Lewis Cocking MP: speeches

188 published records · newest first.

Speeches

13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I support giving consumers choice and making it easier to install electric car charging points. This will be a massive help for people in flats—if they want to make the switch to an EV and cannot charge their vehicle at home, the more public charging points there are, the better—but we need to think about it carefully. My constituents are fed up with multiple utility companies digging up the roads willy-nilly—sometimes, the same stretch of road. There does not seem to be any logic behind where roadworks will be, and multiple roadworks happen at the same time. We need to issue guidance. If utility companies, councils and other authorities are going to install loads of charging points, it needs to be done in a logical way. What work are the Government doing with all the different companies and operators in this space? We do not want to see consumers turning up to different charge points that all have different connectors. We need to make this as easy as possible for the consumer, no matter what car they drive. I reiterate that we cannot just dig up roads willy-nilly. What discussions are the Government having with the companies in this space to make it as easy as possible for consumers to access charge points?
13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I appreciate the Minister’s correction of what I said—the Government are less generous than I interpreted, in terms of the £2,500 over 10 years. But can he give us some warm words about this not replacing any consultation and say that it is on top of all of the consultation and residents being allowed to have their say, and that we will not allow electricity companies just to pay some money and then get away without doing any consultation at all? Can he give us some reassurances on that?
13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I completely understand where the Minister is coming from on specific applications just for roads. I suppose my comments were related to new towns or garden villages, where there will be lots of facets to those applications—house building, new roads and what have you. I therefore welcome the Minister’s comments on the fact that he will look at those issues that I have raised.
13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source
More
I have a few comments, although I support the principle of this provision. There is not enough capacity in some planning departments, so I agree that fee cost recovery and some of the additional fees, particularly those relating to highways matters, are really important for local authorities, but I have a few questions. When will the money be paid? Will it be paid before the development has started, so there is capacity in the system? People sometimes make planning applications and get planning permissions but do not actually build out the development, so will the fees still need to be paid in those cases? I have some concerns that I would like the Minister to comment on. Some authorities still have section 106 agreements, and I am concerned that developers will just move money from those section 106 agreements—money that is to be put into education or healthcare, for example—by saying in a viability assessment that they now have to pay these fees to the local authorities, particularly around highways. How can we stop it being the same money, just moved around? These fees should be additional to the money from section 106 agreements that the council was already getting, as they are going directly into capacity issues within planning departments. I am worried that developers will try to play games by just moving the same money around the system or cutting the same pie in a different way, which will not help local authorities. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to those comments, but I wholeheartedly support what the Government are trying to do in this specific case.
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
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise in support of amendment 83, in which the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland sets out a fair and reasonable system as to what benefits people living near new energy infrastructure should be able to get. It is important to note that the House of Commons Library says that the Government are minded to set aside £2,500 a year for 10 years. The Government should be able to find it within themselves to support our amendment, considering we do not even go as far as the provision that they suggested, according to the House of Commons Library. This amendment should be an easy step to get to where the Government want to go. I do have some concerns. It has been raised in Committee before that this provision cannot be a simple solution to not doing any consultation. We still need a belt-and-braces consultation, and I want to hear some clear words from the Minister to say that this will not replace that—residents will still be able to have their say, and there will still be a full and proper consultation when new energy infrastructure comes forward. I am disappointed to see in the legislation hardly any detail about what the community benefit scheme will be. I have said before that if we leave too much ambiguity, electricity providers and developers will want to get away with paying nothing at all or as little as possible. We should not allow that to happen. We should allow people—our constituents—who live near energy infra-structure projects to get the best deal possible, considering that they will have to put up with a lot of disruption. I have some constituents who live near large housing developments. There is a lot of disruption during the construction phase, so I want more detail about what the Government intend to set out. As I have said, a House of Commons Library paper said that the Government were minded to go to £2,500 a year. The Government should therefore have no issue supporting the amendment because it does not go as far as that. It sets out reasonable benefits that everyone should expect across the country, leaving less to ambiguity and putting power into the hands of this Parliament scrutinising this legislation rather than developers and electricity providers because, as I said, they will want to get away with paying as little as possible.
12 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
How is the Minister working with the Department for Education to ensure that when young people leave education, they have the skills they need to thrive in the world of work?
12 May 2025 · Immigration System · Hansard source
More
My constituency of Broxbourne has a hotel that is used to house illegal asylum seekers. This has placed huge pressure on local GP surgeries and schools, which are already overstretched, and my constituents and I have had enough. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss this issue, and can she tell me when the hotel housing illegal asylum seekers in my constituency of Broxbourne will close?
6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source
More
I politely say to the hon. Gentleman that if he will wait, I am coming on to that point in my speech. There are a range of parking issues that all affect this situation. The issues around planning and getting the right number of parking spaces are already evident in Marsh Close in my constituency. Constituents there have written to me to share their frustrations about struggling to find space to park close to their home—why? Because not enough cars were catered for when the development was built. The Government’s new national planning policy framework expects parking to be integral to the design of new housing schemes. That is vital and should be applied in every new development. Almost every development I see needs more parking spaces, so the Government must prioritise it. Constituents have also been in contact to tell me stories of dreadful treatment by the handful of rogue parking companies, as we have heard from Members from across the Chamber today. Outrageously, Parkingeye has repeatedly sent threatening letters to one of my constituents, demanding money, without even providing an explanation of why they had received the fine in the first place. Across the country, 14.5 million parking tickets will be issued to drivers this year. Too often, parking firms deliberately work to fleece motorists for as much money as they can, with misleading and confusing signage, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees. That must stop. The Government must get a grip on these cowboy operators, stop this war on motorists and deal with the other parking issues that our constituents are always contacting us about.
6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source
More
We did try to implement some of the recommendations from the consultation; the courts and the private companies that threatened legal action were the reason why we could not do that. I hope this Government will answer those questions and reply to that consultation, as the hon. Member rightly says; I would not go near a primary or secondary school in my constituency during school pick-up and drop-off time. Sadly, it is often parents taking their children to school who are parking dangerously, and that affects other children going to the same school. We must do something about that. I firmly believe that councils and councillors, who understand their local areas, should have the power to tackle inconsiderate parking. The Minister speaks about devolving more responsibility to local authorities. Will that include the power for local authorities, if they so wish, to ban pavement parking? When it comes to parking, local people also need a say from a planning perspective. In my constituency, a new development has been proposed with just 17 spare spaces for 80 flats. If only half those flats contain two people—a couple who both drive—spaces will run out very quickly indeed, forcing more cars on to already full neighbouring roads.
6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Members for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) and for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate. As we have heard from across the Chamber, there are many examples of rogue parking companies. Before I begin, I will just note that this is my first opportunity to reply to a debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition—not bad for a boy from Broxbourne—so please go easy on me. Luckily, both I and my constituents have plenty of experience of dealing with parking problems—as do many Members across the Chamber, as we have heard, with passionate contributions from Members on both sides of the Chamber, including the right hon. Member—sorry, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); he should be a right hon. Member. It would not be a debate in this Chamber without him in attendance. I noted down many comments from Members across the Chamber, but I will not go through them; I will just say that I heard nothing that I disagreed with about these cowboy parking companies. I think everyone has agreed with everything that everyone else has said and that action needs to be taken on rogue parking companies. Parking is a crucial part of everyday life, but too often it is overlooked because it is not a glamorous political issue. When parking is too hard to find, too expensive or just too complicated, it can have a ripple effect on the local economy and the basic quality of life of all our constituents. I would like to make a number of practical points to the Minister and I look forward to the Government taking constructive steps to make things easier and better as soon as possible. Although Labour’s manifesto failed to mention parking—its priorities clearly lying elsewhere—the Conservatives pledged to roll out the national parking platform fully, ending the ludicrous situation of someone needing one app on their phone to park in one car park, another app to park in the car park down the road and so on. A single payment system would make paying easier, especially for older people. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), said in February that options were being explored with the parking industry to deliver that platform, so let me ask today’s Minister: how are those discussions going, and when will we see action on that matter? Can he confirm whether the funding for the pilot version of the national parking platform ceased on 31 March? While making parking easier for drivers, there is a balance to be struck between making simpler regulations and protecting pedestrians and local residents. At the last election, we promised to give councils the power to ban pavement parking if they so wish, provided that they engage with businesses and residents first to ensure that they are not adversely affected. It is incredibly frustrating for pedestrians to find their path blocked by inconsiderate cars; for those with disabilities or young children in prams, it can mean the choice between a dangerous detour and not continuing their journey at all. My sister has used a wheelchair to get around Hoddesdon and sadly has been forced into busy roads too many times. At its most serious, inconsiderate parking can be a matter of life and death. I am sad to say that in my Broxbourne constituency there was a case in which an ambulance was unable to reach a person experiencing a 999 medical emergency, with paramedics having to run down the road because cars were parked too closely on both sides of it. In my previous role as the local county councillor, I was able to respond immediately by putting in place practical double yellow lines to ensure that that could never happen again, while ensuring that parking was still available.
6 May 2025 · Parking Regulation · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister assure us that he will go back and look at the national planning policy framework, to ensure that local development plans include enough spaces? I regularly visit developments in my constituency, and every one needs more parking.
29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?
29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister elaborate on why he did not support amendment 80, which we have just discussed, on planning fees going to local councils to resource planning departments? What is the difference between that and him saying to Scottish Ministers under this clause that they can charge a fee, but that it has to go to the resourcing of dealing with these applications?
29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
The Minister talks about energy security and bringing down bills, and of course we need to have more renewables online to do that, but we also need to issue new oil and gas licences so that we can produce more energy at home. That would help with what he is suggesting.
29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
It says that the Minister expects that money to be put into the system to make the system better. Why has he done that in this case when he did not support the amendment doing it?
29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?
29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source
More
Let me try a third time. According to the explanatory notes laid out by the Government: “The objective of this change is to better resource the processing of necessary wayleaves applications by the Scottish government.” The Minister is therefore directing the Scottish Government to spend the money that they get in through this process on that planning process. How is that different from amendment 80 which we discussed earlier and the Government said they will not accept?
29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
Does my hon. Friend agree that removing the pre-planning application consultation entirely places too much trust in developers? Sometimes developers build absolute rubbish. I do not want them to spend too much money on something that does not have some sort of community support, or support from Government agencies. The Bill could jeopardise that, if we remove the consultation completely.
29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I just want to press him a little more. He is saying that people can choose to go through the Town and Country Planning Act regime, but we were always told by this Government that that is a long, arduous process that developments take a really long time to go through. Why are they suggesting that they might want to put more development through that process if, as they are saying, it is not working?
29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
Does the hon. Lady not agree that getting rid of the pre-planning application consultation completely will disenfranchise residents and constituents from engaging with the process? Sometimes that process can solve some of the issues down the line. I understand that it takes too long—I agree with and have strong sympathy for her points—but should we not be able to speed it up while allowing that engagement to take place?
29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
If we are talking about small, minor changes, surely the consultation period does not need to be that long—it will not take Select Committees long to produce a report to feed into the process if these are only minor changes. I do not see the need for change that the Minister is setting out.
29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
My point is, if we remove parliamentary scrutiny, the British people out there watching this will think, “Well, hang on a minute, the Government are saying on the one hand that we will still have a say and feed into that process, but on the other they are removing parliamentary scrutiny from the process, so how do we weigh that up?” When the Bill has been through the full process to Third Reading, how can we and the British people trust that they will still have a say over national infrastructure projects in their area if parliamentary scrutiny is being removed? That is taking with one hand and giving with the other, and it could be perceived that people will not have a say; they might not believe the Government saying that they will have a say. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
I thank the Minister for giving way. Has his Department done any analysis of how many requests the Government are likely to get under the clause, and how many applications will want to change how they are determined?
29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →