Gideon Amos MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  The ability to have a home of their own has crept out of reach of a whole generation, while for others, decent emergency accommodation cannot be found; in the last five years, temporary accommodation was named as a contributing factor in the deaths of 58 children under one year old—babies. We urgently need to provide more homes that are genuinely affordable to local people. That is why the Lib Dem council in Somerset is building hundreds of new council houses in parts of the county for the first time in a generation: 220 new council houses in north Taunton, in my constituency, and 100 additional council houses elsewhere, including zero-carbon council houses. Lib Dem councils in Kingston, Eastleigh, York, Portsmouth, Vale of White Horse, Westmorland and Furness, and Oadby and Wigston are building thousands more new homes.

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

  More

  I will make a little progress, but maybe later.

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

  More

  I am absolutely delighted to be supporting thousands of new homes across my constituency. The population of my constituency has gone up almost 10% over the past 10 years and I have supported thousands of those new homes, as have my Liberal Democrat colleagues on the planning committee who voted through all those permissions. If occasionally a smaller development in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is not right, I would expect him to oppose it, just as I would in my constituency. I believe Members across the House have done so. By giving more powers to communities, a community-led approach could actually increase supply. It is time, for example, to give councils the power to end Right to Buy in their areas. They cannot fill the bath, in terms of providing council houses and social homes, if the plug is taken out and they are forced to sell them off as they have done over the preceding decades. Through proper planning, we also want communities in control of how many holiday lets are allowed in their area, so that homes are not swallowed up that could otherwise increase the supply of affordable housing. That is not in the Bill and should be. Mandating renewable energy such as solar panels on roofs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) articulately argued for, would put people and local communities in control of the bills coming from their pockets. Growing our economy, sustaining nature and building new homes are not mutually exclusive. They can work together. There are so many examples of how they can work together. For example, decent gardens have more biodiversity than many rural areas. Community-led decisions very often bring the best results, with residents’ infrastructure needs addressed and development shaped around green spaces and sustainability. To unblock homes, the Government need to do two key things instead of taking aim at ordinary people: first, unlock the infrastructure we need, including GPs, transport, green spaces, green infrastructure and water connections; and, secondly, fund the social homes that have been so sorely lacking. Since social housing disappeared as a meaningful proportion of housing supply and social housing targets fell away, this country has never been able to keep pace with demand. Our target is 150,000 per year. I hope the Government will provide a target of their own for social homes; so far, nothing has been said on that either. Invest in those two things, as history has taught us, and the number of homes we could provide would be almost unlimited. Meanwhile, in communities like my own—where the 2,000-home Orchard Grove development in the west of Taunton, which I support, is taking shape—the reality is that while many people want to see new GP surgeries, developments are held back by the fact that we often cannot get GPs to staff the surgeries where they are being built. We want to see a Bill about communities leading in planning and development. Instead, the Bill is part of a growing trend that is taking powers away from local communities. It takes a big step in that direction by allowing the Secretary of State to override planning committees and enabling national schemes of delegation that allow Whitehall to dictate who makes decisions on a local council—another Henry VIII clause, giving Whitehall unlimited power to rewrite the standing orders and constitutions of councils up and down the country. That cannot possibly sit right with anybody who values our proud tradition of local government that is independent of central Government. Consultation is sidelined elsewhere, too. Sport England will no longer have a voice to protect playing fields, and people subject to compulsory purchase orders will no longer have the voice they had before. If the Government believe that local is the problem and that planning committees are the blocker, let us take a quick look at the actual figures. Councils approve more than 85% of planning applications, with some studies putting that figure even higher—closer to 90%. Councillors of all parties are not blocking development; they are enabling 90% of permissions to go through.

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

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman recall that when the Conservative leaders of the district council endorsed the unitary council, a poll was taken of the people of Somerset and they voted against it, but the Conservatives pushed it through?

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of the letter left by the outgoing Labour Government for the incoming coalition. We do need to tackle blockages in the system, and if those 13,000 homes in Somerset that have permission and are not being built were being built, we would already have eliminated the 10,000-plus housing waiting list in the county.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The £615 cost per person reported to me by care providers in my constituency will mean that one constituent, who is paying £1,500 a week for care for her 94-year-old mother, will no longer have the money to pay for the care of her disabled brother as well, after the fees go up as a result of this jobs tax. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a shockingly unacceptable result of these changes, and that the Lords amendments introduced by the Liberal Democrats should be accepted?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In that vein, does my hon. Friend accept that, as I mentioned, grandparents reading to their grandchildren could be considered as providing home education and should be inspected and reported on, and vital home education groups providing services free of charge could be driven out of business by the scale and weight of reporting they will have to provide?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There are good elements in this Bill. In line with Professor Jay’s recommendation, I agree that the House must urgently make it a duty to report abuse. As new clause 50 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) sets out, we also want a new authority established to deliver national and local inquiries into rape gang culture and the like. I fully support breakfast clubs, especially following the invention of free school meals—a few years ago—by a Liberal Government. These are good measures because they put the interests of the child at the centre of everything, and the Bill goes wrong where it puts ideology ahead of the interests of the child and loses sight of those interests. I do not support adding taxes to education, which is outside the scope of the Bill, and I am concerned about the effects on academies as well. Any conflation of children being educated other than at a traditional school with safeguarding concerns is not borne out by the evidence. It is also an ideological position that is an insult to the parents and families of the 110,000 children—our constituents up and down the country—who are doing a great job in ensuring that their children are educated, whether they are home tutored or educated otherwise. In fact, according to local authority data published in academic research that has been submitted to the Education Committee, only 11% of section 47 child protection inquiries into home-educated children result in a child protection plan. That rises to 26%—more than double—for the average of all predominantly school-educated children. Child for child, those educated at home are the safest and least in need of protection, so the overwhelming weight of new bureaucracy and legislation tackling home education as a sector is not justified. My hon. Friend’s new clause 48 is therefore quite right, because we should remove the burdensome and highly intrusive sanctions on such families. Unless amendment 221 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) is agreed to, the Bill will enable grandparents reading to their grandchildren at weekends or in the evenings on a regular basis to be served with a notice, demanding a response on pain of a monetary penalty, by a council officer who chooses to issue one. These powers are really extreme and extraordinary. Instead, we should be supporting the interests of the child. We should be supporting home-educated children and allowing them to sit exams without charging them hundreds and hundreds of pounds for the privilege. New clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, would do exactly that. Without such a provision, can Ministers conceive of anything in the Bill that supports home-educated children? There is plenty to regulate them, control them and expose them to rigorous inspection, but there is not a single clause in the whole Bill that supports children being educated at home. Why the parsimonious Treasury cannot be persuaded to simply allow them to sit exams without paying hundreds of pounds is beyond me. Forgive me, but I cannot fathom why a Government would not want to provide for children to sit examinations. In Somerset, our council has much a much better and proportionate approach, and it has developed a protocol in partnership with home-educated families. I am worried that that constructive approach will be swept away by the more confrontational approach that this Bill ushers in. At worst, there is the prospect of a disabled child being forced back to school by a local authority officer when they have good reason to be frightened of going back to that school, which really cannot be right. Turning to my Taunton and Wellington constituency, I pay tribute to state schools such as those my children attended, and the independent ones in Somerset, where, as I have said, the local authority has a more constructive and positive approach to working with schools and families. I particularly pay tribute to the pupils at West Monkton primary school, who have written to me about their amazing plastics pollution campaign. I completely support their bid to ban single-use plastics, which they have written to me about. For those schools and the 5,254 children with an education, health and care plan who cannot get a school place, such as the family who came to my surgery on Friday, may I urge the Government to do more to help families with children with special educational needs? It is crazy that the system is preventing them from attending school when they want to. We need more projects like the great special educational needs centre being developed at Hatch Beauchamp school, which I visited recently. We need to be driven by the interests of the child, not ideology. Finally, until the Government address the fact that £2 out of every £3 of council tax in places like Somerset is going on care—a national responsibility, in my opinion—then local services, schools and communities will see less and less investment. Social care funding must be tackled. It affects the whole of local government finance, including schools. That is not good for our environment, not good for jobs and not good for the growth of our economy.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady accept that, in the tragic case of Sara Sharif, which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) has been pursuing, the murder happened in the school holidays and Sara was already known to social services? There is not much evidence that the parents said they were going to home-educate in the first place. Given all those facts, does the hon. Lady accept that there is actually no correlation in the data between home-educated children and children who are ultimately judged to need a care plan?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Housing Development Planning: Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate my hon. Friend the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this debate and on her tireless work in North Shropshire, which I have seen for myself. This is a particularly timely debate, with the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill having had its First Reading earlier this week. As Liberal Democrats, we want to see more housing built. In particular, we urge the Government to set a target of 150,000 homes for social rent per year. We also need a new generation of rent-to-own housing for a generation for whom the housing ladder has risen out of reach. However, as the Government push for their 1.5 million homes target, the way to get Britain building is to deliver the infrastructure —the GPs, schools, bus routes, water and sustainable drainage—that communities want to see. The best way to do that is to ensure that local people are at the heart of decisions about how their towns, villages and neighbourhoods should take shape and develop. Water infrastructure is one of the most challenging things to get right, not least because of the dire state of the existing infrastructure after years of under-investment, as private companies siphoned off funds, often to overseas shareholders and in bonuses, under the previous Conservative Government. Those outflows of money are thrown into even sharper relief by the increasingly unpredictable rainfall and weather patterns that are becoming more frequent and intense as a result of climate change. Fixing this issue is therefore important not just for new homebuyers, but for everyone in communities up and down the country who increasingly face the risk of the disastrous consequences we have heard about. Many of my Taunton and Wellington constituents know about the risks only too well. In Ruishton, for example, children are frequently unable to reach their local secondary school due to flooding on Lipe Lane, the only road from the village that leads to it. Ruishton is now facing a lot more development that could make things worse. Young people in Creech St Michael face the same problem. Meanwhile, at Hook Bridge in Stoke St Gregory, the River Tone is surging across the floodplain.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Housing Development Planning: Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need more investment in this area, which is why the Liberal Democrat manifesto was the only manifesto to identify the additional funding that the Environment Agency needed for flood defence work, and that Natural England needed. He mentioned the floodplain; much like the other villages that I mentioned, a large part of my constituency is in the floodplain. When the river surges across that floodplain, it far too often carries sewage from the sewage works with it, right across a vast area, in ways that are totally unacceptable. Nobody should have to deal with that raw sewage coming into their home and garden. My hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) are absolutely right that schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 needs to be commenced. The schedule would require the approval of drainage and would require sustainable drainage systems—SUDS—to be provided in all but the most exceptional cases. It would also establish a proper authority for the regulations to ensure they are properly designed and maintained. It is not right that the burden of poorly constructed drainage systems should fall on individuals, who have saved for years to get their first home, because of inadequate regulation and safeguards. Alongside schedule 3, we should have proper planning enforcement—too often the Cinderella service of planning, as my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) mentioned. In fact, planning departments recover nothing like the full costs of planning services from applicants, due to the cap that central Government has placed on them for decades. Council tax payers are therefore subsidising those developers. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, was absolutely right in November 2023 to introduce a Bill to remove that cap on planning fees. We were delighted to see in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill published this week that that campaign for full cost recovery has finally won the day; it looks as though it has, in any event. Without the proper enforcement of sustainable drainage, there is a real risk that the drive to increase housing numbers will exacerbate this problem. Having worked with Sir Michael Pitt in a past life, I looked up last night his report on the 2007 floods and exactly what happened to his 2008 recommendation that schedule 3 should then be commenced. By 2014, the Government had consulted on the necessary guidance and were on track for completion of commencement before 2015. I am sad to say that, in 2015, the trail goes very cold. We had to wait until 2023, when the Conservative Government said in their document, “The Review for implementation of Schedule 3 to The Flood and Water Management Act 2010” that they had instead decided to rely simply on policy. In fact, the 2023 Government review concluded that their approach was—using technical language—“not working”. It went on, in yet more technical language, to say that, “non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems should be made statutory: as the” current “ambiguity makes the role of the planning authority very difficult. The review also found that in general there were no specific checking regimes in place to ensure that SuDS had been constructed as agreed, leaving concerns about unsatisfactory standards of design and construction, and…difficulties of ensuring proper maintenance once the developer has left the site.” If only they had followed the advice of the Pitt review and commenced schedule 3 back in 2015, many of the people we have heard about would not have had the same problems. In the past, there was a body of law to control drainage into traditional sewers—in the words of the Public Health Act 1936, “communicating with a public sewer— but relatively new SUDS do not have the same body of regulation. There is therefore no longer any reason why schedule 3 should not be commenced as soon as possible, if not immediately. It should not take another flood to make that happen. Having water companies as statutory consultees is also an excellent suggestion, as hon. Members from across the country have pointed out, and I am not sure why it cannot be enacted. In conclusion, it is time to implement the recommendations of the 2008 Pitt review, of the Government’s consultation on the response in 2014, and of the 2023 DEFRA review that I quoted, and time to finally implement schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, before communicating with a public sewer becomes something that our constituents are forced to do in an all too upfront and personal way in their own homes and gardens.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome many of the measures in the Bill, particularly those concerning knife crime and the protection of shop workers who all too often bear the brunt of antisocial behaviour. However, one of the biggest deterrents for criminals is the certainty of being caught, and reductions in police numbers nationally are as wrong as they are locally. In Avon and Somerset, the former Conservative police and crime commissioner cut PCSOs by a further 80 last year—a massive 28% reduction—and closed our Taunton police station. [ Official Report , 17 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 2WC.] (Correction) I welcome clause 4’s provisions on public space protection orders, which I will come on to. I welcome the commitment to deliver 13,000 extra officers of various kinds, but worrying for me is the fact that my constituents have come to see me about their relatives who are serving police officers. Civilians have been replaced by officers in uniform doing the same civilian jobs, just so that it can be claimed that police numbers have increased. I hope the Minister will make sure that that does not continue to occur with the new recruitment, which is very welcome. Unless officers are seen in our communities and on the streets, they will not deter or catch the criminals we need them to catch. Last autumn, I was contacted by businesses in Castle Green in Taunton, which are at their wit’s end because of the antisocial behaviour in the historic centre of our county town. I contacted the chief constable straightaway. I am really grateful to Avon and Somerset officers for the efforts they have put in, as I am to the chamber of commerce in Taunton, which has raised the general issue of town centre crime and convened the safe streets forum that I attended last week, but it is clear that we need to deter antisocial behaviour and crime where it is taking place. That is proven by the fact that Lib Dem-run Taunton town council has just appointed a street marshal, who is on duty in our town centre. I spent the afternoon with Nick last Friday. He is doing an excellent job and covering a huge range of work, from people climbing all over the rooftops to retrieving thousands of pounds’ worth of stock by simply asking the person responsible to hand it over. He must have been quite persuasive in asking the individual to do that. I congratulate Nick, our street marshal, but when I returned to Castle Green with him, it was clear that the antisocial behaviour problems there have become intractable. I therefore suggest that we need to work with Somerset council to get a public space protection order, and I hope the Government will support its enforcement. Too many of our great community events are marred by the antisocial few, and we need to tackle that. We need the public space of Castle Green, with its superb independent market, our famous Castle Hotel, the scheduled ancient monument, which is the castle itself, and the Museum of Somerset where soon people will be able to see the Chew valley hoard of silver coins from the Norman conquest. I cannot use those coins to pay for the enforcement of the public space protection order, but I hope it will have Government support so that we can ensure that key public spaces are not subject to conquest by those who would disobey the law, wreak havoc among local people, damage livelihoods and tarnish the generally superb reputation of our county town.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the announcement of the extra sitting days, and also the announcements about reform. I hope that the ancient right to trial by jury will remain. Somerset Crown court in Taunton was closed in 2023, after work began in 2022 because items were falling on people’s heads from the ceiling. We have just been told that it will be closed for another year, during which victims of crime will have to travel tens of miles further. Some court users are even sleeping under a bush because they cannot travel back and forth. We need to get our Crown court open again, so will the Lord Chancellor please consider expediting these works?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Bathing Water Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. We need to see more bathing waters not fewer. That is one of the concerns I have in this debate. Bathing waters are not just places where people swim; they are part of the identity and lifeblood of our communities across the country. As in my constituency, they are places where people come together for swimming clubs, rowing clubs, kayaking, paddleboarding, or just to enjoy the natural beauty of the river.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Bathing Water Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  Seeing the quality of the river water is key, and that is one thing that bathing water status allows us to do. In tackling the need for improvement, many local groups face an uphill battle. Sewage pollution is a national disgrace. Time and again we see reports of raw sewage being discharged into our rivers, lakes and seas, turning what should be places of recreation into sites of contamination. In my constituency, further downstream on the Tone, examples of recent discharges of untreated effluent are commonplace. At Hook stream, which could otherwise be a charming stretch of the River Tone, there have been over 188 hours of discharge in the first eight weeks of 2025 alone. Residents are rightly appalled by the sewage releases; no one should have to fear that going too close to their local river could make them ill, especially as, all the while, water companies have paid out millions of pounds in dividends and bonuses. We need flow-rate monitoring, extra stormwater storage and resources for the Environment Agency to increase enforcement, but bathing water regulations are a key tool in reducing pollution. That brings me to the main topic of the debate. There are elements of the consultation that I welcome. Removing the automatic five-year de-designation rule for bathing waters is a positive suggestion. It would simply be unfair for communities to lose the protections that come with designation just because a site has remained polluted for five years. The reality is that people will continue to swim in those waters, as they have done at French Weir for hundreds of years, regardless of whether they are officially designated. Having a high number of bathers is what allows sites to be designated, and that should continue to be the main criterion. Removing monitoring, which is what happens with de-designation, would just put rivers and their users at further risk. It would not stop people using the rivers. Water companies and regulators frequently take longer than five years to clean up sites, and people should not be punished by losing their designation because that has not happened fast enough. Let us not forget that improving water quality in bathing areas has wider benefits throughout the whole of the river’s catchment area. Improving infrastructure in bathing areas that are susceptible to flooding benefits communities along the whole length of the watercourse. Part of the problem is misalignment between the four-year rolling cycle of bathing designations and Ofwat’s five-year price review for water companies, which sets out its investment plans for the period. A newly designated bathing water often has to wait years for the price review to receive the investment required. Designation of a bathing water should be aligned with those improvements in investment. Has the Minister taken any steps to resolve that discrepancy? The health and wellbeing of those who use the water should also be a primary concern of regulation, which is why I am concerned about core reform 2 in the consultation, which proposes the introduction of feasibility tests for bathing sites. That would mean that if it is deemed too difficult or expensive to improve water quality, a site could be denied designation altogether. Who would really benefit from that approach? Certainly not the swimmers, rowers, kayakers or residents. The only people who stand to gain would be the very polluters responsible for the problem in the first place. We must not give water companies a loophole to argue that it is too costly to clean up a bathing site that people are regularly using for swimming and other recreation. Designation should be based on where people actually use the water, so will the Minister please reconsider that aspect of a perhaps well-intentioned but ultimately damaging proposal? Core reform 3 of the consultation proposes the removal of fixed bathing season dates and moving them into guidance. I welcome greater flexibility, but the now well accepted 15 May to 30 September bathing season should remain the irreducible minimum that everybody understands and knows about. This should not be a cover for reducing bathing seasons to such a short window that they become meaningless. We should be going further: year-round testing should be standard, in my opinion. We also need better quality testing, and for better integration with other monitoring systems we should be monitoring sewage volume from spills, not just hours. We should also consider testing for a wider range of bacteria than just E. coli and enterococci, especially considering other harmful pathogens such as salmonella and leptospirosis have, since 2010, contributed to a 60% rise in hospital admissions for waterborne diseases. There should be greater funding for the EA to monitor run-off into rivers as well. Only by understanding the scale of the problem will we be able to start to tackle it. This will not be prohibitively expensive. Research by Surfers Against Sewage, which I thank for all its great work on this issue, suggests the additional cost of year-round monitoring per site would be roughly £775. Across the UK, that amounts to £350,000—less than 4% of the bonuses paid to water company execs last year. That is surely an investment worth making. Will the Minister publish a review into the potential cost of year-round water testing? The reality is that our inland bathing waters are already in a dire state. While 92% of the 450 bathing waters in England meet minimum standards, that figure drops to only 53% of inland bathing waters. In contrast, Germany has almost 2,300 bathing sites, the vast majority inland. The fact that 98% of them meet minimum standards shows us what is possible. Instead of looking for ways to limit new designations, we should expand them so that more communities benefit from cleaner, safer waters. Had a feasibility requirement existed previously, we would never have seen so many bathing waters granted in the first place; perhaps there would be no more inland water bathing designations in the country. We also need urgent action to hold polluters accountable. Water companies operate on five-year investment cycles, meaning that improvements to polluted waters often get kicked down the road for years. We cannot afford to wait. We need a tougher regulator than Ofwat, one with proper powers to hold these companies to account. We also need more immediate funding to improve water quality at newly designated sites, rather than forcing them to wait for the next investment cycle, as I said. Ultimately, this debate is about a simple principle: everyone should have the right to access sites with unpolluted water. The Government must not allow water companies to dictate which sites are worthy of protection and which are not. Let us take this opportunity to strengthen, not weaken, our protection of bathing waters. It is time to expand, not limit, the sites that benefit from designation. Above all, it is time to ensure that polluters are held accountable so that future generations can enjoy bathing waters like those at French Weir, as well as our rivers, lakes and seas, without fear of pollution.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Bathing Water Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I am really grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I thank them very much. I am delighted that when I was filling in the form for bathing water status in French Weir, it was such a successful initiative that it attracted not only the support of the Opposition spokesperson but also my predecessor as Member of Parliament at the time. We were delighted to get that designation, but it would not have happened if core reform 2 was in place. Even though that bathing site has been there for hundreds of years, dating back to at least the 18th century—we have records and pictures from the 19th century of changing rooms beside the river—the designation would not have happened and people would continue using the river and they would not have the benefit of bathing water status. I urge the Minister to think carefully about introducing this very different criterion and moving away from places where people actually swim towards places where the industry think that they can afford to make the water quality better. That is the wrong criterion. The right criterion is where people are already using the river. I was in the river every Saturday in February—I did not quite make January—and people will be there throughout the year, whether or not the signs are up and it has bathing water status. I urge the Minister to think a little more on that. I reiterate my thanks to everyone for taking part. I hope the Minister will ensure a debate on the regulations when they go through this House, because they are really important for our water quality. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered bathing water regulations.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Bathing Water Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered bathing water regulations. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. It is a privilege to open this debate, and fantastic to see so many hon. Friends and Members. I am grateful to all of them, as well as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and the Minister, for their time this afternoon. We are fortunate in this country to have beautiful natural landscapes. We are blessed with an abundance of beautiful beaches, inland lakes and rivers, pre-eminent among them the River Tone, which runs through Taunton and Wellington. We are lucky to have French Weir and Longrun Meadow as one of the 27 new bathing water sites. I sincerely thank the incredible volunteers, the Friends of French Weir Park, who worked with me to apply for and achieve designated bathing water status there last year. That means that for the first time we know the river’s water quality. It is variable and now proven to be poor, generally speaking. We now have that information because it is publicly available, and we can work towards getting the investment we need to improve the water. I am sure there are similar groups across the country in the constituencies of other hon. Members.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Plan for Neighbourhoods · Hansard source

  More

  Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will the Secretary of State review the list of 75 towns, so that others can be included in future? Finally, will the Government consider rolling the plans into neighbourhood plans, so that they are given more statutory effect when planning decisions are made?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Plan for Neighbourhoods · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats welcome this plan to work with communities to improve local amenities and engagement in the process. We also welcome the move away from local council areas bidding against each other, and towards a more objective approach, based, for example, on indices of multiple deprivation. In our opinion and my opinion, the previous system divisively pitted one area against another in a way that did damage to more areas than it helped. The Liberal Democrats are committed to allowing communities to take action to improve their area. Given sufficient powers and resources, local authorities can play a major role in responding to climate and nature emergencies, whether through the insulation of homes, enhancing green spaces or improving air quality. However, the Conservative Government forced councils to do more and more with less and less, plunging many into financial crisis. As a result, councils have gone bankrupt around the country, and many are feeling the strain of cuts to public services and a lack of investment in community assets. No community can flourish without proper powers and resources, so we welcome the plan’s commitment to ensuring that new neighbourhood boards work with local authorities to implement new funding. However, we urge the Government to confirm that local authorities will be funded and resourced substantially to take on this additional workload. The financial burden on councils has forced many to make impossible choices on funding. In my council of Somerset, for example, nearly 70% of council tax receipts go on care for vulnerable adults and children, which many believe should be a national responsibility. Until we have a national solution to the care crisis, councils will continue to be held back from reaching their full potential. We welcome the Government’s commitment to investing in community-led improvement. We also welcome the new neighbourhood boards, which should provide community engagement throughout the process. We urge the Government to reconsider their decision to remove district council-level scrutiny from the planning process. Where Whitehall takes power and decisions out of the hands of local councillors, it also takes decisions out of the hands of local people. That is undemocratic and will ultimately slow up the process of getting the homes that we need. We also call on the Government to confirm that nature and climate specialists will be included on the neighbourhood boards. Finally, can I ask the Minister—

• 4 Mar 2025 · Market Towns: Cultural Heritage · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) on securing this debate. Market towns are essential to our national heritage. Taunton and Wellington have been markets since 904—not 9.04 am—and 1215, when they got their respective charters, and a market structure for Colchester has been traced back to the first century. Outside bigger cities, market towns are the basic unit of local community—the natural centre to which every local area looks—and have provided the seats of district councils for hundreds of years. However, the withdrawal of essential services in recent years has had challenging consequences for residents, particularly older people, those without digital access and small businesses. The Government are currently imposing council reorganisation, which too often exacerbates those problems by taking local decision making from our proud market towns and the jobs and resources that go with it. Ancient cities such as Colchester and Winchester will have their councils cancelled, as district councils are effectively being abolished. The Liberal Democrats reject the taking of power away from our towns. Councils should reflect natural communities, and local communities should sit at the top of decision making, not at the bottom. It is therefore time for the Government to support market towns better and the markets they provide. Promoting local markets increases footfall in our town centres, creates community spirit in our all-too-often online world and provides an outlet for local produce, which travels fewer food miles to get there. For the shops, pubs and other venues in market towns, we were disappointed that the Government did not go further to reform business rates in the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, and we were disappointed with the reduction in discounts available to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. The Bill will not scrap business rates or deliver the fundamental reform to business rates that the Liberal Democrats have called for to benefit small businesses and those in our cultural sector. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and the heart of local communities, and they create the jobs that we all rely on. The Liberal Democrats are fighting for small businesses, starting with a call for more support for their energy costs and a complete overhaul of the unfair business rates system. Business rates are harmful to the economy because they directly tax capital investment in structures and equipment, rather than the profits or the fixed stock of land. To benefit small businesses, we would therefore abolish business rates and replace them with a commercial landowner levy so that investment in shops and buildings is no longer disincentivised, as it is now. That leads to far too many remaining empty on our high streets, as business rates are one of the biggest obstacles to letting commercial premises. As a result, the most deprived areas will see the biggest fall in amounts paid in business rates, whereas some big shops in high-value areas will see increases. The change to national insurance contributions will be completely counterproductive for businesses in market towns, and particularly small businesses. Businesses in Taunton and Wellington town centres, including our theatres and museums, as elsewhere, face a triple whammy of increasing business rates, increasing wage bills and higher national insurance costs for every person they employ. That comes after years of trying to survive the pandemic and some of the highest rates of inflation and interest that have ever been seen in this country under the previous Conservative Government. It is no wonder, as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has shown, that this new jobs tax means that firms are planning to reduce their headcount through redundancies or by recruiting fewer workers. Every market town has its care homes and private care providers. For older people, the cultural heritage of market towns and town centres often make them great places to live. Last week, I was delighted to host Somerset’s Registered Care Providers Association and Linden House here in Parliament. They are struggling with the increased cost of care due to the increase in national insurance contributions. We therefore urge the Government to accept the amendment passed in the House of Lords, proposed by my noble Friend Baroness Barker, to exempt care providers from those increases, because it will be vulnerable people and their loved ones who have to pay. The Government claim that the national insurance hike will result in additional revenue of £25 billion, but the Office for Budget Responsibility clearly states that after employers in the public sector are compensated and other employers change their employment habits by reducing headcount or pay, the Treasury will be left with revenue closer to only £10 billion a year. The Government could have raised that amount through a number of other fairer tax changes, such as those we put in our manifesto. Reversing the Conservative tax cuts handed to the big banks would generate an extra £4.2 billion every year, and increasing the digital services tax to 6% would generate another £2 billion a year. They could have introduced a fair reform to capital gains tax so that the 0.1% of ultra-wealthy individuals pay their fair share, while keeping things the same or even cutting tax for other capital gains tax payers to generate another £5.2 billion per year. The OBR makes it clear that, precisely because this tax rise will be passed on to people’s salaries, it will have a negative effect on living conditions. This comes after five years under the Conservative party that saw living standards fall year on year. The last thing people need now is a reduction in their incomes. We recognise the new Government have been left to make difficult choices, but they must not allow the burden of fixing the Conservatives’ mess to fall on working people and small businesses in market towns and elsewhere. We also need to support market towns with better public transport. The increase in the fare cap to £3 is a bus tax that will hit working people, rural communities and people on low incomes most especially. Delaying station projects such as the new stations proposed to serve the market towns of Wellington in my constituency and Cullompton in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) is also a mistake for the economic growth and new housing the Government want to see. Those decisions will both make congestion worse and travel by public transport more expensive. Of course, for rural communities, it does not matter if the bus fare cap is £2 or £3 if they do not have a bus service in the first place. Market towns need proper rail and bus services if they are to thrive and survive. At the very least, the bus fare hike should be scrapped. Other initiatives are needed to boost our market towns, to properly fund local councils, especially when it comes to social care, so they can focus on other things to support market towns and businesses, to support more planning and conservation officers, which the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford spoke eloquently about, to introduce free parking periods to enable town centres to compete with out-of-town and online retailers, to grant permitted development rights under planning controls for outdoor markets, and, with the ending of the rural services delivery grant, to provide rural councils with a funding settlement that properly reflects the impact of rurality and sparsity on the areas they serve through the application of a fair funding formula. But fundamentally our market towns and the businesses that sustain them need three things: an end to business rates that punish our town centres and high streets; good public transport; and an end to loading taxes on small businesses, which we need to provide the seeds of recovery in our great economy. The Liberal Democrats will do all three.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report · Hansard source

  More

  Liberal Democrats stand firmly with the many bereaved family members, as well as the immediate community, friends and neighbours, as they mourn the 72 people, including children, who tragically lost their lives in 2017. Any steps regarding changes to the building will be a deeply personal matter for that community, and I know that the Secretary of State will approach any decisions about the future of the building with due respect for the local community, survivors and victims. We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to work with the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission to design a memorial, and we urge the Government to approach the discussion with respect and sympathy for those who suffered, as I am sure the Secretary of State will do. As we approach eight years since the Grenfell fire, Liberal Democrats are concerned that there are still thousands of people in the UK living in buildings with dangerous cladding. The Grenfell inquiry provided a detailed look at the facts leading up to the night of 14 June 2017, including looking at the underlying causes of the fire, where mistakes were made, the condition of the tower and the responses of the public and the emergency services. On the recommendations to the architectural profession, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I am a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects. There are lessons to be learned by ever authority in the land. We recognise that the previous Government provided funding to start the process of dealing with cladding, which is slowly being allocated, but it is now time to accelerate that vital work to make all buildings safe. We are concerned that too many developers and building owners are passing the cost of remediation work on to tenants and leaseholders, which puts many at serious financial risk. Liberal Democrats endorse all 57 recommendations of the Grenfell inquiry phase 2 report by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, including the creation of legally enforceable orders to remediate premises so they are safe, on pain of criminal sanction. However, we need to take further steps to guard against commercial interests overriding safety, as they did in both the testing of materials and the enforcement of building regulations. We would like to see more done to ensure that commerciality will not, shockingly and disgracefully, override interests of safety ever again. It is time to invest in our housing stock so that the cladding is dealt with. It is time for justice for the victims and for all those living in unsafe housing. Lib Dems stand ready to work across parties to do achieve that.

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Rental Auctions · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) on bringing this key issue for our town centres to Westminster Hall. I was elected on a platform that focused in part on bringing inward investment to Taunton and Wellington, and that passion is close to my heart. Taunton and Wellington town centres are already attractive and vibrant places to visit, to shop and for leisure. Occupancy rates in Taunton town centre have increased from 85% to 90%; more new businesses are moving in. Somerset County Gazette reports seven new businesses in the town centre in the past 12 months: Cornish Bakery, Koottaan, Desparia, Somerset Bakehouse, Toys “R” Us, Drippy Bear and Islands Caribbean restaurant—not a vape shop among them, which is good to see for our town centre. In Wellington, street food and food festivals bring people in from far and wide, and a new banking hub has opened. My only objection to the new banking hub, which is great news for Wellington, is that it is run by the Post Office, with a sign above the door saying “Post Office”, but there is no post office inside. Wellington still needs a post office, and we hope that the Government will see the light and decide that buildings with “Post Office” on the outside should contain a post office. We will continue working on that as hard as we can. On Sundays, Taunton has a fantastic new independent market, which brings people in from far and wide. However, one building is a particular issue for our town centre. It was built as a W & A Chapman department store in 1938, and was substantially remodelled in the ’60s, just after Debenhams took it over in 1959. It is a large, handsome building, and a real landmark in the centre of our town—one of the biggest buildings in the heart of our town centre, if not the largest. However, it has stood empty, sadly, for around four years now. I welcome the high street auction provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which could be extremely useful. However, the powers to allow councils to carry out high street rental auctions are subject to a number of restrictions. Auctions apply to commercial premises that have been vacant for at least one year out of the past two, which is a reasonable requirement—so far, so good. They must also meet a suitability requirement—this is getting a bit doubtful. Then there are process and landlord obligations: local authorities can issue a final letting notice compelling a landlord to rent the property via auction, which is obviously a good move. The property must also be offered at a fair market rent, which is reasonable. Then there is an appeal mechanism, so there are more catches. One potential challenge is that the auction’s success depends on tenant demand. Who will define tenant demand? If we do not attempt an auction, how will we discover what tenant demand is? The appeal process provides a number of areas for challenge by the landowner. Whether or not high street rental auctions are suitable for that particular Debenhams building, I am concerned about the number of exceptions from the powers. The guidance says: “High Street Rental Auctions will not be suitable for all high street premises; for instance, large former department stores may be subject to long-term, complex redevelopment plans which may be negatively impacted by being subject to inclusion.” Presumably, any owner of a former department store could say, “My department store is subject to complex, long-term redevelopment plans, which could be negatively impacted by a high street auction.” A whole class of town centre buildings—some of the biggest we have—therefore seem to be excluded from high street rental auctions, which is a real drawback and a real shame. The guidance also says that auctions will not be appropriate “should the local authority consider that there is not likely to be a sufficient tenant base and demand for the premises”. As I said, how do we know what the demand for the premises is if we have not attempted to market them through high street auctions? I urge the Government to look at the guidance and the powers, and to see whether they could be applied to some of the biggest, most iconic buildings in our town centres, which are of course empty department stores. Even in a healthy town centre such as Taunton’s, the presence of one large building that remains empty can be a real problem. Whether or not it is suitable for a high street auction, the building in question in Taunton really needs attention; it needs to be dealt with, because it has been empty since 2021. Planning permission was sought in 2020 to demolish it and build apartments. That application was withdrawn, but it could have been refused. The Twentieth Century Society praised the building’s architecture and made it subject to a listing application, although it did not quite make the grade. It has an important place in the hearts of people in Taunton. It has 7,000 square metres of floor space, so it is a big building. Many believe that it could be saved and reused. It occupies a fantastic location, with the River Tone on one side, one of the key town centre streets on the frontage, and our fantastic Taunton castle on a third side, which has been the historic seat of government in the county of Somerset for hundreds of years. One reason why the building might be suitable for refurbishment is that demolishing it would bring a requirement to carry out archaeological investigations. During the previous application, Historic England produced one of the lengthiest representations I have ever seen, which suggested that investigations would be required. If the building is not demolished, that work would not be needed, which would potentially be a much cheaper operation for the owners. We have tried to engage with the owners of the building, but it has been challenging. The town council and groups of architects have brought forward schemes for the building, but they have been unable to get floor plans or really engage with the owners. I reached out and wrote to the owners via recorded delivery, email and all the other methods I could think of, and I was pleased that Ropemaker Properties recently came back to me. I am grateful to the company for offering to meet me and Taunton town council to discuss how this important building can be brought back into use, and for putting that meeting in the diary. Finally, I urge the Government to think about the extent of these powers and whether big department stores should be completely excluded from them.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Future Skills Programmes: Universities · Hansard source

  More

  Where a major international investor is coming into the country—such as Tata, where 4,000 new employees will be needed—does the DFE support colleges and universities to set up the new apprenticeship and training programmes that they need in preparation for that massive international investment?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Future Skills Programmes: Universities · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the UK is to get the growth it needs from the new Tata Agratas gigafactory in Somerset, the University Centre Somerset in my constituency needs support from the Government to prepare the 4,000 new workers with the skills they need before they arrive?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats are concerned that without planning officers in place we simply will not deliver the homes that we need. Homes are less likely to be the genuinely affordable, nature-positive and zero carbon ones that we all want to see. As has been referred to, there is a £362 million shortfall for planning authorities after the fee is taken into account. The Royal Town Planning Institute has pointed out that there is a lack of robust data on how many officers there are per region, per local area. That is a concern in itself; without that data we cannot have a realistic picture of how the service can be improved. The Home Builders Federation, through a freedom of information request, pointed out that 80% of local planning authorities are operating below capacity, which is not where we need to be if we are to address the housing crisis. We want to see authorities given more flexibility to set their own fees, determined locally by those communities. We would like to see minimum ringfenced funding for local planning authorities. In a previous debate, the Minister referred to guidance on ringfencing. I would be grateful if he could say more about how funding and budgets within hard-pressed local authorities can be ringfenced for a planning service that is important to people and their local economies. We welcome the 300 additional planning officers announced by the Government, but fewer than one graduate per council area will not have a massive impact. We need to see more than that in our planning departments. Taken together, those measures would help to address the need for better services for our local communities and our councils. Planning officers and councils are not blockers; they are the problem-solvers. If we are to have housing that is genuinely affordable and net zero, delivering biodiversity net gain, we need planning officers in place and councils to be supported. That is especially so at a time when the social care crisis is putting pressure on local councils. Funding is rightly being diverted for frontline care operations. The previous Government took nearly £1 billion out of funding earmarked to reform social care. Unless local government funding is properly reformed, and social care as a key part of that is delivered, councils will continue to struggle and lean on other departments for cuts and savings. Planning departments will continue to suffer, however many statutory instruments are passed. Until those issues are addressed, we suggest that the proposals do not go far enough. However, they are welcome, and we will support them as a small step in the right direction.