Gideon Amos MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

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

  More

  It is absolutely right to say that we should be moving to zero carbon homes. In fact, one study shows that had they been introduced in 2015, new homeowners would have saved £9 billion. Our new clause 25, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), would give key national landscape partnerships, such as in the mellow and beautiful Blackdown hills in my constituency, a seat at the planning table. As we see species becoming extinct before our eyes, people want to see new homes and nature thrive together. Crucially, our new clause 1 would put back the pre-eminent principle in all this: wherever possible, we must first do no harm to the environment on the sites that are being impacted. Of course, there are circumstances such as phosphate mitigation, where off-site measures can deal with the problem, but by completely removing from EDPs the hierarchy of mitigating impacts first and foremost on site, the Bill provides what the National Trust has called a “licence to kill nature”.

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

  More

  I certainly agree that part 3 requires amending. Our amendments seek to do that, as I will come to shortly. People want to see development that treads lightly on the land and reduces harmful emissions. Our new clause 2 would enforce the zero carbon standard for all new homes, on which the Liberal Democrats and Labour Ministers worked so hard before the Conservatives cancelled the whole zero carbon homes programme in 2015.

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

  More

  rose—

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is very perceptive and hard-working on this issue. He raises a significant problem with the current standard method, and I pay tribute to him. It is not just the standard method that is dictated from Whitehall; so too are rules on second homes and short-term lets, so communities cannot stem the loss of family homes for local people—something that our new clause 20 would put right. Rules on transport and highway capacity are also set by Whitehall, so local authorities such as my own Cheddon Fitzpaine parish council cannot question them. In the battle between underfunded local authorities and developers with big profits to make, Whitehall rules also mean that commitments to deliver affordable housing and infrastructure can all too often be evaded on grounds of viability—something that our new clause 112 would tackle by requiring an absolute minimum of 20% social housing in any development. No wonder trust in local politics is at such a low. That has only been made worse by the chaos of the previous Conservative Government: with one rule for them and another for everyone else, basic fairness went out the window. The UK may rightly be ranked among the top 20 countries in the world by Transparency International, but nothing undermines fairness more than foul play, even if it is, as we know, very rare. Our new clause 11 would ensure that never again can Ministers favour a planning application from a donor without that being exposed in the public record. It cannot ever be right for a planning decision to be taken by those who will financially benefit from it. Trust in the fairness of local democracy is so often shaped by how much trust people have in the local planning processes. Our amendment 1 would remove from this Bill the powers it gives Whitehall to control the running of councils, and the rights of councillors to make decisions on planning applications. The powers in this Bill mean that, for the first time, even a unanimous decision by every single councillor will not be enough to enable them to change a decision that their officers or planning consultants made on their behalf. Giving employees and consultants power over the heads of the elected representatives who employ them is a dangerous step, and no Parliament should endorse it. It is not just elected councillors who will lose their vote on planning. Members of this House will lose their vote when it comes to changes to national policy statements that set the rules for the largest national infrastructure projects, from Hinkley C and Swansea tidal lagoon to the world’s biggest offshore and onshore wind and solar farms. Our amendment 128 would allow the Government to change national policy statements to reflect changes in the law, but it would preserve this House’s right to decide whether national policy on massive projects should be changed.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the thousands of homes that have planning permission and have not been built, including the 11,000 we have in Somerset. While I welcome what the Government have said about bringing those forward, a real “use it or lose it” power is missing from the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have tabled new clause 3 so that, unless those homes are built, the local authority would have powers to take over the land and to build the houses. That would ensure a real “use it or lose it” penalty for those that do not build out the permissions that they have. Pitting communities and nature as the enemies of progress and development would be a massive mistake. Taking power away from councillors is taking it away from local people, and taking power away from Members of Parliament is taking it from the hands of the people who elect us to this place. Both are examples of centralisation and “Whitehall knows best” thinking, in which local views count for little and nature for even less. There is another way to build the hundreds of thousands of homes we need. It is to invest in 150,000 social homes per year to pump-prime our industry, give communities the funding for the jobs, transport, green space and energy infrastructure that our constituents want, build the new GP and healthcare facilities before building the houses and homes our communities will need, and build them in ways that will support rather than harm those communities.

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

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady and the other Select Committee Chairs for taking up an issue that we took up in Committee, and about which there has been concern across the House. The Government may wish to change NPSs in the light of legal judgments, but does she agree that changes to them for policy reasons, particularly when they affect massive projects like Hinkley Point C and Sizewell, should continue to come before the House?

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

  More

  Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that the Government are not receptive to amendments to part 3 that would restore the mitigation hierarchy and protection for irreplaceable species and ancient woodland?

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

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point he makes. It is vital to protect the character of existing places and communities that are so valued, which is why we want a more locally driven approach to assessing housing numbers and local plan making. Finally, if we build the GP surgeries, the healthcare and the other infrastructure before the homes, we will be building in the interests of our communities, not against them. That is the kind of community-led development that Liberal Democrats want and that our amendments would help to bring about, and I humbly urge Members to support them.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Social Housing Supply · Hansard source

  More

  Jess in my constituency had all her possessions and bags put on the pavement outside the hotel and was locked out of her bedroom with her baby by hotel management—shocking behaviour on their part. With £2 billion being spent by local authorities on temporary accommodation, would it not be better to have a national target for the number of social homes that are going to be built? What steps will the Government be taking to set such a target?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend share my concern about Hatchers department store in Taunton? It was founded in 1775, but because of the combined effects of the change in business rates and the revaluation, it has seen its business rates go up by 144% in one year.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Regional Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The Chief Secretary will know that the benefits of the Cullompton and Wellington stations project would bring tens of thousands of people to the city, the metro region and the Cardiff-Bristol-Exeter corridor. Thanks to a cost-benefit ratio of almost 4:1, will he acknowledge the strength of the case for that project, as set out in the letter he received from his hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) and for Exeter (Steve Race) and from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord)?

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

  More

  Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the community in north Taunton on getting the first No. 1 bus of the morning—the 6.22 am service—restored? I had the joy of experiencing it this morning, tinged only with the tiredness that results from having got the 6.22. Does he agree that we need specific funding so that bus services can properly connect with hospitals, such as Taunton’s Musgrove Park hospital and many others?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Gaza: UK Nationals Visa Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents in Taunton have a proud record of supporting refugees; they would support refugees from Gaza, as they do those from other countries. But charities that support refugees come to me with concerns about the asylum accommodation being allocated to the town. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the concerns about the latest allocations, on which I was not consulted, and about which I received no notification?

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will be brief as we come to the last couple of new clauses that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to speak to today. I was speaking to new clause 101, which relates to playing fields. Fields in Trust is a charity that helps to protect playing fields and green spaces. Its public green space index is a way to track change over time, and it consistently finds inequality of access: one in three children do not have a playground close to home and 6.3 million people live more than 10 minutes away in walking time from a green space. The new clause would place a duty on local planning authorities to protect playing fields and pitches from development. In March this year—a couple of months ago—the Government announced that some organisations, including Sport England, will no longer be statutory consultees on planning decisions, in order to speed up development. The press release states: “The NPPF is clear that existing open spaces, sports, recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless an assessment has shown the space to be surplus to requirements or it will be replaced by equivalent or better provision.” The Government argued that such protections were sufficient, but Sport England states that: “from 2022-23 alone it protected more than 1,000 playing fields across the country.” That was in a Guardian article where it was reported that thousands of playing fields may be lost. The protections in the NPPF are therefore not sufficient. The effect of removing Sport England as a statutory consultee can only be to speed up development on playing fields. Sport England has also stated that “it responds to over 98% of applications within 21 days and that in 70% of statutory applications it does not object.” There is not a source of unnecessary delay as a result of Sport England being involved in the process. If those provisions are being removed, then the Government need to put in place more robust legal provisions for playing fields. The new clause would do that so that important community assets are not lost.

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would remove section 150 from the Planning Act 2008, which would restore the ability to elected Ministers, when making decisions on NSIPs, to make decisions on other consents, which is currently reserved to executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies. In other aspects of the Planning Act, these big development consent order projects are intended to follow a single-consenting regime, which works reasonably well. As we discussed earlier today, it includes a listed building consent, conservation area consent and a whole range of other matters. Certain consents are reserved to other executive agencies—or quangos, we might say. That is time consuming, as it obstructs the principle of a single, one-stop shop for these big projects. It is also less democratic even than the Secretary of State taking the decision. Industry is keen on this new clause. Another reason to table it was to show the Minister that we also have proposals to speed up the process, where that does not remove people’s democratic say. The new clause would enhance that democratic say, because it would restore to elected Ministers some of the decisions that are currently reserved to unelected arm’s length bodies. The new clause is offered in the spirit of improving the Planning Act 2008 regime.

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 101 concerns the protection of playing fields, which are vital to people’s health and wellbeing by creating important opportunities for physical activity, with multiple benefits for mental health and physical health. Following the Government’s decision to withdraw Fields in Trust from the list of statutory consultees, there is widespread concern about the loss of playing fields and the under-provision of play and green spaces— [ Interruption. ]

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It continues to be a privilege to serve the Committee with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse, and a pleasure to serve under my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). I am very grateful for the opportunity to respond to what the Minister has said on this new clause. It is worth pointing out that the new clause would not reintroduce all the procedural requirements that are being removed from the Planning Act 2008. It would place a test in the Bill that, as the Minister has just said, will already be applied, because it is in the guidance. If it is already being applied under guidance, I am not sure why the Government feel that it will be so detrimental and delay applications to such a great extent. Including this provision in the Bill would give the Secretary of State the clear ability to refuse an application where that consultation has been wholly and completely inadequate. Take, for example, an applicant who comes forward after completely refusing to consult anybody on anything. There would be nothing in the Bill that expressly allows the Minister to take that into account when deciding whether to accept the application for examination. I know that the Committee would like to make progress, so I will not press the new clause to a vote. I think the point has been made, and I hope the Government will consider it further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 95 Repeal of requirement for agreement to removal of consent in DCOs “In the Planning Act 2008, omit section 150 (removal of consent requirements).”— (Gideon Amos.) This amendment to the Planning Act 2008 would remove the existing requirement that development consent orders can only remove a requirement for consent or authorisation with the agreement of the relevant consenting body. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Would the Minister not agree that the problem of locking-in could be countered by giving a lead-in time of six or 12 months? After that time, there would be a need for planning permission to continue with a short-term let, for example.

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 101 Preservation of playing fields and pitches “(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches. (2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to— (a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development; or (b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches. (3) For the purposes of this section, ‘playing fields’ and ‘playing pitches’ have the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.”— (Gideon Amos.) Brought up, and read the First time.

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak on new clauses 105 and 106, which are the final new clauses in these debates—I know how disappointed Government Members will be to hear that news. They are a couple of important new clauses, and I will spend a couple of minutes on them. There are, of course, well discussed and rehearsed arguments about second homes and short-term lets and their effect on existing communities. New clause 105 would take the position in Wales, where there are separate use classes for short-term lets and second homes to enable them to be regulated, and extend that across to England. New clause 106 would ensure that planning permission was required to change a dwelling house to a second home or a short-term let. The previous Government indicated that they would legislate on short-term lets and allow planning authorities, local councils, to determine their extent, and that is what this is really about. Of course, second homes can be great for the local economy by bringing people to the area to spend money, but when they become a huge proportion of that local town or community, they can lead to businesses being closed and trade going away if the homes are left empty for too long. The same can apply to short-term lets. In Cornwall, there are 13,000 second homes. In Somerset, my own county, there are 4,200 second homes. In recent years, there has been a staggering 30% increase. The whole point of the two new clauses is that they would give local planning authorities the ability to plan and to say what the appropriate level of short-term lets and second homes in their communities was. It would give them the ability to set those policies themselves and to grant or refuse planning permissions in accordance with the policies, so that they could do what is right for their areas to ensure that they do not suffer from too many short-term lets and second homes, which are pulling resources out of their communities. We believe that the new clauses are vital and needed by councils around the country, and we urge the Government, at least on short-term lets, to make good on the previous commitment to introduce planning controls, not just taxation controls. Planning controls are needed because they shape the community in which people live and over which councils have a say.

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We do not agree with the Government’s approach in removing Sport England as a statutory consultee. We are concerned that that will only lead to more development on playing fields. I will not detain the Committee with a vote, but I think that our position is clear. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn . New Clause 103 Local Area Energy Plans “(1) All local authorities and combined authorities must create a Local Area Energy Plan. (2) For the purposes of this section, a ‘Local Area Energy Plan’ means an outline of how the relevant authority proposes to transition its area’s energy system to Net Zero.”— (Olly Glover.) This new clause would require all local and combined authorities to develop Local Area Energy Plans which set out how they will meet their Net Zero goals. Brought up, and read the First time .

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clauses 98 and 99 would require the Government to review permitted development rights and land acquisition rights for the electricity distribution network. The electricity distribution network is about 200,000 kilometres of bending overhead lines. If we are going to deliver net zero and economic growth, the anomalies now appearing in the system need to be addressed. There is a massive challenge for us in delivering more local renewable energy installations, as more farmers want batteries and more people want solar panels on their roofs. The stress on the distribution network is significant—the Minister will know a lot more about this than I do—and we need to upgrade our distribution network as rapidly as possible. That reminds me of a seminar I once organised, when someone from National Grid said, “You can tell the road with all the solar panels on the roofs by the substation on fire at the end of it.” We really need to find a way to resolve the overloading of the distribution network, which can pose risks—though hopefully not fires—and challenges to those trying to upgrade their local network. I have a couple of examples. Where there is a row of poles with two cables on them going across a field, just to put a third cable on there requires a planning application. When we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of kilometres of electricity line, that seems overly rigorous and constrained. Similarly, if someone wishes to increase the height of the poles by more than 10%—let us say they want to increase them by 12%—that would require a full planning application process. We hope these new clauses are self-explanatory in their aim of to moving us closer and faster towards delivering on communities’ net zero ambitions. I have growing confidence that the Government will accept these new clauses without any further debate—but I have always been an optimist. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hope you and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) have not been discussing that this is to be my final time as the spokesperson, Mrs Hobhouse, but I am grateful for your introduction. It is the final time in this Committee—I definitely agree with you there. We believe this is a crucial issue and that the argument is well made for legislating for planning controls. I am genuinely grateful to the Minister for committing to taking further action, but we on the Liberal Democrat Benches remain absolutely resolute that this needs legislation, so we will push the new clause to a vote. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.

• 22 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am concerned that this smacks of certain parts of Government reserving to themselves decisions that could easily come under one Secretary of State, and would be the one-stop shop that we would all like to see. In the interests of time, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 96 Review of land value capture “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of land value capture. (2) A review under this section must consider— (a) the benefits of different methods of land value capture; (b) international best practice; (c) how changes to existing practice could assist in the meeting of housing targets and the delivery of critical infrastructure and public services; and (d) how any changes to existing practice could be incorporated into UK planning law. (e) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the conclusion of the review, lay before Parliament a report on the findings of the review.”— (Olly Glover.) This new clause would require a review into methods of land value capture, to ensure the public benefit from instances where land value rises sharply, and for this to be considered to be incorporated into UK planning legislation. Brought up, and read the First time.