overwhelmingly public-spirited and dedicated people who always embody the Nolan principles in their work. Having served on the Privileges and Standards Committees for the last five years, which I am honoured to now chair, I have seen at first hand that elected representatives do, at times, sadly fall short of the principles.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Local Government: Nolan Principles · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome intervention, with which I entirely agree. Not only should publicly elected councillors—at parish, town, local authority, district and county level—be obliged to follow those principles but, importantly, a code of conduct developed and underpinned by those principles should have teeth. What he is ultimately saying is that there must be appropriate sanctions, as there are for us as Members of this House. For some of those Members who fall short, sometimes those are cases of minor lapses—moments of frustration or poor judgment—while other times they are severe errors, with devastating consequences for colleagues, staff and the reputation of elected office. Such errors are not unique to elected representatives; to err is human, and no human being is without flaws. That said, it is right that elected representatives, while undertaking their public duties, are held to a higher bar. That is not about their private lives, but about the work that we, and local authority councillors, do in the course of our public duties.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Social Housing · Hansard source

  More

  Building more social housing and affordable housing was a principal promise made by Leicestershire county council in the proposals for the Lutterworth East development. That development is subject to a call-in, so I do not want to go into any details, but I want to ask the Minister this very basic question. If a senior civil servant in the Department gives a commitment to an MP, to encourage that MP to drop an amendment to legislation, can the MP rely on the assurances given by that senior civil servant?

• 12 Sept 2024 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  May I, too, welcome the Solicitor General not just to the House, but to her place? I thank the shadow Attorney General for his warm words and for the good nature of yesterday’s election. Only a few weeks ago, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing issued a joint national policing statement on violence against women and girls, which said: “We are transforming the way police officers investigate rape and serious sexual offences and over the last year we have trained over 4,500 new officers in investigating this complex crime.” The Solicitor General does not have direct responsibility for policing services, but she did say that she would be working with her Home Office and Ministry of Justice colleagues, so can she confirm that those 4,500 newly trained officers, who were trained under the previous Conservative Government, will dedicate the majority of their policing activities to working on cases exclusively involving violence against women and girls?

• 10 Sept 2024 · Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has worked assiduously on this matter over the months—in fact, years—during which this unwelcome proposal has been introduced. In answer to his question, what we can do is say, as I put it to the Minister, Labour are now in charge and I should be very grateful if she would meet both of us, to explain why there has been this decision, which is not the normal decision in these processes. When the Planning Inspectorate makes a recommendation, more often than not the recommendation is approved. And for the Planning Inspectorate to reject a proposal, or consider withholding consent for it, is very rare in such cases; usually the Minister does that. So, a meeting with the Minister might help to answer my hon. Friend’s questions. The proposed 440-acre site for this development sits between the M69 and the Leicester to Birmingham railway line at the heart of a cluster of rural communities, all of which are within two miles of the site and in some cases less than a mile from its boundary. It is important to mention the communities, which include Aston Flamville, Barwell, Elmesthorpe, Earl Shilton, Sapcote, Stoney Stanton, Sharnford, Burbage, part of Hinckley and the long-established Traveller settlement of Aston Firs. Those communities are within both my South Leicestershire constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth. So, too, is Burbage common and woods, which is a site of special scientific interest and a beautiful 200-acre area of woodland and grassland that lies in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Many people have their home in this area and would be affected by this development were it to be given consent—of course, we are hoping that it will not be. According to the Stoney Stanton Action Group, over 92,000 people stand to be directly impacted by this development: an enormous number of people. Under the current system, Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough, Conservative-run Blaby district council and Conservative-run Leicestershire county council are statutory consultees in the process. All the stakeholders voiced serious concerns about the HNRFI, as did Labour-led Rugby council, Warwickshire county council and National Highways, which raised concerns over “missing or deficient transport documents and statements of common ground.”

• 10 Sept 2024 · Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and there is no surprise in that—both of us have worked so assiduously over the years on this matter, particularly behind the scenes when we have highlighted to previous Government Ministers the very issues that my hon. Friend has raised. I pay tribute to the many individuals and stakeholders—there are too many to name—who have closely considered this application, raised legitimate concerns on behalf of their communities and meaningfully contributed to the six-month Planning Inspectorate hearing process. I am glad that the Planning Inspectorate has taken on board their views. I am pleased to name just a couple of local Blaby district councillors who are observing this debate closely —Ben Taylor and Mike Shirley. I put on the record that they have worked tirelessly for their constituents to voice concerns over this proposed development, as has the leadership of Blaby district council. There are many local groups too, such as the Friends of Narborough Station, the Stoney Stanton Action Group, the Save Burbage Common group and Elmesthorpe Stands Together—to name just a few. They have brought their unique expertise and local knowledge to help illustrate why the proposal is wholly inappropriate. This development was unpopular from the outset; I issued a survey to constituents living within the vicinity. Of nearly 6,000 surveys sent, I had a very high response rate of 27%, and an overwhelming 94.5% of respondents opposed the proposals. Many of the villages closest to the proposed site are rural in nature and there are widespread and legitimate concerns that local country roads will become too busy with traffic, leading to gridlock in village centres and causing a safety concern, as has been correctly highlighted by the Planning Inspectorate. The applicant did not give enough consideration to that issue, in part because of poorly conducted traffic assessments, incorrect modelling and inadequate mitigations. While the proposed location of HNRFI is in the so-called golden triangle, constituents in Hinckley and Bosworth and in South Leicestershire frequently write to their respective MPs to raise concerns about what is frankly gross overdevelopment of commercial areas. This is not a question of nimbyism. If she looks at the map of this part of Leicestershire, the Minister will see an enormous amount of housing and commercial development. Indeed Magna Park, a huge logistics park —at one time the largest in Europe—is only a few miles away from this proposed development, and it is shortly to regain the title of one of Europe’s largest logistics parks. It is currently doubling in size, with 13.1 million square feet of floor space across 47 enormous warehouses. Would the Minister agree that over-development, not nimbyism, has gone too far in constituencies such as South Leicestershire and the adjoining area? I politely ask whether the Minister can expand on why the Secretary of State requires an extension when there is overwhelming evidence, as the Planning Inspectorate report seems to suggest, that the development should not go ahead.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely agree, which is why it was important to put on the record at the outset that there is still anxiety among thousands of Leicestershire residents, who are asking why consent has not been withheld when the Planning Inspectorate have said it should be. I would like to assist the Government. The draft national policy statement for national networks states: “Whilst there is likely to be a natural clustering of SRFI proposals in the distribution heartland of the nation…consideration should be given to proposals for SRFIs in areas where there is currently lesser provision.” Developers argue that purportedly tens of thousands of jobs can come with SRFIs. Why not put these in areas where there is less provision? Will the Minister outline what consideration the Secretary of State might give to putting SRFIs in areas with less provision? My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and I generally support appropriate commercial developments in our constituencies. However, as we have said, South Leicestershire and that part of Leicestershire as a whole already take a fair share of large scale commercial developments. Indeed there is another unwelcome proposal, put on the table just a few weeks ago, for enormous warehousing to the east of Lutterworth, under what is called Lutterworth East Commercial Area. It is not just the rail freight interchange; I appreciate the Minister does not have responsibility for that which I have just mentioned, but the point I wish to highlight is that there is ongoing gross overdevelopment in that area. We already have Daventry international rail freight terminal just 18 miles away from the HNRFI site, four national rail hubs within 45 miles and Northampton gateway rail freight interchange just 31 miles away. Having looked at the record, I think it is important to analyse the damage that having a cluster can actually do. Local planning is one of the most contentious issues that any MP deals with in their casework, as the Minister will understand. It is also the one in which we as MPs have the least power or authority. We have no formal role in the planning decision making—rightly so, because most planning decisions are made by locally elected and locally accountable councillors. However because the Hinckley national rail freight interchange is categorised as a nationally significant infrastructure project, these matters are ultimately decided by the Minister and her team. In other words, unlike most planning decisions, which are approved or rejected at local authority level, these matters ultimately go to senior Ministers to decide. One of the key national objectives of rail freight interchanges is to get freight off the roads and on to rail tracks, and reap the environmental and cost-saving benefits of doing so. I am sure the Minister and I would agree that that is something to welcome, but it is very important that we do not have the wool pulled over our eyes, and see rail freight interchange proposals as a fig leaf for just another excuse for enormous warehousing. I want to quote Dame Andrea Leadsom, the former MP for South Northamptonshire. She stood in this Chamber less than a year ago and said: “SEGRO took over the development of the site and—lo and behold—as the site neared completion last year, it applied for a development consent order waiver, asking the Department for Transport to overturn the condition requiring the rail link to be completed so it could start to fill up its warehouses and flood local roads with HGVs even before the rail link was established.” She added: “It seems clear to me that this project was always about forcing more warehousing into the heart of England to take advantage of motorway access from south Northamptonshire and never about making it easier to move freight off the road and on to the rail network.” —[ Official Report , 17 October 2023; Vol. 738, c. 22WH.] I say to the Minister that the case of the HNRFI is the same. What would I suggest that the new Labour Government could proactively look at? The issue is the lack of a proper framework policy, which colleagues and I have raised many times before. Such a policy would help the Labour Government to identify appropriate sites where these forms of logistics parks should be located. The first area that a national framework should address is site selection. The current nationally significant infrastructure project regime is developer-led, with developers responsible for justifying their site choices. At present, there is only general guidance in the national networks national policy statement, with no formal national level framework guiding the Government or local authorities on where SRFIs should be located. A national framework could assist the Government by helping them to prescribe specific location criteria for SRFIs, such as proximity to major freight corridors and alignment with regional logistics hubs. Such proactive planning could avoid unsuitable locations and, importantly, minimise planning disputes from the outset. That could help ensure that SRFI proposals are not only appropriately located but are also in line with whatever the Labour Government’s policy would be. I would also welcome measures that ensure that SRFIs actually serve their purpose and handle sufficient rail traffic, rather than just becoming another excuse for gargantuan logistics parks. That would ensure that freight really does end up off the road and on rail, while providing clear expectations for developers, which would, in turn, promote confidence from stakeholders. The most critical point I want to address is strategic co-ordination. As it stands, the nationally significant infrastructure projects process is largely reactive, led by individual developer proposals, and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. While there are broad goals to shift freight from road to rail, which I support, there is no comprehensive national strategy that specifically addresses the planning of SRFIs. That results in inefficiencies, regional imbalances and in our particular case, not nimbyism, but the grotesque—I choose the word carefully —overconcentration of SRFIs and enormous logistics housing in our region. With a national framework drafted by the Labour Government, we could ensure that logistics facilities are distributed more evenly across the country, balancing the benefits and impacts across the nation. In summary, while the UK’s current NSIP regime provides a structured process for approving SRFIs, it remains reactive, fragmented and developer-driven. A national framework would change that by introducing greater consistency, strategic oversight and national level co-ordination. I think that is exactly what the Labour party said during the recent general election campaign that it wants to do when it comes to planning. That is the future I propose that this Government pursue. I hope that the Minister, along with her ministerial colleagues, takes the opportunity in her new role to come up with a national freight strategy, so that the whole country can share the burden and benefit of these developments and so that local communities can buy into these developments and not have them forced upon them. I urge the Minister and her team to speak carefully with the Secretary of State to follow the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation to withhold consent to the Hinckley national rail freight interchange, and to make the decision in a timely manner. Only by doing so will the Labour Government show the people of Leicestershire and the surrounding area that they really do listen on planning and that they do have a plan to share these nationally significant projects across the country. At a local level, that would help alleviate any anxiety that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth have over this proposal.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Transport Secretary for giving way so early in her comments. There is a very controversial planning proposal for South Leicestershire, which is sitting on her desk as we speak—it is for the Hinckley national rail freight interchange. I am for rail freight interchanges, but the issue that has united Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative politicians in and around the area is that there are about five other rail freight interchanges within a 30-mile radius. Can she give a commitment from the Dispatch Box that whatever she says today will not ride roughshod over the views of Labour-led Rugby council and Conservative-led Blaby district council? Both have very serious concerns about this matter.

• 19 Jul 2024 · Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is quite right: the decision now rests with the new Labour Government to make. I am afraid that Labour councillors and other Labour activists who might have opposed the Hinckley national rail freight interchange should look now to their party colleagues in government, who will be making this decision within a matter of a few weeks. I urge the Government to listen to the people of South Leicestershire and the stakeholders I have mentioned. I urge them to listen to the people of Elmesthorpe, Sapcote, Sharnford, Aston Flamville and Stoney Stanton, and to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), who himself has made some valuable comments against the proposed rail freight interchange. It is a deeply unwelcome proposal. I want to offer a solution to the new Labour Government. Before they recommend this unwelcome development for approval, I suggest the relevant Minister meets me and the stakeholders, including Labour-run Rugby council, to discuss the proposal. They could perhaps look at drafting a national planning framework for the proper location of rail freight interchanges, rather than just riding roughshod over the views of the people of South Leicestershire, as a constituent of mine emailed me two hours ago to say he fears, and as I fear, the Labour Government will do.