Gideon Amos MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak either against the clause or in favour of amendment 7, which is in my name. I am not sure which, but I am sure you can advise me, Ms Jardine. We have significant concerns about the clause, and I will spend a few minutes on them as it is, perhaps, more serious than it first appears. The clause would disapply the need for listed building consent, conservation area consent, scheduled ancient monument consent and notices for works on land of archaeological importance from Transport and Works Act projects. Our heritage has benefitted from protection under criminal law since Lord Avebury in the Liberal Government brought in the Ancient Monuments Protection Act in 1882. The Act provides that anyone who damages a monument commits an offence punishable by imprisonment “with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding one month”. That protection, and much of the wording in that Act, has survived, and the relevant wording remains in the main and principle Acts for listed buildings: the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. My suggestion is that this is not the time to remove such strong statutory protection and criminal sanction from measures to protect ancient monuments and listed buildings. I appreciate that the Government, in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, say that the approach is similar, but not as wide as the Planning Act 2008 approach, which the Minister has mentioned, and I fully understand the single consenting regime objective. It would be narrower in some ways because, in the proposed Transport and Works Act approach, it could be possible to be more selective about which measures are disapplied. However, the Planning Act 2008 approach is very different, because regulations made under it enshrine those same legal tests that go back decades—and, in some cases, centuries—so that they remain on the statute book and applicants under that Act still must comply with them. If our country’s heritage is worthy of protection under criminal law, as the Liberal Democrats believe that it is, the same tests should surely be applied under the Transport and Works Act as under other legislation. Those are long-standing tests. In relation to listed buildings, the wording that many in the sector will know is that we must have “special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest”. Those words ring down the years. For scheduled ancient monuments, the requirement was to have regard to the “desirability of preserving” the scheduled monument or its setting and, in conservation areas, “to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.” Those are familiar words that, as I say, ring through legislation over many years. They should not be removed from the Transport and Works Act process altogether, which this clause would do. These are central principles of heritage protection that have lasted decades, if not centuries. The Government may point out that, as they say in the explanatory notes, section 12(3A) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 remains in place, which provides: “An application for listed building consent shall, without any direction by the Secretary of State, be referred to the Secretary of State instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority in any case where the consent is required”. Although that section is referred to, it does not apply here, because consent is not required. All the requirements for consent are disapplied by the clause in this Bill, so there would be no recourse to consent under that route. Our recommendation is that the important statutory tests be repeated in the legislation for Transport and Works Act projects, just as they are for all other projects, including in regulations made under the Planning Act 2008. Many heritage organisations share our concerns. The National Trust says: “We have serious concerns regarding the scope of Clause 37 of the Bill which seeks to disapply existing heritage regimes. This clause enables Transport and Works Act 1992 orders to disapply authorisation” for listed buildings, and so on. It continues, “we have strong concerns about the possible disapplication of heritage regimes for transport infrastructure developments. There is a risk that this could enable harm to heritage assets without proper scrutiny and go further than the stated ambition of the Bill.” The Heritage Alliance has stated: “Until greater clarity and detail is forthcoming from government, we continue to have significant concerns regarding its potential to cause…unintended harm to heritage assets.” Even the Government’s own agency, Historic England has said: “Whilst the clause provides discretionary powers for the Secretary of State on whether to disapply the legislative provisions relating to heritage, as drafted there is a lack of clarity as to how and when this discretion would be applied. This risks resulting in uncertainty and inconsistency, which would undermine the policy intention…In addition, the disapplication of the legislative provisions for heritage does not provide any equivalent safeguards for the protection of heritage in relation to the authorisation and enforcement provisions for listed buildings and scheduled monuments, as exists at present” in legislation. It goes on: “The clause, as currently proposed, would therefore result in a weakening of heritage protection.” It concludes that “the current wording of Clause 37 may not actually deliver the policy intention of streamlining planning decisions, whilst having the unintended consequence of reducing heritage protection.” In short, we are very concerned about the removal of such long-standing legal protections for our heritage. In our view, they must be put back on the statute book in one way or another.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We support the delivery of 1.5 million homes, but a confrontational approach, whereby elected representatives are longer allowed to take decisions on behalf of local people, will alienate people from the planning system, create more conflict and make it harder to deliver the homes that we need. Taking powers away from local elected representatives is taking powers away from local people. So much of planning is already predetermined by national guidance and policy. Only last Friday, I had two parish councillors at my surgery. They came to ask why Government guidance on highway planning overrides everything that they, local people and their own transport planning expert know about highway safety in their village. Those objectors wanted to support the housing scheme in Cheddon Fitzpaine, but they were asking for a previous commitment to secondary access to be honoured. The councillors were told that there would be costs of £400,000 if they did not follow Government transport planning guidance, and they had no choice but to accept the application without the road. Not for the first time, after that meeting some of my councillors came to me and said, “What is the point of being a councillor if local resources are so constrained that there is no money to provide local services?” Even on planning committee, the Government are taking away decision-making powers from local people. It is totally unacceptable.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I invite the Minister to go slightly further. Will he say today that the regulations will include the requirement for both accessibility and heritage training?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support amendment 152. The Liberal Democrats have a similar measure on the amendment paper, new clause 11, which also refers to the accessibility of housing. We are pleased to support this amendment, and we support training for planning authorities in general. In the Minister’s summing up, can he address the concern of some organisations that, as well as accessibility, the training needs to include conservation and heritage?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, the Local Government Act will be changed so that councillors may not have permission to recover such decisions, even if every single member of the council disagrees with a decision. This would be better described not as a national scheme of delegation, but as a forced removal of planning powers from councillors. In response to a statement in December, a number of Members from across the House challenged the idea of taking these powers away from planning committees. The Minister said that the measure would be in relation to “minor reserved matters” applications—that is from Hansard on 9 December 2024—but the clause we are presented with has no limits at all. The Secretary of State may draft regulations in relation to any relevant function, so there is no such qualification and no limitation on any future Minister or Secretary of State. Let us look at the history of planning in this country. It began as a local system and has gradually become more and more centralised and nationalised in its approach. Surely to goodness, that is exactly what will happen again with this huge power that is being given to future Secretaries of State. Breaking the link between elected councillors and decisions made by their councils is so anti-democratic, and it will undermine trust in politics further. Councillors are coming to me and asking me, “What is the point of being a councillor any more?” Imagine their voters’ response if councillors say that they no longer have any ability to affect a whole tranche of decisions, and what decisions they are allowed to make will be determined by Ministers in Whitehall, not by their council. By dint of this clause, the Government’s message is, “It doesn’t matter how much you engage in the planning system. It doesn’t matter which councillors stand for election, what they stand for, what their manifestos are or who gets elected. All decision making is directed by Whitehall, and local people must keep out. They have no say over what their employees will decide at the council.” The enforced removal of decision-making powers is completely unnecessary to sustain the granting of the permissions and consents that everyone wants in order to provide the housing that the country needs. The vast majority of planning decisions—some 97%—are already made by council officers. Councillors and committees are not blockers; they approve nine out of 10 of all applications that come before them.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I completely accept that policy and guidance exist, but there is a degree of discretion when it comes to policy and guidance. We are dealing with primary statutory legislation here, and there would be no discretion over its implementation. I think the Minister should accept that this is not about a fluffy national scheme of delegation that we all agree with; this is about removing the right of councillors to recover decisions to democratically elected members of the council. They may not; they are not allowed to. The clause is very clear that the Local Government Act 1972 will be changed so that councillors may not recover those decisions, and they will be made by employees. This is not about a national scheme of delegation. We could all agree on a recommended scheme and have a standard scheme of delegation. This is about the law. I am surprised that the Minister is so lightly giving all future Ministers power to deny decision making by local councils.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is generous in inviting interventions; I rise to make a small one. I technically ought to declare that I live in a listed building—a fairly shabby one—but that is not the only reason why I wanted to listed building consents to be free.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As an illustration of the hon. Gentleman’s point about unbuilt planning permissions, in Somerset there are permissions for 11,000 new homes that have not been built, while the new NPPF requires a 41% increase in the allocation of permissions. There is no record of these pressures having led to an increase in the number of houses actually being built.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I urge him to consider regulations. That is the approach under the Planning Act 2008, which has worked and ensures that the Secretary of State for Transport will have to apply the same tests that local planning authorities’ inspectors and the Secretary of State have to apply under the 2008 Act. They have to apply their central and historical tests—ironically they are historical tests for historic parts of our heritage and should be retained. We strongly urge the Government to consider regulation in that regard. I am grateful that he has indicated he will consider that, no doubt among other options. We believe it should be statutory. On the basis of the assurance given, we will not press the matter to a vote.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My point was about the distinction between a voluntary guideline and putting in statute the removal of powers from councillors. I repeat: does the Minister not have any qualms about giving all future Ministers and Secretaries of State in future Governments the power to make any regulations they want to take these powers away from councillors?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse, it is especially a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair. Liberal Democrats are supportive of a scheme to encourage long-duration energy storage and, for that reason, are generally supportive of the clause. Long-duration energy storage is crucially needed, including, of course, battery storage. There are instances of fires in battery storage facilities, but there is no reason why they should not be built safely—they can and are built safely. We ask the Ministers to consider whether fire brigades should be statutory consultees in applications for battery storage proposals. That is not the case at the moment, which seems perverse, given that there is an acknowledged fire risk that needs to, and can, be dealt with. We should have fire services as statutory consultees to ensure that happens.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I simply say that doing away with, effectively, an automatic right to a public inquiry in certain circumstances, as the Minister has clarified, and replacing that with the words “serious enough” is a big leap. I strongly encourage the Minister to put on record guidance on what relevant parties can expect will be considered serious enough to merit a public inquiry.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clause 102, which stands in the name of the Liberal Democrats. This would ensure that all communities hosting major energy infrastructure—solar farms, wind farms, major battery storage, gas, nuclear or other power stations, as well as transmission infrastructure, which is already covered by the Bill—would receive a benefit of 5% of the annual revenue of that project. Safeguarding the future by tackling climate change is vital, but we are only going to achieve that if we bring communities with us and make it affordable for households. We recognise, and of course welcome, the provision in the Bill for community benefits for those near transmission lines, but those living beside nuclear, gas, coal-fired or other power stations are not eligible for any community support. For example, I supported the development of Ham Farm solar park in Taunton, but none the less the community gets no benefit for the significant impact it is having on that community. It is time that we had a system that gave community benefit for all energy infrastructure if we are to persuade communities and work with communities to host that infrastructure. If we are going to move Britain to a low pollution energy future with more home-grown energy—something the Liberal Democrats strongly support—we must be willing to compensate those expected to live with and host these enormous developments. It is time, in short, that local people benefited from national energy projects. Liberal Democrats have consistently led the way on community benefit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) brought in the first community benefit system of this kind. In 2013, when he was Secretary of State and making the UK the biggest offshore energy generator in the world, he said: “Communities hosting renewable energy installations play a key role in meeting the national need for secure, clean energy. It is only right that local people should be recognised and rewarded for that contribution”. He continued: “developers already offer community benefit packages on a voluntary basis, we challenged them to do more”. —[ Official Report , 6 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 116WS.] He then announced an increase in the recommended community benefit package in England from £1,000 per megawatt of installed capacity per year to £5,000, which remains the basis of the system today. Now it is time to extend that benefit to all energy, and to make it proportional to the revenue raised by energy projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), who is a real champion for his constituency, proposed a scheme such as is set out in new clause 102 to Highland council back in 2021. It is important to recognise that the industry has contributed in this area, and in renewables especially. In February 2024 the Government, in their document, “Developing Local Partnerships for Onshore Wind in England: Government response”, endorsed the 2013 system of £5,000 per megawatt installed capacity. Our new clause would mean that 5% of revenue from all energy projects goes to local communities. To put some figures on that, Grubb and Garjardo at UCL Bartlett estimate that, in a good year for energy generators such as 2022, UK revenue from renewables was £15.5 billion. Put that across 53,000 megawatts of installed capacity, meaning that £288,00 revenue per megawatt of installed capacity was raised, and 5% of that would be around £14,000 in community benefit per megawatt of installed capacity. In less good years, such as 2021, it might be around £7,000 per megawatt of installed capacity. With average electricity bills in households being £730 in the UK, it is also important to secure reductions in bills by adopting the Liberal Democrat policy in our manifesto of finally decoupling electricity prices from the wholesale gas price. Based on Energy UK’s figures, that would mean a reduction in electricity costs per household of around £200 per year. The sums yielded to communities through the new clause—around £7,000 in 2021—would be comparable with the volunteered figure of £5,000 from the industry, but with the added benefit that when revenues increase, the community benefit would also increase. So far the Government have taken only limited steps, which are welcome; but as part of the proposals that we put forward for a similar system in a debate in Westminster Hall in October, we were encouraged by the Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen, who said: “On community benefits in particular, we are continuing—at pace”— that key word— “the work started by the previous Government to review how we can effectively deliver benefits for communities living near this infrastructure.” He said that they were, “developing clear guidance on community benefits for both the infrastructure and the transmission networks.” —[ Official Report, 15 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 276WH.] My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire provides an example from the highlands. It is in the periphery of the UK—the highlands and elsewhere—that many of the biggest energy projects are located. Typically, they are areas where there are high levels of fuel poverty, limited access to affordable housing, lower wages, and high costs for electricity connection and heating. Rural areas, where many major projects are built across the UK, share the characteristics of departing young people, sparse and remote public services, especially after the ending of the rural service delivery grant, and poor infrastructure. Other countries provide compelling examples of what can be done. Denmark, for example, requires new renewable projects to offer at least 20% ownership to local residents. In Germany, local authorities, or Länder, such as Munich, develop their own offshore wind farms, and community benefit comes from the tax revenue that they provide. Our new clause would see two thirds of the benefit funds designated for the community, by which we mean to be spent in the council ward affected, where community groups themselves could and should be delegated with the power to manage and distribute those funds, with one third used for community benefit at a more strategic level for the council area decided by elected councillors. Fuel vouchers, affordable housing and investment into health and social care could be among the priority candidates for the spending of these benefits. It is unacceptable that these communities, which provide the backbone of our energy revolution, often see little financial benefit from hosting such infrastructure.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am extremely grateful to the Minister for addressing the serious points in the new clause, and particularly for saying that mandatory schemes will not be taken off the table. He was coherent back in October, except—if I might suggest—for the phrase “at pace”. Could he explain what “at pace” means in this context, in terms of what the timescale might be?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to query some of the provisions. We understand that the Government’s proposal would effectively remove the automatic right to call a public inquiry. The Minister knows we are concerned that the Bill seeks to remove people from the process, and to remove the opportunity for objections in the planning process. That is a very serious concern for us. The clause proposes a public inquiry only where the Secretary of State “considers that the objection is serious enough”.

• 6 May 2025 · Cullompton and Wellington Stations · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend highlights a practical example of how so many young people in Somerset, a place where sixth form colleges are literally few and far between, have difficulty accessing education because of the lack of public transport. This station project would enable thousands of people to reach Exeter college and the excellent Richard Huish college in my constituency, which is well known to be one of the best in the country. As I was saying, the station’s reopening will allow young people to reach jobs along the Bristol, Exeter and Cardiff corridor and customers to reach businesses. It is no wonder that a key strength of the case for the project is its benefit-cost ratio of 3.67. For the cost of around £42 million, £180 million of economic growth would go into the region, which I know the Government would want to see. Frankly, there is no other rail project in the south-west that is ready to go and could be built and completed in the next two years, as the project is so far advanced. In fact, had it not been for the review in July last year, the spades would be in the ground and the platforms under construction, because the contract was about to be let and the detailed design was almost finished. Our letter makes other equally telling points about the benefits of this station. Wellington is a growing town, which has had around 2,000 new homes in the last few years and has a projected 41% increase in housing numbers. That will mean about 6,000 more residents, and without the railway station, that is unlikely to be possible. Finally, we asked the Department for Transport to tell us what the recent benefit-cost ratios were—the figure for our project is 3.67. The answer we received was that the Department does not routinely share or publish benefit-cost ratios. We were asking not for routine publication, but specifically for the benefit-cost ratio information. I hope that the Minister will look at releasing that information.

• 6 May 2025 · Cullompton and Wellington Stations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I am grateful both to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), for securing this debate, and to the Minister; I really must be more punctual in asking a Minister’s permission to speak in future, and I am very grateful for his permission to take part in this debate. A couple of weeks ago, a delegation of 30 to 40 local residents travelled the three or four hours from Somerset and Devon to Parliament to present a couple of letters to the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, in Westminster Hall, one from Wellington town council and one signed by MPs throughout the Cardiff-Bristol-Exeter corridor. It is important to remember that the station’s reopening project, which combines two reopenings in one, will benefit the whole region, and my hon. Friend and I place on record our gratitude to the hon. Members for Exeter (Steve Race), for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) and for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), who have all signed the letter with us and are fully supportive of the project. For example, the project will enable thousands of young people who have no access to public transport, in west Somerset and elsewhere, to travel to colleges in Bristol, Cardiff and Exeter. It will also enable thousands of customers to reach businesses.

• 6 May 2025 · Dedicated Schools Grant · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on bringing us all together for this important debate to highlight the inequity of the system that built up under the previous Conservative Government and became more and more entrenched over those years. I am only sorry that more Conservative Members did not come to pay attention to this issue today. It is a huge factor in the wellbeing of children in all our constituencies, up and down the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) has pointed out, Somerset is one of the f40 local authorities and therefore one of the worst funded local education authorities. A child educated here in Westminster receives £4,000 more funding as a pupil than a child in my Somerset constituency of Taunton and Wellington. At the same time, the demand for SEND in places like Somerset has risen enormously. There has been a 60% increase in placements between 2014-15 and 2023-24 and, as a result, provision in Somerset, as in a lot of other places, is frankly unacceptable. It is not good enough and it needs to change. Historical special educational needs funding, and the pattern for the national funding formula, is part of the problem. Spending should be based purely on current local need and not on historical need, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out in an important report. It says: “The use of historical spending patterns as a factor in the 2018 high-needs NFF also helped to cement geographical inequalities in high-needs funding that had arisen over time”. It goes on: “The historical spend element determines 25% of the overall formula allocation and drives a large element of the variation in funding across areas. This bakes in…arbitrary differences in council funding that have arisen over time, and lead to large variability in funding per high-needs pupil across councils”. On the high needs block part of the direct schools grant, it says: “The present high-needs funding system was introduced in 2018, when numbers were mostly stable, and it incorporates many historical measures of need and spending that already drive substantial geographical differences in spending per pupil. It is ill-designed for the present context of rising need”. The f40 organisation has said: “More than 20% of high needs funding is based on a local authority’s historical SEND spending, which bears no resemblance to today’s funding landscape”. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, the system urgently needs reform. Part of the problem is the problem of local government funding generally. In Somerset, £2 out of every £3 of council tax goes on care, whether that is adult social care or care for children, including special educational needs funding. It is no wonder that the outgoing Conservative leader of Somerset county council described that as a “time bomb” that “is ticking”. It is unfortunately likely to go off and affect children and families across Somerset, who are suffering the consequences of the legacy that our councillors are now trying to deal with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) pointed out, the withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant has compounded the problems and challenges for authorities such as Somerset, which have a low property base value across the county compared with property values in other part of the country and have historically low income levels as a result. The national funding formula therefore has to be improved. The f40 organisation—I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton on her work with f40—has said: “Government is aware of the unfairness and has indicated that it wishes to level up, but it is a very slow process and, at the current rate, will take around 20 years for equitable funding to be established. That is a whole generation of children. Children should have the same opportunities and resources, regardless of where they live or go to school”. I am sure Members across the House agree with that and I urge the Minister to make good on that promise to reform the system. Three things in particular need to be done. First, we need greater support within schools for special educational needs children. That will reduce costs later; we all know early intervention matters for younger children and has the most effect. Secondly, we need more hubs locally providing specialist provision and to not rely on the private, unregistered schools sector for much of our special educational needs provision. That is highly costly and not serving pupils’ best interests because it means transporting them long distances. Thirdly, we need more investment, which comes back to reform of the national funding formula. Liberal Democrats particularly want to see reform of local government funding and social care funding, but also above-inflation increases in school funding and a dedicated national SEND authority. That is the kind of reform we need to see in this Parliament and I hope very much the Government will deliver it.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  People in Taunton and Wellington are four-square behind new clause 19, but it was my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage who spoke to it.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I endorse the clause on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, given that it lays out plans rather than an unplanned approach. Provided that interested parties have an opportunity to scrutinise those plans and be involved in them, we also support the clause. Question put and agreed to. Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 Consents for generating stations and overhead lines: applications

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We do not object to the clause either. The date of the judicial review challenge being six weeks from the issue of the decision in writing is consistent with the approach under the Town and Country Planning Act, and therefore does not reduce or change people’s right to judicial review. We are content to support the clause. Question put and agreed to. Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 17 Applications for necessary wayleaves: fees Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not demur from much of what the Minister says about the provisions. To go back to his remarks about the delays not being caused solely by the chaos under the previous Government, is it not a fact that during the last few years of the Conservative Government, the delays at the decision stage, which is meant to be three months, rocketed? The regime, which began as one in which every section of it respected the deadlines, became one in which every section respected the deadlines with the exception of the Secretary of State. The intention of those drafting the Planning Act 2008 was that, in such circumstances, a report to Parliament by the Secretary of State when delaying the decision would serve as a disincentive on the Secretary of State for doing so. That clearly has not happened. Will the Minister reflect on whether any other measures could be taken to eliminate the delays caused by Secretaries of State making decisions on NSIPs in future?