Chris Hinchliff MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. This is a hugely consequential instrument. Little democracy remains in our planning system, and this legislation will cut the amount down further. We are elected to this place to serve the public, not treat them as a problem to be silenced. The measures will mean that individual councillors lose the ability to directly call in planning decisions completely, and that democratically elected councillors get to publicly scrutinise and vote on planning decisions only in exceptional circumstances, even for schedule 2 applications. With no committees for the vast majority of decisions, they will also mean that the public lose their chance to speak for a few minutes in front of those deciding on what gets built and where in their local area. In effect, in many circumstances, they will render our constituents and their locally elected representatives bystanders in the future of their own community. The measures seem to directly contradict Labour’s historic mission to redistribute power, not to mention the current drive for devolution and putting decision-making power back in local hands. Streamlining our processes, in my view, cannot justify to my constituents the loss of their voice through these measures. I fear that the case for these changes relies overwhelmingly on anecdote and the belief that locally elected councillors are too responsive to the hopes and concerns of those they represent, and that by taking councillors out of the equation, more planning applications will be approved in spite of the public’s hopes and concerns. It is not a lack of planning permissions that underpins our decades-long failure to address our nation’s housing needs, however, and these measures will do nothing to build the hundreds of thousands of council houses we need. Whitehall is also not the best place to define which planning decisions are important enough for local democratic scrutiny; it is our local councils that have the knowledge and understanding of their communities needed to inform that choice. I absolutely accept that years of incoherent tinkering have created a planning system that is no longer fit for purpose. It is procedurally complex, it does not secure public support for future development, it does not build the affordable homes we need, and it is producing poor-quality, unsustainable outcomes—but making more decisions behind closed doors will not remedy any of that. Some may argue that this measure represents a shift towards a rules-based planning system by taking democratic discretion out of the equation, but the irony is that it is the decades-long deregulation of our planning system and the ever-growing focus on developer-led, speculative applications for building new housing that make the application of discretionary scrutiny essential. If we wanted a truly rules-based system, we would focus on reform that puts powers in the hands of local communities to decide for themselves through a genuinely co-designed local plan where, how and in what way their housing needs could be met. To conclude, this is a bad piece of legislation that will do nothing to help our constituents off housing waiting lists or to secure public consent for development in this country. It will hang like an albatross around the Government’s neck. The public anger about and resistance to damaging and speculative plans put forward by profiteering land promoters and developers will not disappear if this legislation comes into force; it will simply be redirected to target the planning officers who will have to enact it, the Members of Parliament who allowed democracy to be quietly killed off in a Committee Room, and Labour Ministers every time a councillor has to explain to their residents that they can no longer publicly scrutinise and challenge inappropriate development because this Government abandoned their own best traditions and stripped them of their rights. All that the statutory instrument will achieve is more polarisation and yet further erosion of trust in our political system, so I urge the Committee to reject these proposals. I urge the Government to choose a different course that recognises communities as a positive force to be empowered and that focuses on securing the highest-quality development plans to win genuine social licence to build, rather than trying to silence opposition to the development of unhappiness given physical form, which has already done so much damage to our country.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Home Ownership Affordability · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on council and social housing. The affordability of home ownership is one of the biggest issues in our country. I welcome many of the recommendations in this report around tackling empty homes, reforming stamp duty and ensuring that we are tying the definition of affordability to local incomes. I also want to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Housing and Planning on his role in securing the highest number of social rent homes since 2010, as announced today. That is a major achievement. However, part of the affordability question, which perhaps could not come into the scope of the Committee’s report, still lies unanswered and unaddressed. Since the 1970s, the number of homes per capita in this country has risen, despite house prices massively outstripping ordinary people’s incomes in that very period. That seems in a large part down to private banks effectively being able to print money, which then flows into house prices. I wonder whether, in its future work, the Committee will consider the interaction between monetary policy and house prices in this country.

• 4 Jun 2026 · High Street Businesses: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this important debate. The question of support for our high street businesses cuts to the very core of what economic policy in this country sets out to achieve. For decades, a flawed orthodoxy has promoted the concentration of economic activity in a few urban centres, with the expectation that the rest of us will commute from the towns and villages we live in to the city centres for work. It is a vision for the economy that reduces the hopes and talents of citizens in every part of the country to units of social capital that should be deployed in the most “efficient” manner, and one that measures success in GDP figures rather than in thriving communities. The reality is that an economic theory based on principles of agglomeration and spill-over effects has next to no relevance for improving the daily lives of our constituents. Whether measures of productivity would be zero-point-something per cent higher over the next 10 years if we focused on high-growth centres is totally beside the point when it comes to what makes for true prosperity. That can come only from ensuring that every high street is a success. High street businesses give life to the heart of a community. Independent traders, entrepreneurs and innovators give a place its identity. Pubs, bars, coffee shops, community hubs, restaurants and the rest provide the social space for a town to come together and connect, rather than us remaining atomised in our private lives. These are the businesses that so often offer those first, defining jobs for young adults, and where staff build genuine connections with local customers, keeping an eye out for the elderly and vulnerable if they need a bit of assistance. In short, the success of our high street businesses is essential for a healthy, happy society. We are very fortunate in North East Hertfordshire to have many fantastic high street businesses, including G’s Deli, Vutie Beets and the Uniform Monkeys in Letchworth, the Cheese Plate in Buntingford, Bow Books in Royston and Café Luna in Baldock, to name just a few. There is no denying that our high street businesses are under enormous pressure, and we must take immediate, decisive action to help them. I ask the Minister to look at the following priorities as a matter of urgency. First, energy bills are crippling our high street businesses. They need support just as much as domestic users but have none of the protections, and that must change. Secondly, the business rates system is manifestly unfair and a huge burden. Frankly, the Byzantine complexity of the whole edifice is mind-boggling. We cannot keep debating discounts, transitional support and multipliers. In the manifesto that this Government was elected on, Labour—my party—promised to abolish business rates and replace them with a fairer, more transparent system. We must deliver on that promise now. I urge the Minister to ensure that, as we deliver reform, we not only remove the loopholes that allow huge corporations to practically choose how much tax they pay while independent businesses play by the rules, but shift the burden of taxation away from high streets, which give so much to our communities, and balance that with a fairer share being paid by online sales giants. Finally, we have to recognise that, to create the environment for thriving high street businesses, we need to reverse the huge damage done to our local councils by the years of austerity under previous Administrations. Only with properly funded councils will local democracy have the power to take back control of empty shops and give commercial opportunities to a wider range of retailers and local entrepreneurs, rather than the endless parade of vape and betting shops that too often seem to be the preference of absentee private landlords. What is more, properly funded councils are essential for tackling the scourge of overflowing bins, littered streets and crumbling roads, which do such a disservice to our high streets when it comes to attracting people. We need councils that are able to make more than a merely financial decision about the cost of parking around our high streets, and that can take a more creative approach to the differing needs of small market towns such as Buntingford and large towns such as Bishop’s Stortford down the road. To conclude, supporting our high streets is essential for spreading genuine prosperity across every part of our country. I hope to hear from the Minister today about more decisive action to achieve just that.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There are many important proposals before us today, and I congratulate the Minister on bringing them forward. I wholeheartedly support the Government’s efforts to tackle antisocial behaviour, offensive weapons, fly-tipping, the exploitation of children, and appalling sexual offences. However, Lords amendment 312, which was introduced in the other place, dangerously infringes on civil liberties. It is incumbent on all Members to jealously guard the rights of our constituents, and any restriction of their civil liberties should only be accepted by this House on the basis of overwhelming evidence that such proposals would strengthen, rather than undermine, the health of our democracy. On this occasion, however, we have had next to no evidence whatsoever, because these significant changes were only introduced after the original passage of the Bill through this House, which is ultimately a pretty sorry way to treat representative parliamentary democracy. Lords amendment 312 is out of step with the best traditions of this country and of the Labour party, which has always existed to redress the balance of power in favour of ordinary people. The Chartists, the suffragettes, the organisers of the Kinder Scout trespass, those who stood against fascism at Cable Street, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Jarrow crusade—these were protest movements and campaigns of direct action that were supported and led by giants of our party, and which we should celebrate, not disown. They were advancing Labour’s historic mission to wrest power from the established status quo, so that ordinary people have a real say over their lives. Lords amendment 312 contradicts that impulse, and risks shifting the balance of power in our society towards the vested interests that we ought to take on. The corrosive influence of the rich and powerful runs through every corner of our politics. It muddies policymaking and leaves our constituents asking whether decisions are made in their interests, or in those of the last donor who paid £2,000 a head at a lobbyist curry night. If tweaks are to be made to defend our democracy and prevent disruption to the life of our communities, that would be a far more apt target than the civil liberties of our constituents. Today, Lords amendment 312 is opposed across the Labour movement and civil society by many organisations that share the progressive instincts that should be guiding this Labour Government. That is hardly surprising, given the way this legislation is drafted. It is vague, with no definition of what is meant by “serious disruption to the life of the community”. It is widely drawn, with no necessary link between the events considered to be cumulatively disruptive. It does not define the area in question or the timeframe, and it has the blindingly obvious potential to be abused. The proposals could easily be used to restrict protests simply because they are considered inconvenient due to their persistence, and not because of their content or messages. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, this may place substantial political pressure on the decision making of senior police officers. I want to address the concerns raised by several hon. Members in this debate about the intimidation of specific minority groups. I do understand those concerns and they are legitimate, but the legislation is not drafted tightly enough to address that problem. It is far too vague and far too broad to coherently address that point, and it is not what we will achieve by passing this amendment. Finally, since we are discussing notions of cumulative impact, whatever the stated intentions today, when these plans are considered alongside the recent restrictions on the right to protest against animal testing, a legally contested proscription and other legislation that I assume means that any of my constituents disobeying these plans would not have the right to a trial by their peers, assertions by the Government that they hold the right to protest sacrosanct are wearing so thin as to be clearly transparent. The case for Lords amendment 312 has not been made, we should not be asked to vote for it en bloc alongside other important but entirely separate changes, and I urge Ministers to drop these plans for good.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am afraid I have been lured into making some side comments before getting into the meat of my speech. This is in relation to the point about aggregate supply and meeting the housing needs of young people. It is really important that we bring some facts to that debate, and the reality is that from 2013 to 2023 the housing stock in this country expanded more rapidly than our population did. It is not an issue of aggregate supply, and focusing on that will never meet the needs of younger people in this country. The relationship between new housing and local transport, cuts to the core of why we need to end the developer-led, profit-motivated approach to planning in this nation. Despite warm words in national guidelines, right across the country the relentless reality of most new estates is more traffic, more toxic air pollution and more space given to car parking than to children for play. The reality is inadequate public transport, distant services, non-existent local employment opportunities and more noise, congestion and pollution blighting our lives. Few things shape the basic, day-to-day experience of life in the UK in 2026 more than the disconnect between transport policy on paper and actual development around our towns and villages. When we came to power, Labour promised change, but this experience will not begin to improve until we address one of the most harmful phrases in national planning policy: the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Few policies are more baleful or more egregiously misnamed. It may be called sustainable development, but in fact it does exactly the reverse of what it says on the tin. This legacy policy puts power overwhelmingly in the hands of developers, overruling the aspirations of local councils and trampling on the concerns of communities. It is responsible for the proliferation of bolt-on estates on the edge of towns and villages, with no realistic prospect that most people living there will be able to access the services and facilities that we all need in our daily lives, other than by driving—locking in car dependency from the get-go. The presumption in favour of sustainable development allows the construction of developments designed to exist as commuter dormitories, rather than creating real communities with work, leisure and culture all within walking distance. It is the precise opposite of the idealism of the garden city principles originally put into action in Letchworth. By clearing the way for speculative, unsustainable developments, the presumption currently ensures that much of what is built in this country is defined by what is easy and profitable for developers, rather than what is good for people and planet. Above all, car-dependent developments like these squeeze the space for genuine society. Community connections will always struggle to thrive if the public realm is dominated by parked cars and traffic. We need to put local authorities back in the driving seat, with the powers to design and deliver developments that genuinely deliver affordable homes in well planned and cohesive communities, with all the opportunities necessary for happy and fulfilling lives. Above all, to ensure that development comes with healthy and positive local transport connections, we must—the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I serve, called for this—amend the definition of “presumption in favour of sustainable development” in the national planning policy framework in order to strengthen the safeguards against environmentally unsustainable, unplanned and speculative development.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Social Rented Housing Sector · Hansard source

  More

  As the chair of the recently formed all-party parliamentary group for council and social housing, I welcome the report’s conclusion about the importance of boosting the supply of social housing to meet the huge demand for new, high-quality, genuinely affordable homes and to replace older, lower-standard homes that are long past their lifespan. It is a daunting task, but we know that it can be done: the great reforming post-war Labour Government built more than 800,000 council houses between 1946 and 1951. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need bold policies now to match the scale of that achievement?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Liberal Democrat-run Hertfordshire county council has been looking at closing several village schools in my constituency, with a decision due soon on Albury primary school. I will not ask the Leader of the House to comment on a particular cases, but from speaking to parents and local communities, it is absolutely clear that these schools not only provide a fantastic education, but are right at the heart of rural life. Can we have a debate on the importance of village schools and what more we can do nationally to support them?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Whatever one’s faith, the historic churches in North East Hertfordshire are an incredible part of our local heritage. They are places of peace and beauty, ever-present reminders of centuries of our history and a focal point for village life, providing space for social activities and community life in what feels like an increasingly fragmented society. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must do everything they can to support parishes with the huge challenge of maintaining our historic churches so that they can continue to enrich our lives for generations to come?

• 15 Jan 2026 · New Towns · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s determination to deliver a new generation of new towns, with everything residents will need for a thriving and fulfilling life, offers a much more hopeful solution to the housing crisis in this country than the proliferation of overpriced and characterless bolt-on estates thrown up by profiteering developers in recent years. As Ministers press on with those plans, I would like to highlight some of what can be learned from the radical and transformative history of previous such projects. The development of new towns in this country grew out of the garden city movement. The very first and best garden city in the world is Letchworth Garden City in my constituency—I will not take any interventions on that. The principles on which Letchworth was founded offer several lessons that I believe should inform the plans for future new towns. First, the land on which those towns will be constructed, and the large rural green belt that the residents will need for healthy recreation and supply of food, should be brought into common ownership. That was always central to securing Ebenezer Howard’s vision of the best of countryside and city life, and it means encouraging industry to access cheap sites, keeping housing affordable by capturing rising land values, and using ground rents to fund community assets. To this day, the fact that Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation continues to have a substantial property portfolio allows it to invest in and subsidise many facilities that enrich life in the town, including the Garden City Greenway, the Broadway cinema, and Standalone farm. So lesson No. 1 is that the development corporations for the next generation of new towns must be empowered to purchase all the land that they need at current use value, through compulsory purchase orders if necessary. Secondly, we must always remember that garden cities were never just about the supply of housing. From the outset, Letchworth was always envisioned as a way of bringing employment and industry to a depressed rural economy. In short, new towns need a purpose, not just a housing target to hit. Communities thrive and grow around the industries that define them, and without that, new towns will never escape the dismal fate of becoming little more than a commuter dormitory. As we build the new towns of the future, we must be clear from the outset about what the economic anchor institutions of those communities will be. Whether they are new university towns, born, as Cambridge was, of the desire of scholars to set up a fresh seat of learning to rival those of the past, or new industrial sites for green technology, we must ensure that there is a clear economic identity defining future new towns. Thirdly, in an era in which a tiny proportion of our homes are designed by architects—the Royal Institute of British Architects has estimated that just 6% of homes are—we should strive to match the optimism of the garden city movement, which sought to prove that beautiful, bright and well-built homes could be made affordable for ordinary people. To this day, the arts and crafts-inspired architecture of Letchworth makes it an incredibly special place. As we build the next new towns, we should suffuse them with the same values, and the same determination to provide genuinely affordable homes, alongside constant proof that life is beautiful. That means commissioning architects to shape unique and inspiring local vernaculars that create a special identity for each town. It means embracing aesthetics and ornamentation, as well as functionality, and it means patient public capital investment over the long term, above all in a high proportion of desperately needed council homes for social rent. In the context of the Office for Environmental Protection’s warning that we are largely off target for the UK’s environmental commitments, it is absolutely crucial that future new towns follow the garden city model of development in harmony with nature. Letchworth was built without cutting down a single mature tree, and there is no reason why we cannot do the same now. Similarly, we must match the importance given, in garden city principles, to a well-protected green belt. Green belt secures permanent and easy access for the inhabitants of new towns to the peace and joy of the countryside next door that is teeming with wildlife. Finally, while not all of Ebenezer Howard’s vision ultimately came to fruition—like all towns, Letchworth faces its own challenges today—the strength of community that Letchworth continues to foster, nearly 125 years after it was founded, should shape the policies that we pursue as we support the new towns to come. From Decarbonise Letchworth to the Wilbury community café and the Friends of Norton Common, the ordinary residents of Letchworth are a constant source of energy, passion and determination to tackle the challenges that we face as a society, from environmental collapse to loneliness and the cost of living. The Labour Government should foster and embrace these grassroots movements by combining new towns with a new drive to put power back in the hands of ordinary people. To give new communities the ability to shape their lives and their area in a way that meets their hopes for the future, we need a new charter of community rights. Fortunately, the amendment that I tabled to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to do just that has recently been re-tabled in the other place, providing the Government with an excellent opportunity to rectify their oversight in failing to adopt the charter when I first brought the proposal to this House. Designed to put power back in the hands of ordinary people, the charter for community rights offers a starting point for restoring popular agency in our democracy, which I believe is an essential ingredient to getting new towns right. We are talking about the right to a clean and healthy environment, to a healthy home, to play, to grow food on public sector land, to roam and swim, to participate in decisions shaping communities, and to challenge local decisions. Adopting the charter for community rights is the final ingredient in ensuring that this Government’s new towns are genuine communities, capable of nurturing social life and cohesion from the outset. That should be an objective that we can all share.

• 11 Dec 2025 · National Plan to End Homelessness · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s work on this important subject. Just after we came into office, Ministers committed from the Dispatch Box to a revolution in council house building. I have welcomed and noted the Minister’s statements on social housing, but she will be aware that there are growing concerns around an increasing corporate ethos in housing associations, many of which have a mixed record at best. I have heard directly from constituents about the stark contrast in security of tenure between when they were living in a council house home and now, when it is owned by a housing association. Given that Shelter estimates that nearly 400,000 people are currently homeless across the country, will the Minister set out what the Government will do to deliver that council housing revolution in constituencies such as mine?

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. The freedom to go out the front door and play in the street or near home is no longer part of many children’s lives, as it used to be. The right to play would reverse the trend of estates being full of signs shouting, “No” and “Do not”, with more space given to car parking than to playgrounds for kids. It would empower communities to ensure that streets are designed to be safe for children, so that they are no longer stuck indoors. Ever since landowners in the 18th and 19th centuries privatised 7 million hectares of common land that was once shared by ordinary people, the ability to grow one’s own healthy food has been a distant dream for the millions. The right to grow food on public land would unleash the power of grassroots growers, who are currently held back by bureaucracy, to turn parcels of unloved land across our communities into oases of food and wildlife. Similarly, while most of England is still owned by a handful of aristocrats, oligarchs and corporations, the vast majority of people are prevented from enjoying the glories of vast swathes of England’s countryside. The right to roam and swim would finally recognise that this land is our land, and give everyone the confidence to reconnect with nature by enjoying a responsible ramble or a dip in their local river. Finally, the right to participate in and challenge decisions would level the playing field between communities, who care deeply about their local area, and the interests of profit-seeking developers. This right would ensure that the voices of ordinary people are properly heard and that they can appeal decisions, just as developers can, so that local councils always listen seriously to both sides, rather than acceding to the whims of overmighty corporations. I hope the Minister will see that new clause 13 would help ensure that this Bill goes as far as possible in restoring power, hope and optimism to our communities. I look forward to hearing her response.

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have tabled new clause 13 to address a slight oversight in this Bill—namely, that despite its title, it does not give communities any substantially new powers. The strengthening of the tools that local people have at their disposal to purchase assets of community value is certainly very welcome—yes, it is progress—but it is not fundamentally new. New clause 13 is intended to fill in this minor, accidental absence with a requirement on the Secretary of State to report on progress towards, and set out plans to deliver, a new charter of community rights containing seven key elements: a right to a clean and healthy environment; a right to a healthy home; a right to play; a right to grow food on public sector land; a right to roam and swim; a right to participate in decisions shaping communities; and a right to challenge local decisions. Designed to put power back in the hands of ordinary people, the charter offers a starting point to restore popular agency in our democracy. Each of the seven rights contained within it is based on clear legal proposals, and each builds on long-standing demands that stretch back into England’s history. I will briefly take them in turn. After years of scandals, with ordinary people powerless to stop sewage being pumped into local rivers or their children being poisoned by the air they breathe, the right to a clean environment would give every community the power to challenge proposals that threaten to impose pollution on them. Similarly, the right to a healthy home would put an end to an era in which permitted development rights have been used to create the slums of the future by housing the most vulnerable in society without adequate space, security, fire safety or proper ventilation. With this right, communities could require that new housing delivers the basics of a happy, healthy life, with plenty of natural light, access to green space and comfort in all weathers.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the Climate and Nature Crisis Caucus. At the outset of my contribution to today’s debate on this important legislation, there are a few general points that are probably worth reiterating. There need be no conflict between house building and nature; the real conflict is between greed and the sort of country we want to build. After 20 years of planning deregulation, time and again we see profiteering trumping public need and the protection of the countryside; cost cutting where communities deserve quality; and low-density, high-price housing while families wait for council homes. Since we last debated the Bill in this place, Key Cities has published a very useful report, which highlights that in a survey of its members, only 6% cited the planning system as the primary obstacle to house building. More than twice that figure pointed to developer delays, so I hope that we will shortly see similarly major Government legislation to tackle the profiteering developers that are blocking the delivery of genuinely affordable housing in this country. The recent announcement of plans for towns built within a new forest shows that good development and nature recovery can go hand in hand, and we must go further. A democratic programme of mass council house building could easily avoid the clashes that so often mark the developer-led system. What is needed are well-funded councils with the power to assemble land and identify the best sites for new homes—building not grey estates that are shaped by the defeatism of low expectations, but cohesive, thriving communities that are built for life to flourish. That is the solution to the housing crisis and would create a country that puts people and nature before profit. I welcome the several important amendments tabled by the Government in the other place. In my view, the most important is the stronger overall improvement test for nature recovery, which I campaigned for on Report. It is very good news that these amendments have substantially allayed the concerns of the Office for Environmental Protection. Nevertheless, it is clear that environmental experts and conservationists continue to have some concerns, which the other place has sought to address through Lords amendments 40 and 38 in particular. Our Labour Government were elected on a clear manifesto promise to reverse the nature crisis in this country, so it is essential we get this right. That is particularly urgent for our endangered species and irreplaceable habitats, including chalk streams such as the Rib, Beane, Ivel and Mimram, which criss-cross North East Hertfordshire and bring joy to so many people’s lives. I genuinely welcome the comments that the Minister has made to allay the concerns of nature experts, and I will dedicate my remaining time to a few short questions that I hope he can address in his wind-up. First, given the need for legal certainty, can the Minister confirm that the overall improvement test will guarantee that irreplaceable habitats and species cannot be covered by EDPs, and if so, will the Government set out a list of environmental features that they consider would be irreplaceable? Secondly, can the Minister confirm whether any EDPs are currently under consideration or development by Natural England, or proposed by the Government? If so, will any of them be affected if Lords amendment 40 remained part of the Bill? Thirdly, will the Minister give confidence to the many constituents of North East Hertfordshire worried about potential impacts on the wildlife we love by once again putting on record that the Government recognise the difference between diffuse landscape issues such as nutrient pollution, where strategic scale action is best suited for nature restoration, and protected sites and species that cannot easily be recreated elsewhere? Fourthly, given the widespread interest in this Bill shown by many of our constituents and by the wider nature sector, will the Minister consider providing further transparency and accountability through a Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 40 to ensure parliamentary approval of EDPs beyond diffuse issues such as air, water and newts? Fifthly, given that the “Catchment Based Approach” annual review published this autumn found that a third of chalk streams do not have a healthy flow regime, that over-abstraction due to development pressures is one of the main threats facing these crown jewels of our natural heritage and that there are currently no planning policies specifically protecting chalk streams, can the Minister set out in more detail how the Government foresee planning authorities being able to direct inappropriate development away from struggling chalk streams within the process of setting spatial development strategy plans, and would he consider opportunities for this through regulation, if not through the Bill? Sixthly, will the Minister provide further certainty from the Dispatch Box about ensuring that chalk streams are specifically added to the national planning policy framework as an irreplaceable habitat, and will he set out when this might happen given that an update of those provisions has been delayed since 2023? Seventhly, as one reason put forward for Lords amendment 40 is that it would mitigate concerns about the weakening of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, what reassurances can the Minister give my constituents that these iconic animals will not be at risk from widespread licences to kill in EDPs paid for by developers in the absence of Lords amendment 40? Eighthly, can the Minister confirm whether the Government have assessed the potential impact of proposed biodiversity net gain exemptions on the private finance for nature markets that will be essential for the delivery of EDPs? Ninthly and finally, can the Minister reassure those who have raised concerns that the current legislation may allow money committed to the natural restoration fund to be redirected to other purposes?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Fresh and Nutritious Food: Inequality of Access · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that one solution to the problem of access to sustainable and nutritious food would be the right to grow food on public land, as campaigned for by Incredible Edible, forming part of the wider campaign for community rights that is coming to this Parliament?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Bronze-age Heritage: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  While the Minister is talking about the brilliant work that the Government are doing nationally to protect and preserve our heritage, can I encourage him to welcome the fact that the now Labour-run North Herts council is choosing to prioritise investment in our museum storage, so that we can preserve our bronze-age heritage and local heritage more widely?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Bronze-age Heritage: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  I sense the hon. Member is winding up, but before he does, I would like to say that across the border in North Hertfordshire we also have some fantastic bronze-age heritage in places such as Arbury Banks and Therfield Heath, but we have had real difficulties in preserving that heritage because of the sheer number of finds we are getting from development locally. He mentioned the importance of museums; will he join me in asking the Minister to consider what more we can do to fund our local authorities so that they can properly preserve that heritage for our whole community into the future?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Provision of Council Housing · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree that council housing is essential to meeting the housing crisis that we face, and I hope that we will hear ambitious remarks from the Minister. The question is not simply how much housing is built, but the type of housing built and for whom. As has been referenced, more than 1.3 million households in England are trapped on waiting lists—a rise of 10% in the past two years alone. The scale of our failure to provide homes for all our citizens is staggering and reveals in the starkest possible terms the absolute folly of relying on the private sector to meet the public’s basic needs.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Provision of Council Housing · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I fully agree. Before I get to costs, I would like us for a moment to lift our eyes to the potential prizes to be won by a new generation of council housing across the country, because council housing is not just the most effective tool we have to cut waiting lists, it is not just the best policy for transforming the futures of the tens of thousands of children going to sleep every night in temporary accommodation, and it is not just the surest way to save billions of pounds from the housing benefits bill. As if each of those were not justification enough in their own right, council housing is also the best hope we have to create the new communities that foster the sort of life and society that the labour movement has always dreamed of and strived for. This does not seem to be debated too often in this place, but the built environment we go about our daily lives in matters profoundly. The provision of council housing is not just about progress towards social justice and the eradication of inequality; it is also about building a world around ourselves that contributes every day to the experience of self-worth, happiness, peace, connection and leisure in all our lives. If we are to be judged by future generations, not just on how many houses we build but on what we build, a policy dominated by council housing, with local authorities in the driving seat able to plan and design developments matching the hopes and identity of each community, is essential to avoiding the condemnation of history. Far too many of the estates thrown up in recent years by the private sector have been notable mainly for their identikit and bland miserablism. Even leaving aside the appalling quality of new build housing on many speculative developments, the status quo approach that housing policy has sunk into has in effect created a new phenomenon of spiritual slums, where a near total lack of facilities or features capable of instilling any sense of interest or civic pride condemns the young to a sentence of boredom. When we are building estates with more land given to car parking than space for children to play, rising disaffection and antisocial behaviour should not be a surprise to anyone. The choice facing the Labour Government in the provision of council housing is therefore between socialism and delinquency. Similarly, the record of private housing development when it comes to integrating nature into our lives, a basic need that we know more and more clearly is essential to our mental health, is shocking. Research has found that environmental features promised in planning conditions are not being delivered almost half of the time. Simple measures to help declining insect populations, birds, bats and other iconic species have all been regularly shirked by developers, and nearly half of the native hedges that were supposed to be laid do not exist. Once again, public goods, even when legally committed to, routinely fail to materialise when we rely on private interests to meet our nation’s housing needs. Public-led housing—council housing—offers the opportunity for different priorities that at last deliver something better. Just as 100 years ago the Independent Labour party trailblazer Ada Salter set about housing the working class of Bermondsey while also improving their lives by planting thousands of trees and filling open spaces with flowers, so now we can have council housing that goes hand in hand with nature. What is more, while so-called affordable housing set at 80% of market rates is often used to justify speculative developments, in reality it continues to price key workers out of many parts of the country. The promise of a new era of council housing, in which rents were linked to local incomes, would create a more democratic and less stratified society in which people of all incomes lived side by side. I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance that at least 60% of the affordable homes programme will be homes for social rent or council housing. Prioritising council-led delivery should also mean greater public accountability for maintenance and tenant support. That, sadly, is often lacking where housing associations have moved too far from their original purpose. If we want genuinely affordable homes for those currently priced out of the housing market, better place making, greener and more integrated communities, and all the things that our constituents are demanding, so that we can go from wishing for a better society to that being the lived reality across our nation, we must have housing funded by patient capital that can focus on wider benefits, rather than mere monetary calculations. Across the country, the evidence could not be clearer: only public funding is capable of mobilising the necessary resources at the scale required through long-term investments to deliver the public goods so conspicuously absent in recent years. Over six years, at a time of shortages, debt, constraints, and competing demands on public expenditure that were even greater than ours, the post-war Labour Government oversaw the construction of more than 800,000 council houses—some of the best ever built in this country.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Provision of Council Housing · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend and will come to right to buy later in my speech. As Bevan described, “the speculative builder, by his very nature, is not a plannable instrument.” —[ Official Report , 6 March 1946; Vol. 420, c. 451.] They build what makes them most money, while we need our councils empowered to assess the needs of their communities and directly deliver for them, because that is in the public interest.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Provision of Council Housing · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The points he raises perfectly exemplify why the provision of council housing is so important. England has seen 724,000 more net additional dwellings than new households since 2015, yet in the same period the number of households in England on local authority housing waiting lists rose by more than 74,000.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Provision of Council Housing · Hansard source

  More

  I had better make some progress. That is the yardstick the Government should measure themselves against. I now come at last to how we might go about achieving this. The place to start, as we have already heard, is with plugging the gap. We must stop draining our stock of council houses, year on year. It is a fact of mesmerising absurdity that in the last year of the previous Conservative Government, there was a net loss of social housing in this country, as over 20,000 homes for social rent were lost to right to buy. I welcome the determination of Labour Ministers to reform the right to buy, and to ensure that more homes are built than lost, and I especially welcome the planned 35-year exemption for newly built properties. I urge the Government to bring forward the necessary legislation for those changes as swiftly as possible. Next, we need further planning reform to empower our local authorities to drive forward a council housing renaissance up and down the land. We need new social housing targets, to make the delivery of council housing the urgent priority of every local planning authority. Ministers must bring together local authorities and charities like Crisis to create fairer rules for eligibility for social housing, so that homeless people are no longer unfairly excluded. We need to build on the welcome measures that Ministers have already brought forward on hope value, by allowing local authorities to disregard it entirely for the purposes of purchasing land to meet housing targets. That would not only make the provision of council housing on a vastly increased scale viable by ending the payment of inflated sums of public money to wealthy landowners, slashing an estimated 38% off the total development costs of a mass-scale building programme; it would also allow local authorities to capture the full uplift in land values associated with the delivery of their local plans, and to fund projects that combine high-quality council housing with improved space for nature and expanded public infrastructure. We must also face up to the reality of serious constraints on construction capacity due to a workforce that is too small and an inadequate supply of key materials. If we are to have the hundreds of thousands of council houses that we need in order to swiftly tackle the housing crisis, the Government should ensure that the new strategic planning authorities created through devolution have tools at their disposal to direct available resources where they are needed most, even if that means putting limits on construction for private profit. Of course, many of our local authorities will need substantial support to rebuild the capacity necessary for a major council house building programme. As Shelter has said, in trying to balance budgets after years of funding cuts, local authorities have been forced to shut down their building operations, transfer their council stock to housing associations or focus on building private homes for sale. We will only see the council housing that our country desperately needs if we reverse that trend. Alongside making more low-interest loans available to councils through the Public Works Loan Board, the Government should raise the money needed to invest in a new generation of local authority planners, ecologists, designers and architects through a windfall tax on the largest property developers, which have dominated the market and enjoyed super-normal profits for too long. On funding, the Government have already committed to a transformative £39 billion over 10 years for the new affordable homes programme. I will not try the Minister’s patience by calling for additional money today, but front-loading this investment and driving it primarily towards council housing could see us well on our way. I recognise that, even with all that, matching the scale of council housing delivery overseen by Attlee’s Government is a daunting task, but in the context of the upcoming Budget and increasingly vociferous debates on the merits of a wealth tax, I will take this opportunity to briefly fly the flag for the comparatively straightforward proposal of a levy on multiple home ownership. With so many in our society unable to access suitable housing at all, requiring those who own multiple homes to contribute to the public coffers a small percentage of the value of their additional properties would be both fair and proportionate. That leaves a final, concluding point. The case for more council housing and what it could deliver for our society is overwhelming in its own right, but even if we were to reduce ourselves to desiccated calculating machines, concerned only with economic statistics, the irrefutable fact is that we cannot afford not to invest in hundreds of thousands of new council houses over the coming years. A major council house building programme would deliver a huge counter-cyclical boost to economic activity in every region of the country. Alongside the vast savings to be made on the cost of temporary accommodation provided by councils, there would be knock-on benefits from secure decent homes: they would reduce costs right across the public sector, from the NHS to our schools. In short, it would be fiscally reckless not to invest in a new generation of council housing. We all deserve a warm, safe and affordable home, where we can put down roots and have the safety and security to flourish and grow. It is our duty to make that a reality. Hundreds of thousands of families cannot afford for us to delay or go slow. Now is the time for the Government to live up to their heritage and provide a new era of council housing that transforms lives up and down the country.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Provision of Council Housing · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. As usual, he makes a good point, and I wholly agree. As our whole nation loses out on the stifled energy, talent and creativity of so many people held back by not having a secure home where they can put down roots and flourish, it is ever clearer that the magic of the invisible hand of the free market is little more than a fairy tale told by economists to justify a refusal to meet our obligations to the least well-off members of society. However, if we look to our past for inspiration, we see many parallels between the challenges confronting us now and those facing the great post-war Labour Government who took office 80 years ago. Then, Labour came into office determined to change the “devil take the hindmost” approach to housing policy in which, as Aneurin Bevan described: “The higher income groups had their houses; the lower income groups had not. Speculative builders, supported enthusiastically, and even voraciously, by money-lending organisations, solved the problem of the higher income groups in the matter of housing” —[ Official Report , 17 October 1945; Vol. 414, c. 1222.] while the rest were left behind. Bevan’s solution was to start at the other end and focus on meeting the needs of the working class. Our current state of affairs is much the same. We need the same priorities to get to the root of the contemporary housing crisis, because while house prices in many parts of the country are eye-wateringly high for all, the reality is that higher-income earners—frustrated though some of their ambitions may be—can find a home, while too often those at the other end of the spectrum cannot. Simply flooding the market with speculative developments will not address the problem. The only way to get high-quality homes that those on waiting lists can actually afford is to directly plan and deliver housing for people on low incomes. That is why we must have council housing —not housing built to maximise profits for developers’ shareholders—offering rents linked to local incomes, and hundreds of thousands of them. I will be quoting Bevan extensively, given his achievements in delivering high-quality council housing in this country.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Provision of Council Housing · Hansard source

  More

  Council housing is the first, most important and only viable solution to the housing crisis and to creating a society that matches the hopes of both the Labour movement and the wider public. Not long ago, under the leadership of the current Prime Minister, Labour Front Benchers now sitting in Cabinet declared that housing is a fundamental human right, that Labour would restore social housing as the second-largest tenure ahead of the private rented sector and that the mantra of Ministers as they did so would be “council housing, council housing, council housing”. As voters continue to demand the change that the Labour Government were elected to deliver, now is the time to recapture the clarity and optimism of that vision. It bears repeating at the outset that solely expanding the market supply of housing is not a solution to providing the genuinely affordable homes that so many families across our country desperately need.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Provision of Council Housing · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in his assessment of one of the many benefits of council housing. The provision of council housing is uniquely important for meeting the Government’s objectives, because of the risk in designing housing policy around a target delivered by a market over which we have limited control. Once again, Bevan was right when he said that committing to general housing targets would be “crystal gazing” and “demagogic”. He also stated: “The fact is that if at this moment we attempted to say that, by a certain date, we will be building a certain number of houses, that statement would rest upon no firm basis of veracity”. —[ Official Report , 17 October 1945; Vol. 414, c. 1232.] It is only with council housing supplied directly by public authorities that we can give real confidence to the electorate in our ability to deliver. The last time we were building 300,000 homes a year, nearly half the total was council housing, and if we want to secure an increase in construction to 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament, the lion’s share of the balance must come through council housing.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I speak in support of the Bill and in favour of new clause 22 in my name. We can now say in complete confidence that the privatisation and deregulation of our bus services has been a catastrophic failure for rural towns and villages such as those across North East Hertfordshire. Decades of dogmatic adherence to flawed ideology has created vast public transport deserts where residents have no meaningful alternative to driving a car. The consequent social costs of this failure have been profound: more and more traffic that stifles our communities and chokes our rivers and air with life-limiting pollution; young people cut off from education and employment, forced to leave their homes to get on in life; and our elderly trapped in loneliness and isolation, which should be a source of shame for our entire nation. The privatisation disaster means for those unable to drive or afford a car, a connected life in rural England is practically impossible. I welcome many of the clauses in the Bill that together offer a chance to reverse the hollowing out of our villages which threatens to end centuries of cultural and economic vibrancy. We need a bus network that comprehensively meets the needs of every community, especially for rural areas that lost their train stations in the Beeching cuts, including Buntingford, Westmill, Braughing, and Standon in my constituency. That is why I have tabled new clause 22, which would empower Ministers to conduct a review into the delivery of guaranteed minimum bus service standards for every community with more than 300 residents across England. During the progress of the Bill, I ran a survey on the experience of my constituents of their local bus services. Hundreds of residents responded and a massive, if unsurprising, 83% of them felt that the bus services available do not offer a viable alternative to owning and driving a car. As I am sure you can imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether via the survey or in community meetings, my constituents have been none too shy in sharing their thoughts about the quality, reliability and general usefulness of local bus services. Consequently, it is completely clear to me that voters in North East Hertfordshire are utterly fed up with a bus network based on profitability for shareholders rather than public need. The measures in the Bill to address that with a long-overdue strengthening of socially necessary bus services are very welcome. However, to succeed in meeting the hopes of communities such as those that I represent, we should go further and move towards a universal basic right to public transport with enshrined service standards across the country, replacing the threadbare, patchwork and inadequate network left by deregulation. Although it may be difficult to imagine, given the current state of public transport in our nation, that is, in fact, something that other countries are quite happily doing already. In Switzerland, the region of Zurich guarantees villages of 300 people or more at least an hourly bus service running seven days a week from 6 am to midnight, linking rural residents to regional facilities for employment, education, training, shopping and leisure, while North Hesse in Germany has a target of bus services reaching every village across the region every hour.