Olly Glover MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I praise and thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for her wide-ranging opening speech to this important debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving time for it. There is much to welcome in the spending review announcements for transport, particularly the capital investment in many parts of the country, but it is going to be important to hold the course and be consistent in the support for such schemes. For example, proposals for a West Yorkshire tram have been in and out so many times that people living in that region have understandably lost count. Hopefully, this time it really will happen. Beneath the positive headlines about capital spending, and hidden a little in the footnotes, is a 5% cut to operational expenditure during the spending review period. Looking at the detail, there are some somewhat optimistic assumptions that form the basis of how that will be borne. For example, in section 1.7 of the DFT memorandum for the main estimate 2025-2026, it is clear that the assumption as to how some of those savings will be made is through ongoing recovery of passenger revenues since the pandemic, as well as planned cost efficiencies from rail reform. It states, “Should revenue growth be lower or implementation of rail reform be slower than anticipated then that could result in spending pressures.” Although Great British Railways certainly has the potential to improve things, I think all concerned would accept that on its own, it will not solve all our problems. Given that our transport system is not going anywhere —we are not going to see closures of railways or large cuts—I think it is time that we collectively stop viewing it as a burden and spend intelligently to make the most of the assets and the costs that come with them. By spending a little bit more or approaching things a little radically, we can make far more of those sunk costs that go into our transport system and will continue regardless. It is important to recognise the suggestions at the moment that funding for the existing network may well be constrained by the expensive disaster that the implementation of HS2 has become. We do need high-speed rail in this country, but the costs are simply unbelievable. However, I suggest to the Government that it would be as wrong to punish the conventional network for HS2’s failings as it would be to deprive local roads of investment because of an over-budget motorway project. Here are a few friendly suggestions to the Minister and his colleagues for how that 5% operating expense gap could be plugged by growing revenue. When it comes to taking the railway to the next level, there are some things that cost very little, if anything, that could be done. I personally find on-train ticket checks to be inconsistent. Where guards are present, they really should be present on the train, ensuring that we maximise revenue gathering from ticket sales. Full electrification of our busiest and fastest inter-city and freight routes would lead to higher train reliability, better acceleration and therefore more capacity, making the most of what we already have. It is not just me who thinks that a rolling programme of electrification would reduce costs; chief executive of Network Rail Andrew Haines recently said in front of the Transport Committee that it is “incontrovertible” that it would do so.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Department for Transport · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is quite correct. Having previously worked on this subject in my past life, modelling of acceleration shows that electrically hauled freight is transformative compared with diesel, and it enables more to be hauled, making the most of the limited capacity that we have. Let me give an example from my constituency. The electrification of the 10 miles between Didcot and Oxford would reduce operating complexity and costs by reducing the long periods when trains sit idle at Didcot because of the split between London to Didcot, which is electrified, and Didcot to Oxford, which is not. It would also enable the sort of fast and frequent suburban service that is needed to serve a proposed major housing development and an artificial intelligence growth zone site at Culham. Full electrification of East West Rail would cost very little, as the project is based on new and heavily upgraded railways, yet massively increase its potential. Rail freight promotion would reduce the need for costly upgrades to roads such as the A34. Even National Highways acknowledged that to me in a meeting the other day. The A34 through my constituency has heavy freight traffic from Southampton’s ports, including container haulage heading to the midlands and the north. There are capacity constraints that prevent more of that freight being taken on the railway between Southampton, Reading and Birmingham. As a recent excellent report by the Transport Committee on accessibility highlighted, accessibility improvements make our railways far more attractive. Last night, it was my pleasure to attend a meeting in Cholsey, where people are campaigning hard for accessibility improvements at their station. Such improvements have been made down the line at Pangbourne, Goring and Streatley. New stations on existing lines, such as at Grove and Wantage—an area of major population growth in my constituency—would make more of the infrastructure that we already have. Do the Government plan to think radically, or will they be stuck in a rut, doing more of the same? Government support for more depot capacity at Temple Mills in Stratford is all that is needed to get more people using international rail services. The private sector will do the rest. That would free up landing slots at the ever-busier Heathrow airport, potentially avoiding the need for a costly and disruptive third runway. I call on the Government to provide sustained and generous funding for Active Travel England, so that it can continue its strong work of ensuring that local authorities provide not tokenistic cycle paths that go nowhere, but the highest quality infrastructure to get us all walking and cycling. Innovation in retail systems to make it clearer where and when the cheapest fares are to be had has the potential to increase revenue yields. As we found on a recent visit to the port of Dover, there is great electrification potential for the Dover-to-Calais route, which is one of the shortest and busiest shipping corridors in the world. French ports are ready for rapid charging of battery ships, but we were told that Dover needs power supply and grid capacity upgrades. No plans are in place for those, which means that we are missing an opportunity to achieve a global first: fully decarbonised freight.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Long-term Medical Conditions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I follow other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on bringing this vital topic to the House and sharing his insight from his many decades of medical practice as well as the tribute that he paid to his father’s—he clearly comes from a family of strong medical pedigree. He talked about the potential for a boost of more than £109 billion for the economy. He also spoke about the wheels starting to come off, but I say to him that there is no sign of that happening in his case: I have heard him make valuable contributions using his medical experience in many debates in the House. This topic is important. Analysis from the Office for National Statistics conducted during 2019 and 2020 highlighted that almost half of the UK population reported having a long-standing health problem, with the four most common chronic conditions in the UK for men and women being allergy, high blood pressure, low back disorder and depression. The Health Foundation has found that more than 9 million people in England are projected to be living with a major illness by 2040—an increase of 2.5 million compared with 2019. A third of those surveyed in 2024 did not feel supported to manage their long-term health condition. Hon. Members have brought out some important themes in the debate. They have talked about the mental health and economic impact, and the importance of social, community and volunteer care, as well as care in hospitals and health facilities. They have talked about the importance of integrating care and ensuring that appointments are co-ordinated to avoid people being pushed from pillar to post in our excellent but sometimes complicated national health service. They have also all highlighted the critical importance of prevention, screening and early diagnosis and detection, as well as the need to reduce waiting times to increase survival chances. A number of hon. Members also highlighted concerns about the benefit system and personal independence payments, and I am sure we all very much look forward to hearing from the Minister on that point. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) shared some very powerful stories from his time as an optometrist, including the impact of sight loss on people’s physical and mental health. He highlighted the potential to save between £8 billion and £13 billion by tackling mental health and wellbeing impacts. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) spoke powerfully about endometriosis—I have a friend called Emma who is also dealing with that condition—and highlighted that two thirds of people expect to live with long-term conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) spoke powerfully about his constituent Andy, who has a benign tumour and functional neurological disorder. My hon. Friend laid out how the NHS and the care system have not always been able to meet Andy’s needs locally, despite their good intentions. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) spoke emotionally and powerfully about how his father’s stroke was detected as a result of a car crash, which paradoxically saved his life, and he also told us how strokes are the fourth most common cause of death and a common cause of disability. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of access to benefits. I pay tribute to his ox-like heart. He mentioned a number of long-term conditions, including type 2 diabetes, COPD, cystic fibrosis and cancer. The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) talked about her physiotherapy background. It is so good to have so many Members who bring their past health and medical background to this House. She highlighted that one in six people are affected by arthritis and she quite rightly reminded us that long-term conditions are experienced not only by older people but by people of all ages. My constituent, Terry, has a range of long-term health issues, some spanning more than 20 years. There is little to no co-ordination of his care. He has had doctors from multiple hospitals and specialist centres working on medical care, with no one named person in charge and in control. Therefore, there is sometimes difficulty resolving conflicting medical priorities. This week is national Diabetes Week. Retinopathy is a serious diabetic complication that can cause blindness, and until recently it was the leading cause of blindness in the working population. Regular eye screening is key to detect this condition. My constituent, Carolyn, has written to me to express how difficult it is to access this essential service in Oxfordshire. A new service has been contracted by NHS England—for as long as it is here—to do that work with far fewer centres. Making screening more difficult to access will meant that there will be people who find it too difficult to access that important service. My constituent, Jess, has been struggling with endometriosis for 14 years because of misdiagnosis. As a result, her condition has progressed and worsened, which could have been avoided with better informed doctors and greater awareness. In the UK, diagnosis for the condition takes an average of nearly nine years, and one in six women who have endometriosis have to leave the workplace because of it. As Members have said, the personal independence payment scoring system is not fit for purpose. My constituent, Sally, has progressive MS. She scored 12 points and was rejected, but someone with a different disability scored eight points and was approved. That is because of the proposed “four points in one activity” rule, which can punish people with complex whole-body conditions just because their needs are spread across multiple areas. My constituent was unable to work for a number of months, but did not qualify for PIP. That highlights the importance of making sure that our disability benefits system is fit for purpose. It must recognise real human needs and not just view people as numbers in a system. The UK should be one of the healthiest countries in the world with our long history of grassroots sports, high-quality food production and world-leading medical research, but under the previous Government, the UK only became sicker, and it now lags far behind its international peers. That is why the Liberal Democrats want the new Government to take urgent action to support people to live healthier lives. They should start by reversing Conservative cuts to public health funding and investing in community services, so that everyone can see a GP within seven days. We must also end the crisis in social care, which is a disaster for people with long-term conditions and for our NHS. I repeat our call for the current review into social care to be concluded this year, not in three years. We have had many reviews into social care. We do not need further reviews; we need action. We are pressing for better social care for disabled people, including free personal care and more support for family carers, such as through more respite breaks and paid carer’s leave. We would also give everyone a new right to flexible working, and every disabled person the right to work from home if they want to unless there are significant business reasons why that is not possible. We would make it easier for people with long-term conditions and disabled people to access public life—including the world of work—by, for example, adopting new accessibility standards for public spaces, improving the legislative framework for blue badges and incorporating the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities into UK law. There is much work to be done to raise employers’ awareness of the Access to Work scheme, simplifying and speeding up the application process, introducing adjustment passports to record the adjustments, modifications and equipment that a disabled person has received and ensuring that Access to Work support and equipment stays with the person if they change jobs. As I mentioned, social care is critical to ensuring that people with long-term health conditions are properly cared for, recognising that hundreds of thousands of people are stranded in hospital beds because they are waiting for capacity in the care system. To that end, this is Carers Week, and the Liberal Democrats are campaigning to empower care users and to support care workers and the millions of unpaid carers looking after loved ones, some of whom we have heard about this afternoon. We would create a social care workforce plan, establish a royal college of care workers to improve recognition and career progression, and introduce a higher minimum wage for carers. Boosting public health and helping people to recover from mental ill health will be critical to achieving progress, as will tackling chronic fatigue and ME. A number of hon. Members highlighted the importance of the better use of data and technology to understand health trends and improve care. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on those topics and others covered by hon. Members.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Grid Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  In my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, sites at Culham, Harwell campus and Milton Park host a growing range of scientific and high-tech businesses, including a proposed artificial intelligence growth zone at Culham. Major housing growth also continues, and the new Valley Park development will use air source heat pumps. However, the Future Oxfordshire Partnership has raised concerns that grid constraints are causing significant delays to decarbonisation activities and creation of local power grids. What steps will the Minister take to address these problems and create an electricity grid fit for 21st-century Oxfordshire?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Grid Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  13. What steps he is taking to increase grid capacity

• 5 Jun 2025 · Police Presence on High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss—for the first time, in my case. I pay sincere and warm tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) for her passionate speech and her huge dedication to the great work that has gone on in her constituency to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour on our high streets. In particular, she highlighted the great work done by local police officers on Operation Fearless, in conjunction with the local community. A key theme we have heard in this debate is the critical importance of not just looking to the police to sort these issues out, but working in partnership with retailers, communities and all people affected by crime. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) about his young constituent Jack, who represents that extremely important demographic of young people affected by crime, who will be left fearful for the future if we do not get a grip of it. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) rightly alluded to the underlying economic causes of crime. Perhaps this is a good opportunity for us to remember the words of a former Labour Prime Minister about being tough on not just crime, but the causes of crime. It is important that we take note of those underlying social and economic causes. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned the experience of New York. Some would argue that Rudy Giuliani has gone in a somewhat different direction since the height of his powers in the 1990s. In those days his “broken windows” theory of crime held that, as a number of Members have alluded to, if we do not tackle graffiti and other supposedly low-level manifestations of crime, we open the door—or indeed the broken window—for far more serious types of crime. That underlines another key theme we have heard: the role of prevention and taking preventive steps, rather than hoping to deal with the symptoms and consequences. The hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) also talked about the role of prevention and the importance of community services. She talked about the role of seasonality in crime, which is clearly important in many constituencies with major events, with summer traffic, or sometimes with worse weather leading to less crime because people are outdoors less. It is important that we recognise the trends in the data on what causes crime and what levels of intervention are needed. The key theme discussed by nearly all Members was police numbers and funding. That includes the hon. Members for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury). In that regard, we heard a lot of criticism of the previous Conservative Government. However, we also heard some important points from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) and the hon. Member for Bournemouth West about the regionality of the police funding formula. We often face the key question of how to take account of different regional funding requirements in this country, so it would be interesting to see what the Minister has to say about that. We also heard about the impact of antisocial behaviour and crime on people, its economic impact on retailers and it impact on their mental health and feelings of safety and security in their role. All that contributes to the wider sense of our high streets being in decline; if people do not feel that they are safe places, they will not go and shop there. We must be careful not to end up in vicious circle. We heard from hon. Members about the importance of having named and contactable police offers. It is not just about having visible police officers in the streets; it is important, as the hon. Member for Ilford South said with particular eloquence, that those police officers are embedded within their community and really understand its diversity and differing requirements. Many hon. Members paid tribute to the shop owners affected by crime and the police officers who work so hard to try to keep our streets safe. It is important that we support them, both with more resources and with public displays of support. Many of the same issues are manifested in my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage, where communities are concerned about increased antisocial behaviour in the town centres of Wallingford, Wantage and Didcot—particularly increased pickpocketing and shoplifting. Last year, reports of antisocial behaviour at a local event in Didcot meant that the police had to authorise a section 34 dispersal order, empowering officers to issue section 35 orders to remove individuals suspected of being involved in antisocial behaviour. Of course such events are not representative of our high street, but the fact that they are becoming more of a concern to people means that we must take action. I have met business owners on Didcot Broadway—an older part of my town, from before the town of Didcot and large retail centres arose—who feel that the combination of antisocial behaviour and larger retail developments are placing their businesses at risk. That problem is shared by the Orchard centre, the large shopping centre in Didcot, where there is also widespread concern about antisocial behaviour and that there is not enough for young people to do. I have also heard high street businesses complain about drug dealing, street drinking and bicycle theft. As we heard in this debate, ambitions on law and order are good—but ambitious plans need to be supported by ambitious funding. Many hon. Members have paid tribute to the early work that the Government have done on this, and we look forward to hearing more from the Minister. Everyone deserves to feel safe in their own home and when walking down their streets; that is important not just for their safety, but for their feelings of economic confidence, so that we can address the decline in our high streets. The previous Conservative Government failed to keep our communities safe from crime, and unnecessary cuts left our police forces overstretched, under-resourced and unable to focus on the crimes that affect our communities most. Every day, 6,000 cases are closed by the police across England and Wales without a suspect even being identified, according to Home Office figures. Meanwhile, just 6% of crimes reported to the police result in a suspect being charged. Three in four burglaries and car thefts also go unsolved, and the Conservatives slashed the number of police community support officers by more than 4,500 since 2015. The Government must continue their efforts to restore the proper community policing that local people deserve. To do that, we must get more police officers out on the streets, embedded in and understanding their communities. We Liberal Democrats feel that that could partly be funded by scrapping the expensive police and crime commissioner experiment and investing those savings in frontline policing instead, including addressing the dramatic cuts to PCSO numbers. At the same time, we would free up existing officers’ time to focus on local policing by creating a new national online crime agency that would take over issues such as online fraud and abuse, leaving more time for local forces to tackle burglaries and other neighbourhood crimes. As we have heard, prevention and early intervention are key, not just visible crime.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Police Presence on High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention— [ Interruption. ] Well, I will answer in good time. Of course it would not be a debate in this place without him having a pop at the Liberal Democrats in Government. As he will appreciate from the many councils where Labour is in coalition with the Liberal Democrats and other parties, when a party does not win a majority, it has to work in partnership with others. I would also remind him to have a read of his own party’s 2010 manifesto, which proposed cuts just as harsh as the Conservatives’. But let us look to the future, not the past. In terms of retail crime, there are significant concerns over the increase in shoplifting. Official statistics from the crime survey for England and Wales showed more than half a million shoplifting offences recorded by police forces in the year ending 2024, an 18% increase on the previous year and the highest figure since current recording practices began. Surveys of retailers indicate a high prevalence of shoplifting and violence towards shop workers, as we have heard, and there have been concerns about how the police respond to shoplifting. For example, the 2025 British Retail Consortium’s Retail Crime survey found that 61% of retailers considered the police response to incidents of retail crime to be poor or very poor. Retailers said that their lack of confidence in the police response to reports of shoplifting contributed to their decision not to report some incidents. As we have heard, antisocial behaviour can encompass a wide range of actions that cause nuisance and harm to others, such as vandalism, noise nuisance, threatening behaviour, use of off-road bikes, drug use and harassment. The 2024 crime survey for England and Wales suggested that 36% of people had experienced or witnessed antisocial behaviour, and around 1 million incidents are reported to the police each year. However, YouGov research suggests that there is significant under-reporting, with 57% of victims or witnesses not reporting ASB at all. The Victims’ Commissioner has long raised concerns that the police and other agencies are not able to respond effectively to such reports or to provide support to victims. In conclusion, while we all agree that money and police resources are important, they will only get us so far. We also need prevention and early intervention, intelligence, partnerships and community action.

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

  More

  It is great to see this Bill come to the Commons. I applaud its desire to improve the quality and availability of bus services. Buses are at the core of our public transport system and are often wrongly neglected in favour of what some—although definitely not me—would describe as sexier and more alluring methods of transport, such as trams and trains. As we have heard, there is much that is good in the Bill—particularly the empowerment of local authorities to operate their own services and the provisions to implement services for socially necessary routes—but it could do more to address the needs of rural areas, including through VAT exemptions for small public transport vehicles to encourage demand-responsive and community transport schemes. It could do more to help local authorities to transition to net zero vehicles. As has been said, we should look again at restoring the £3 bus fare cap to a £2 cap. In Oxfordshire, the county council feels that its bus partnerships with operators are delivering improvements, particularly when it comes to Oxford Bus Company and Thames Travel, which serve my Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage. Franchising has the potential to bring further improvements, although it is good that the Government have acknowledged that we do not necessarily need a one-size-fits-all approach. Franchising will be viable only if local authorities are given long-term funding certainty and support to acquire the expertise and capacity in their passenger transport teams. We Liberal Democrats consider access to primary healthcare facilities to be socially necessary routes. In my constituency, the decision was made in the past few years to change the route of a bus going through the village of Harwell and into Didcot town centre. The change meant that people who live in Harwell can no longer catch one bus to the GP surgery in Didcot, despite it being only 2 miles away. That is the sort of thing we need to consider. Much about the current bus provision in my constituency is good. The integrated rail and bus terminal at Didcot Parkway enables a convenient interchange. There are decent bus frequencies and journey times during the daytime between Didcot and Wantage, Grove, Oxford and Wallingford, and between Wallingford and Oxford. There are good examples of partnership working between the major employment centres at Harwell campus and Milton Park and the Oxford Bus Company and Thames Travel. For example, Milton Park’s £20-a-year bus pass offer for people who work there is leading to measurable achievements in encouraging modal shift. There is generally decent daytime village provision. But there is also much that needs to improve. Many villages have no evening or Sunday service, particularly Stanford in the Vale, which has seen significant housing growth. The buses that serve Culham campus, which the Government have proposed as an AI growth zone, are meagre, with no evening or Sunday service. In the evening, service frequencies drop on all routes, meaning that the integration between train and bus at Didcot works less well. Reliability can also be patchy, particularly on routes that involve Oxford, although that is mostly due to road congestion. I am delighted to be a member of the Transport Committee. In April, we visited Ireland to understand the reasons for a significant increase in rural bus patronage, which increased fivefold between 2022 and 2024. That was achieved through increased public funding and by engaging communities—particularly the local equivalents of town and parish councils—in the design of routes. The core principle is, as a bare minimum, to have the restoration of morning, early afternoon and early evening services—there are also late evening services in many instances to address the issue that was mentioned earlier in respect of pubs—to create a viable alternative to driving. Ireland has set itself extremely ambitious targets to grow its public transport youth share, from 8% today to 19% in 2030. That would nearly match Swiss levels, which are the highest in Europe. To achieve that, Ireland is investing large amounts in high quality continuous bus corridor infrastructure in urban areas, particularly in Dublin, and there are longer-term plans for significant journey time reductions for inter-city train routes to improve integration between bus and rail. As well as all that, people told us that they are concerned about the social, environmental and economic objectives that they are trying to hit, rather than looking simply at the cost in isolation. There are good examples in the UK of the Ireland approach. I was on holiday in North Yorkshire in April, and North Yorkshire council had taken over a route abandoned by a private operator, using its own minibuses—route 11 between Clitheroe and Settle. It offers a two-hourly service, and connects well with hourly train services between Clitheroe and Manchester. Integration is critical to making public transport more accessible and attractive, as Switzerland has shown. For those reasons, the Government’s integrated transport strategy is eagerly awaited, and will be an essential component in achieving better use of our public transport system, to the benefit of the economy, the environment, and reducing social exclusion. Although the Bill goes a long way towards improving bus services, there are a lot of things that the Liberal Democrats would like the Government to go further on, so that we can achieve our ambition for our transport system and ensure that it fulfils our social, economic and environmental needs.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Qualifying Period for Settlement · Hansard source

  More

  Kamala moved to the UK in 2021 as a skilled worker in my Oxfordshire constituency. They worked to discover novel drugs for diseases with no current treatment. They are an additional rate taxpayer and have made many professional and personal ties here. The sudden increase to the qualifying period from five to 10 years has plunged hard-working people like Kamala into uncertainty about their future. Will the Minister meet me to understand the impact of the policy not just on workers like Kamala but on the Government’s wider science and research objectives?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Qualifying Period for Settlement · Hansard source

  More

  15. Whether her proposal to increase the standard qualifying period for settlement to 10 years would apply retrospectively.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments. It is good to know from him that the topic is being looked at with a geographical scope greater than single local authorities. We shall observe with interest how that goes. In the interests of having time to speak to other new clauses, I will not press this one to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 105 Extension of use classes C5 and C6 to England “In article 1(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2022, after “Wales” insert “, except in relation to articles 2(e) and 2(f), which apply in relation to England and Wales”.”— (Gideon Amos.) This amendment of existing regulations would extend use classes C5 (Dwellinghouses, used otherwise than as sole or main residences) and C6 (Short-term lets), which currently only to apply to Wales, to England. 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. It is once again a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, in the final hour of this Bill Committee—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—metaphorically speaking, of course. I rise to speak to new clause 88 on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). The new clause is intended to update the guidance on the use of compulsory purchase orders for active travel routes. One of the reasons the Liberal Democrats tabled the new clause is because, not unlike many other forms of infrastructure, building active travel routes seems to take a disproportionately long time and involve a huge amount of legal complexity. This is one idea to help make it a little easier. The new clause calls on the Secretary of State to review existing guidance and remove barriers to using compulsory purchase orders for active travel routes—I have previously pledged not to use that term—by which I mean walking, cycling and wheeling routes. Such orders can be used to acquire land for a project or development that is in the public interest, but local authorities seem currently reluctant to use them, although they regularly do so for road projects. To give an example, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame, the Thame to Haddenham greenway is a cycleway that will connect Thame to the village Haddenham, just three miles away, which would also help to improve connectivity between Thame itself and the Haddenham and Thame Parkway station on the Chiltern main line. Currently, reaching one from the other requires a cycle down the very busy A418. It is an important link, as it would provide safer pedestrian and cycle routes for tourism, for visiting friends and family in the area, and for commuting to and from London. I could bore the Committee with many similar examples in my own constituency, but I shall restrain myself on this occasion. The delay is being caused by a variety of issues, but the biggest in this case is trying to acquire the land. Because of the number of owners, it is often the case that one may refuse, even if many others are willing, making the whole route or project impossible. Using a compulsory purchase order would allow the local authority to bypass such obstacles to build the project, as it would be seen as delivering a public good. While there are a few cases of CPOs being used successfully for active travel, it is difficult because local authorities are reluctant, and the new clause would improve that situation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

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

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for his comments; the Committee will be delighted to learn that I will not rise to his challenge to debate at inordinate length. It is good to hear that the Government are taking forward some proposals in this area and, given that there is an ongoing Select Committee inquiry, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn . New Clause 98 Electricity distribution networks: land and access rights “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution network operators powers in relation, but not limited, to— (a) the acquisition of rights over land for new and existing overhead lines and underground cables; (b) the acquisition of land for new substations or the extension of existing substations; (c) the entering into of land for the purposes of maintaining existing equipment; (d) the entering into of land for the purposes of managing vegetation growth which is interfering with the safety or operation of overhead equipment. (2) Any powers granted must be compatible with the need to complete works related to development in a timely, inexpensive and uncomplicated manner, and may include the provision of compensation to relevant landowners.”— (Gideon Amos.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land. Brought up, and read the First time.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments. I was very pleased to hear him reference Active Travel England; as one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for cycling and walking, I have been very impressed by the leadership of Chris Boardman, and it is good to hear the Minister making encouraging noises in that direction. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 91 Embodied carbon assessments “(1) Local planning authorities must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act— (a) require applications for permission for developments which exceed a specified gross internal area and number of dwellings to include an embodied carbon assessment; (b) consider a relevant embodied carbon assessment as a material factor when considering whether to grant permission for the development. (2) The Secretary of State must— (a) approve a methodology for calculating embodied carbon emissions; (b) provide guidance on how the whole-life carbon emissions of buildings must be expressed; and (c) establish a centralised reporting platform to which embodied carbon and whole life carbon assessments must be submitted. (3) For the purposes of this section— ‘embodied carbon’ means the total emissions associated with materials and construction processes involved in the full life cycle of a project; ‘whole life carbon’ means the combination of embodied and operational emissions across the full life cycle of a project; ‘operational emissions’ means the carbon emissions from the energy used once a project is operational, including from heating, lighting and cooling.”— (Ellie Chowns.) This new clause would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for larger developments as part of the planning application and consideration of these by local planning authorities. The Secretary of State will be required to approve a methodology, issue guidance, and establish a centralised reporting platform for whole-life carbon emissions. 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. The new clause would make the adoption of local area energy plans compulsory in England. Local area energy plans are now recognised as the leading method for turning national net zero targets into real, on-the-ground action. They offer a path that is not only strategic and data driven but collaborative and cost-effective. The plans are driven by local government, working hand in hand with key stakeholders from across the community. The result is a fully costed spatial plan that lays out exactly the changes needed to the local energy system and the built environment. Critically, it includes not just what needs to happen but where, when and by whom it should be delivered. Moreover, local area energy plans break down the big picture into manageable steps. They map out the costs, shifts in energy use and reductions in emissions over time. Such plans can be prepared to align with our national climate goals, including ultimately reaching net zero by 2050. I am proud to say that in Oxfordshire, where my constituency is, a local area energy plan is under development. However, despite their importance to our planning process and net zero target, such plans are not compulsory in England. That has not stopped many local authorities from preparing them, and I hope that the Government will note that many of those local authorities are controlled by the Labour party. In Greater Manchester, 10 boroughs have a local area energy plan in place. Plans are also in place in York and North Yorkshire, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Peterborough and the borough in which we are holding this debate: Westminster. In Wales, all 22 authorities have produced a local area energy plan because in Wales that is compulsory. If hon. Members do not believe me, I quote Shaun Gibbons, the head of carbon reduction at York city council: “The York Local Area Energy Plan has served an important role in articulating the scale of the net zero challenge and setting specific targets against some of our most pressing actions. It has provided a robust evidence base for external funding applications and has resulted in the Council accessing funding several times greater than the original cost of the plan.” The new clause would require local authorities to prepare local area energy plans and would be a key component in getting to net zero. In the final stages of this Committee, I have hope that the Minister will view the measure favourably, given that there is so much good practice from Labour-run councils.

• 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 require a review into methods of land value capture, for reasons that I shall explain. As the Minister will be aware, currently the primary mechanisms to capture land value uplifts in England are developer contributions, in the form of section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy. While those mechanisms bring some benefits, they are not without their challenges. Earlier this year, the Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee launched an inquiry to examine how land value capture policies can contribute to the delivery of the Government’s house building plans and, crucially, help to fund affordable housing and public infrastructure. The Committee gathered valuable insights from experts, and one finding was that in high- value locations such as the greater south-east, to put it in affordable housing terms, only 19.6% is being achieved on average at the moment, whereas one could achieve 40% to 50%. Land value capture is not unknown in this country—indeed, it is being used to finance the ongoing operational costs of the newly reopened Northumberland line between Newcastle, Blyth and Ashington in the north-east of England—but we need a land value capture system more widely that is fair and delivers what communities need: genuinely affordable housing, and public infrastructure and services that people can rely on. Moving to more mechanisms for local authorities to use land value capture methods other than section 106 and CIL might enable them to fund some more expensive elements of infrastructure, such as new railway stations or lines, that are currently neglected. The new clause would require a review into land value capture methods, building on the work of the Select Committee inquiry. National Government should consult with local government. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

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

  More

  Once again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I have moved new clause 10 and will speak to new clause 31, both tabled by the Liberal Democrats. New clause 10 would require solar panels to be provided on all new car parks and new clause 31 would create a scheme to provide financial incentives to homeowners and car park owners who install solar panels on their properties. Clearly, the main driver of the new clauses is the climate change challenge that we face but, as I said previously in Committee, it is not just a challenge, but an opportunity: embracing more solar power generation enables us to become more self-sufficient in energy generation, and homeowners and others to reduce their energy bills. That is a good example of something that helps people, planet and economy. New and existing car parks could provide 11.4 GW of solar capacity, which would go a long way towards reaching the Government target of 70 GW of solar by 2035. If land is already being used for a car park, why not make more use of that land and generate renewable energy? Generating energy close to where it is used means fewer energy losses, which is more efficient and makes the energy cheaper to the end user. That is an example of the sort of local electricity grids that we need to move towards in the 21st century of power generation. Existing and new car parks, and non-domestic roofs between 50 kW and 1,000 kW, have costs comparable to solar farms, and so could be similarly economically attractive. Solar farms are predominantly rural and can require extensive planning permission and additional construction costs due to location, such as long-length cables and large transformers. Car parks also provide the opportunity to use the energy generated directly to charge electric vehicles, thereby relieving pressure on the grid and making driving electric vehicles more attractive. The Government have been clear about their aspiration for us to move to electric vehicles as standard. In 2022, France introduced similar legislation to that which we are proposing, and it took effect in 2023. The French Government calculated that the measure will result in a capacity of between 6.75 GW and 11.25 GW. For context, Drax, the UK’s largest power station, has a capacity of between a quarter and a half of that, at just 2.6 GW. If not mandated, incentivising such schemes should be the minimum requirement. We are not using car parking space to its full potential, so I hope that the Minister will seize the opportunity to change that by supporting the new clause.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 58 would impose a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to contribute to targets set out in the Environment Act 2021 and the Climate Change Act 2008. The Environment Act is the UK’s framework for environmental protection. It was particularly important after the UK left the European Union to maintain rules on nature protection, water quality, clean air and other environmental protections that were at risk. The Climate Change Act established a legally binding framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, making the UK the first country to do so. It set a target of net zero emissions by 2050 and established the Climate Change Committee. The activities of local authorities inherently have an impact on carbon emissions, and UK100 has estimated that it amounts to between 4% and 9% of the UK’s total carbon emissions, which is of course a non-trivial impact. As we know, and as I believe we largely agree on this Committee, climate change is one of the biggest issues facing us today and has wide-reaching consequences. It is right that any organisation should take reasonable steps to reduce its carbon footprint, and local authorities are no exception. New clause 58 would impose a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps in relation to Environment Act and Climate Change Act targets, as they do not have such a statutory duty today. As the Committee has discussed, that presents opportunities as well as challenges for councils and our communities.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 30 would require the Secretary of State to conduct an annual review of the capacity of local planning authorities. The Bill’s passage appears likely, given the size of the Government’s majority, but it will impose a number of additional duties and responsibilities on local planning authorities, and meeting the proposals for housing growth will also stretch their capacity. Our new clause would require a review of their capacity and resources, as well as the impact of issues, such as lack of capacity in the construction sector or supply chains, on achieving some of the housing goals that are being put forward. While this Government have an ambition to build lots of homes, it is important that we pay attention to how that happens. We know that local authorities are already under-resourced. I am sure that the Government appreciate the need to support local authorities in delivering housing and all the accompanying infrastructure, and we feel that this new clause would go some way towards doing that. At the risk of anticipating that the Minister is unlikely to support the new clause, we look forward to hearing what alternative solutions he may have to these challenges in planning capacity.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response, and we note his comments. Yes, many local authorities are making significant contributions, but I am sure he would agree that it is patchy and inconsistent at the moment. Nevertheless, we will not press the new clause to a Division, but we will observe local authority progress and Government support in the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 75 Requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development. (2) The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”— (David Simmonds.) Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his thoughtful comments. We understand that there will be some technical details to look into, although of course that is the case for many aspects of the Bill overall. We wish to press the new clause to a vote, because we think this is a very important topic and that this is an opportunity to be progressed. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments, and I welcome his overview of the Government’s endeavours in tackling the issue of local planning authority capacity. I also note the comments from the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. I understand his point, but nevertheless, there are still considerable challenges in this area that need to be tackled. Notwithstanding that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 32 Register of planning applications from political donors “(1) A local planning authority must maintain and publish a register of planning applications in its area where— (a) a determination has been made by the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning, and (b) the applicant has made a donation to the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning within the period of ten years prior to the application being made. (2) A register maintained under this section must be published at least once each year.”— (Gideon Amos.) This new clause would require a local planning authority to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where that Secretary of State has received a donation from the applicant. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 22 May 2025 · Sports Facilities: Areas of Housing Growth · Hansard source

  More

  8. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the provision of sporting facilities in areas of housing growth.

• 22 May 2025 · Sports Facilities: Areas of Housing Growth · Hansard source

  More

  In my Oxfordshire constituency, local authorities want to support the provision of major leisure facilities for our growing population, including in the new estates in north-east Didcot, Valley Park and Wantage Kingsgrove. However, they have not found it possible to secure enough funding from developers via section 106 agreements. Will the Minister meet me to discuss a more strategic approach to leisure provision to help us create healthier and happier communities?