Paul Holmes MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I am spoilt for choice and I do not have much time left. I will give way to the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and then to the hon. Member for Shipley.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  So that’s okay then.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Rural Housing Targets · Hansard source

  More

  No. The hon. Gentleman is grasping at straws. The Liberal Democrat-run administration in Eastleigh is anything but successful if we look at value for money and the £750 million of debt that its leader has accrued for the people of Eastleigh. The council’s method of paying off that debt was to build beyond the expected targets while destroying green areas in my constituency. But it is still not fair that my local council is being asked to deliver more homes despite having delivered more than was required. That is my point. There needs to be retrospectivity for councils that have delivered on those conditions. The issue is the same in east Hampshire where, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire noted, the target will rise by 98%, from 575 to 1,142. Fareham, which covers half of my constituency, will see a 62% rise, from 498 to 800 houses. Why are councils that have built more than their required share of housing being punished for their success, whereas the pressure has been taken off the Government’s political allies—generally Labour councils—despite their continued failures to deliver? It is beyond belief that rural areas, which are already struggling with infrastructure and a fragile environment, are being handed inflated housing targets while urban areas, with a far greater demand for housing, are seeing their targets reduced. That is not just poor planning; it is unfair. Protecting the green belt and preserving our natural environment are non-negotiable, yet under the new policies we are seeing parts of the green belt reclassified as grey-belt land for development, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said. We cannot allow unsustainable urban sprawl to destroy what we have worked so hard to preserve, including national parks, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) outlined. One of the most disheartening aspects of the debate is the way in which the Government have cut key programmes such as the right to buy and first-time buyers’ stamp duty relief, while simultaneously reducing the number of affordable homes for purchase. That is not the way to help people on to the property ladder, it is not the way to address the housing crisis, and it certainly should not come at the cost of rural England—and Labour MPs agree. Indeed, 14 Labour Front Benchers have campaigned against house building in their own constituencies, which contradicts the Prime Minister’s pledge to have a Government of builders, not blockers. If Labour cannot even get its own party to back its housing targets, how can it expect its Labour council leaders to do so?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Rural Housing Targets · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right in that he should have devolution, and the Government have brought that forward. His Labour leader may want to build more houses, but the Government’s algorithm is making it easier to build huge numbers of houses in rural England, where the infrastructure is harder to deliver, while generally Labour councils in urban centres are having their targets cut. [ Interruption. ] The Minister shakes his head, but I have just outlined the figures that show that that is the case, including in London. The Minister really needs to go back and re-look at the algorithm, as colleagues on this side of the House have asked him to. In conclusion—many will be pleased to know—the road ahead is challenging, but it is not insurmountable. We can build the homes we need if we listen to communities, respect local voices and commit to sustainable development. The Government should rethink their house building algorithm to depoliticise the policy, and do local authorities the courtesy of not punishing their hard work on meeting previous targets. I stand with the Minister ready to come up with an algorithm that works for rural and urban areas. If he takes up that offer, the Conservative party will be committed to helping to deliver the 1.5 million homes he has outlined. Let us work together to ensure that the dream of home ownership remains within reach for everyone, and do so in a way that respects our environment, our countryside and our way of life.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Rural Housing Targets · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and to respond to this debate, secured by my close constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). He is my former boss—I was his special adviser—and as you can tell from this afternoon, Ms Jardine, I was never allowed to write his speeches because he is so brilliant at orating in the Chamber. He is a doughty champion for his constituents in East Hampshire and I congratulate him on securing the debate. In December 2024, the Government published their reforms to the national planning policy framework, which included the reintroduction of mandatory house building targets. As of March 2025, some local authorities will face an overwhelming fivefold increase in new housing targets, dictated by central Government. These targets will hit many rural areas’ councils hardest, as my right hon. Friend outlined, and they are to be imposed with little regard for local people. We firmly believe that building more homes is a necessity. As my right hon. Friend and Members from all parties have said, for too long the dream of home ownership has felt out of reach for many hard-working families. We must make that dream a reality for as many people as possible. A property-owning democracy in which people in different areas can own a house is vital to giving maturing and succeeding generations a stake in the society in which they live. Although I am supportive of the Government’s ambitious goal to build 1.5 million new homes, I must stress that those homes must be the right homes built in the right places, by a method that ensures that the voices of local communities are listened to. The troubling reality is that the Government’s housing targets are, frankly, unrealistic—and they know it. The chief executive of Homes England has cast doubts on whether the Government can realistically meet their goal of building those homes. In a Select Committee hearing last year, the Minister himself said that it will be hard and virtually unachievable for them to build 1.5 million homes in the lifetime of this Parliament. A recent County Councils Network survey found that nine in 10 councils cited a lack of infrastructure as the main reason why they could not support the new targets, with the delivery of new schools, doctors’ surgeries and other social infrastructure lagging behind the delivery of housing. The targets are not just unrealistic and unpopular; the methodology behind them seems to represent a cynical gerrymandering exercise of political opportunism. For example, take east Hampshire, the New Forest and Fareham—these areas are being told to build more houses than Manchester, and the New Forest and north-east Hampshire include a national park and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Meanwhile, cities such as Labour-run Southampton, Nottingham and Coventry see their targets slashed by as much as 50%. It does not add up. The Government’s new method punishes Opposition councils for their success and rewards Labour local authorities for failure. Why have the Government reduced housing targets in urban areas, where it is easier to build due to existing infrastructure, population density and the availability of brownfield sites? Instead, Labour reforms to the NPPF have resulted in top-down targets that will silence local voices. They have chosen to prioritise building in rural areas and on the green belt rather than on focusing where the demand for housing is greatest: in our cities and urban centres. Under the Government’s proposals set out in the NPPF, councils and county areas will have to deliver at least an extra 64,769 homes per year, equating to 1,240 homes per week. That is seven times higher than the targets for large towns and cities governed by metropolitan authorities. It rewards city councils such as Labour-run Southampton city council, which has consistently underdelivered on its targets. Having been required to deliver 1,473 houses in the 2023-24 period, the council built a mere 261. In response, the Government have opted to ensure the council is spared further humiliation for failure by having its target cut by 12%. It is a similar story across the country. In some rural areas, housing targets will increase by 113%, while in urban settings the increase will be a mere 1%—if indeed there is an increase at all. How does that make sense? The Minister will know that I am no fan of Liberal Democrat-run Eastleigh borough council, which is building double the number required because of its excessive borrowing and failure to run a decent council. But his policies are unfair to councils like that, too. Eastleigh is facing a 42% increase in its house building requirement, from 645 houses a year to 922, but it has consistently overdelivered on its housing targets over the last five years. Where is the retrospectivity that should be delivered to successful councils that have overdelivered on their promises and housing targets over the last period?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is very kind. I remind him that in 2002 a Labour Government allowed, through their regulatory regime, the uplift in bonuses that he outlined. Can he tell the House how much sewage dumping happened in his constituency between the years 1997 and 2010, and can he justify why only 7% of rivers were being monitored? He will not be able to, because we did not know.

• 17 Jan 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on securing the Bill and bringing it to the House. The Bill represents an important step forward in making voting more accessible and efficient for all. The focus of the Bill is clear: to streamline and modernise the process of registering for absent voting, whether by postal vote or proxy, particularly for elections held in Scotland and Wales. I join hon. Members in paying tribute to all electoral staff across the whole United Kingdom. We know that, as elected politicians and candidates, we put them through stress when we phone them to say, “This person hasn’t registered. Can I get them down?” or “Where’s this polling station?”. They go through a lot, and we thank them for what they do. We welcome the Bill. The changes it would make were originally proposed under the last Conservative Government, but as hon. Members will know, the Welsh and Scottish Governments declined to provide the necessary legislative consent motions when the Elections Bill 2022 passed through the UK Parliament in 2022. That meant that all the strengthened rules on postal and proxy voting could be applied only to reserved elections. Under the current arrangements, electors must submit paper forms to apply for or to modify absent votes. The Bill seeks to align that process for devolved elections with reforms introduced in the Elections Act 2022 for reserved elections. By enabling the use of the UK digital service for online applications, it will simplify and modernise the system, ensuring greater accessibility and efficiency for voters. I appreciate that, as a consequence of devolution, electoral law will diverge due to the policy choices of the different Governments and legislatures, but we should avoid divergence for divergence’s sake. Since some elections will remain reserved, such as those to the UK Parliament, it would make sense to facilitate the smooth administration of elections by aligning processes for electoral administrators and political parties as much as is practicable. Otherwise, it just creates more work for everyone and confuses voters, as has been outlined by Government Members. The provisions of the Bill will allow Scottish and Welsh Ministers to implement the measures ahead of the next devolved elections in 2026. The ultimate goal is to encourage participation in the democratic process while safeguarding the integrity of our electoral system, and we must recognise the differences in turnout between general elections and elections for devolved Governments. In Wales, turnout for Senedd elections has historically lagged behind general elections, as evidenced by the turnout rates of 46.6% in 2021, compared with 56% in 2024. In Scotland, turnout for the Scottish Parliament elections is comparatively higher, but there remains room for improvement. Making voting easier and more accessible is one way to address that disparity. It is important that online applications do not open the door to electoral fraud, as the whole point of the Elections Act 2022 was to toughen the rules and practices for electoral integrity. That is why it is essential—we will scrutinise this in Committee—that there are strict online verification checks for online absent vote applications for devolved elections, and that those are the same checks as for hard-copy applications. Fraudsters will just divert their malpractice if one venue is more lax. Electronic applications are more vulnerable to external interference, as a hostile actor can be literally anywhere in the world. If the Bill goes into Committee, I would like to see a requirement in primary legislation for the necessary checks already operational in reserved elections to be required in secondary legislation. That would help to ensure consistency across all elections, as many Members have outlined that they want. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been consulting on legislative reform orders to implement the same provisions. Will Ministers indicate how that interacts with the proposed passage of the Bill? For example, do Ministers intend to opt for a legislative reform order if the Bill does not have sufficient parliamentary time? It is worth noting that the electoral bodies, including the Electoral Commission, support these changes. The commission highlights the need for clarity and preparation to ensure that these provisions are in place by October 2025, giving electoral officers ample time to adapt, and giving voters sufficient awareness, before the 2026 elections. In conclusion, the Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill is a pragmatic and necessary step towards improving voter access and protecting the integrity of our electoral processes, by bringing absent voting practices in devolved elections in line with the rest of the UK. It will modernise and future-proof our democracy while empowering citizens in Scotland and Wales to participate more easily in elections. I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on the spirit with which she has brought forward this legislation: to make voting and access to voting easier for people while ensuring that voting remains secure. I hope that her Front-Bench colleagues take that same stance and change their mind on watering down voter ID, which will have the opposite effect from the aims and aspirations of this Bill.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for bringing this important issue to the House. It is good to see the Minister in his place—I know he and Ministers in his Department have had a busy week. Solar energy has an essential role to play in decarbonising our power sector by putting otherwise unused roof space to good use. Solar panels are an effective technology for reducing carbon emissions, and the Bill proposes a forward-looking measure that would require the installation of solar PV generation equipment on new homes. Its Second Reading offers us an opportunity to debate the merits of the proposal and its potential contribution to our shared goal of reaching net zero by 2050. While welcoming the Bill and its aims outlined this morning, I would like to add to the debate some possible unintended consequences of the Bill in its present form. I want to be a genuinely constructive voice in ensuring that the Bill gets to Committee—I hope the hon. Member sees that—but some areas could be strengthened. I appreciated his sunny disposition in bringing the legislation to the House today. I will try to be a ray of sunshine as I get through this speech. [ Interruption. ] I am in danger of misleading the House there. I hope to be a sunny ray of light in Committee should the Bill get through and we table amendments to it. The previous Government supported solar energy generation where it was appropriate. Our efforts included a £50 million fund aimed at supporting rooftop solar installations to enhance on-farm energy security. The responsibility for advancing solar and renewable energy now rests with this Government, and we wish them luck in doing so while remaining sceptical about the abilities of GB Energy to see that through. Under the last Government’s leadership, we delivered 2.5 million homes since 2010, including 1 million homes during our final term in office. That provided more people with the opportunity to own their homes and expanded options for renters. Additionally, in November 2023, as has been outlined, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced expanded development rights, making it easier for homeowners and businesses to install rooftop solar panels without the need for planning permission in most cases. That was a positive step, and I hope to see such support continue. As the Government pledge to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, we must ask ourselves what impact the Bill would have on house building. Building costs are already high and projected to rise further. Even the chief executive of Homes England has admitted that delivering Labour’s housing target may require two parliamentary terms, not one as the Minister outlined. I also note that the implementation date of 1 October 2026 in clause 1 provides little time for the industry to adapt to the significant challenges the Bill introduces. Given the growing pressures on the industry, it is necessary to question whether the Government have considered and worked on the potential skills shortage, as an hon. Member raised earlier, and the feasibility of implementing the standards in this well-intentioned Bill. We know that the UK has one of the oldest housing stocks among developed countries, with a particularly complex system of housing tenure. Buildings owned by freeholders and occupied by a mix of leaseholders and tenants present ongoing challenges for successive Governments when implementing necessary updates and retrofits. Meanwhile, in the realm of housing development, where 1.4 million new units already have planning consent, developers continue to highlight issues, such as the cost of solar panels, as a significant obstacle to advancing new housing projects. We must therefore consider whether the additional costs imposed by the Bill could hinder progress in delivering housing. Could it add restrictions to house building plans, particularly when it comes into effect in 2026? We are open to the timescale that the Bill would implement.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There I was, being nice about a Liberal Democrat-proposed Bill. As the hon. Lady knows, the Liberal Democrats are the bane of my life in my constituency, but I was being nice to the Liberal Democrat Member who introduced this Bill, and the hon. Lady has come back and been quite nasty to a Conservative. [ Interruption. ] Thank you very much. As my speech clearly outlines, we in the Opposition will take a pragmatic approach to legislation that comes before the House, so that people will see the right measures brought in—for developers, if necessary—for new developments across the country. I am not going to be party political and talk about donations. The last Government had a very strong track record of reducing carbon emissions and making sure we delivered the homes that we need across the country. We will continue to be a constructive voice in Parliament, as I tried to outline to the hon. Member for Cheltenham. We will be very pragmatic and constructive in making sure that the aims of this Bill are realised, should it reach Committee. The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) has my assurance on that, as the shadow Minister responsible for this policy area. I fully support initiatives to encourage renewable energy and solar panel usage, but it is crucial to address the practical challenges we face. As has been mentioned, the national grid’s infrastructure may not be equipped to handle a significant increase in capacity from solar generation alone. A recent article outlined that £60 billion of investment in the national grid is needed to make sure that solar energy can be put back into the grid in a sustainable way. I will conclude—many will be pleased to hear—by reaffirming the Conservative party’s strong commitment to the UK’s target of reaching net zero by 2050. I am proud to say that we have already achieved a 50% reduction in emissions between 1990 and 2022 while growing our economy by 79%. As we continue on this journey, our policies must strike a balance between ambition and realism. I look forward to hearing more about the provisions in this Bill, and hope that this debate will bring us closer to solutions that support both its practical implementation and our environmental goals. I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham, and look forward to seeing him—if he is lucky—in a Committee on this legislation. At the risk of being sanctioned, I promise him that I will be a ray of sunlight when we work together to ensure that this Bill is strengthened and becomes legislation.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If he will allow me, I will elaborate on that further on in my oration this morning, when I will look at the other side of the coin. While absolutely taking into account that house builders will have concerns over costs and will claim concerns over costs, as we have seen various organisations do, we also have concerns about the ongoing maintenance costs of these technologies for those who buy the properties in the first place. There is a balance to strike, which we can look at further if the Bill goes into Committee. Maintaining solar panels, as my right hon. Friend was tempting me to say, is not without challenges. Repairs often require scaffolding, which can be expensive. We worry that an unintended consequence of the Bill could be increased costs for residents, home owners and property owners. How will we support home owners facing frequent and costly repairs? The updates to the national planning policy framework present an opportunity to consider how such requirements can be better embedded in planning law. I recognise that administrators face a challenging task. The framework contains approximately 19 chapters of guidance, which each local authority must reflect in its local plan after public examination, ensuring full alignment with those chapters. The complexity of the process, combined with consideration of local environmental factors, such as surface water run-off, and the need for materials to align with established practices, creates a considerable challenge. To translate the aspirations outlined by Members into real-world outcomes, we must simplify the process for local authorities to enable them to fulfil their role as community leaders. Instead of requiring lengthy and costly procedures to prove compliance with planning law, we need to ensure that the relevant standards can be implemented efficiently. The previous Government consulted on a future homes standard to ensure that all new homes would be zero carbon-ready. That included provisions for solar panels where appropriate. We must also ensure that brownfield sites are prioritised for housing development and stand-alone solar power, rather than sacrificing valuable agricultural land, as we risk seeing under the Government’s proposals. I sincerely hope that they will build on the progress we saw as a result of the previous Government’s consultation and the feedback gathered. As we consider the Bill, it is important to recognise that not all buildings are suitable for solar panels. Factors such as structural strength, the direction and orientation of buildings and challenges with maintenance access must be taken into account. As I believe the hon. Member for Cheltenham has recognised, a one-size-fits-all mandate might lead to unintended consequences or inefficiencies. What discussions has he or the Government had and what consultations have taken place with the building industry during the drafting of this legislation? Collaboration with developers and stakeholders is critical to ensuring the successful implementation of such a policy. Consumer and local choice must also play a role in these decisions. I am concerned about the Labour Government’s apparent intent to reduce the influence of local representatives on planning committees. Local people should have a say on what is built in their area—we have heard some examples from local council leadership across the country this morning. If this Bill receives passes its Second Reading today, we will scrutinise it thoroughly to ensure that it balances the need to build more homes with the imperative of increasing energy efficiency and production. I welcome the proposed exemptions for buildings that cannot support solar due to roof positioning or other factors. Those exemptions need further scrutiny in Committee to ensure that they are comprehensive. Sensibly, the Bill allows for other renewable energy systems to be used where solar is not feasible; that is practical. However, the list of exemptions should not allow developers to adapt their designs in order to avoid installing solar panels, so that they can avoid what they claim are increased costs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and a number of colleagues on the Labour Benches mentioned, there remains a risk that house builders or developers will identify loopholes in the legislation that they can use to say, “We can’t build solar on that, so we will do either a cheaper alternative or none at all.” However, if Members in all parts of the House work together in Committee, we can strengthen the legislation to ensure that developers put these technologies on buildings across the country.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary is right that both Israel and Hamas must ensure that the deal is successful and stick to the terms that have been outlined, but as the Foreign Secretary came to this House the Israeli Prime Minister said that he wants to delay a vote in Cabinet because there have been last-minute changes to what Hamas are requiring. Has the Foreign Secretary been briefed on what those perceived changes or accusations are, and could he outline some of them to the House, bearing in mind national security implications? Can he tell the House how he will make it clear to both sides that it is this deal or no deal, and that if they do not get the deal through we will enter a further period of grave instability in the region, and more lives will be lost?

• 14 Jan 2025 · UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue · Hansard source

  More

  While the Chancellor was in China securing her measly £600 million, borrowing rates reached the highest they have been since 2008. In 2024 she said that her Budget would be “a Budget with real ambition, a Budget to fix the foundations…a Budget to rebuild Britain.” How is that going, given that her mess has caused borrowing to be the highest it has been since 2008, making real working people in this country suffer?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Public Transport Accessibility · Hansard source

  More

  Like the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), I have stations in my constituency—in Hedge End and Swanwick—that were allocated money by the previous Government for accessibility lifts. Unlike her rail company, mine did accept that that money was allocated. Within the first week of this Government taking over, that was scrapped, and the Rail Minister wrote to me without any clear plan for when this Government will make an announcement on what will happen with the Access for All scheme. The Minister has just said that it will happen shortly. Can he be more clear for my constituents, who have been waiting for a very long time, so that disabled people and people with wheelchairs and pushchairs in my constituency can make the journeys they need to make? When will this Government make an announcement on Access for All?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Draft Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I do not want to break the spirit of consensus, but although the Minister is quite right that transparency is crucial to all local mayors and that the public must know how much the authorities cost, why is it that Labour mayors seem to be raising their precept much more than any Conversative mayor? Is he saying to the Committee that Labour mayors are inefficient and their operations cost more than those of Tory mayors?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Draft Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I wish the Minister and all Members a happy new year. Considering the bulging numbers on the Opposition Benches, the Minister will be pleased to know that we will not challenge the regulations. But we do have some general questions. He gave a detailed explanation of the business before us but there are, as he would expect, a number of questions that the Opposition want to flag and that I would appreciate an answer to. The Opposition completely understand the reason for the measures and for the need to enhance devolution in the existing combined authorities. We must also stress the impact of excessive borrowing on taxpayers and council tax payers. It is important that—as the Minister would expect me to note—Conservative mayors have never raised the mayoral precept that they can impose. They have either cut it or not put it in place at all, while Labour mayors such as Sadiq Khan have increased it. However, we welcome the introduction of the debt caps agreed with the Treasury. Given his announcement on devolution plans a couple of weeks ago, the Minister would expect me to ask about the Government’s plans and mechanisms to legislate with the new authorities. Will they have to legislate en masse, or does the Minister expect to come to the House with other statutory instruments like this one, following consultations and the establishment of new mayoral combined authorities? What debt caps will feature in the future? Will there be central Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government guidance on acceptable debt caps and borrowing levels for combined authorities? What will the Government do to keep council tax down and ensure that the temptation to borrow more—particularly in the financial situation that we find ourselves in—does not lead to increased council tax or taxes on residents? Will the Minister not only urge the East Midlands authority, and other authorities going forward, to behave responsibly, but urge caution on borrowing with the powers that will be given to new combined authorities? As we move forward, will the Minister legislate to allow borrowing against all functions, as in the changes and adaptations he has outlined today, or will he look at it on a case-by-case basis, as local authorities come forward under his devolution plans? As we move towards devolution, another concern is about what will happen to the debt incurred by councils that choose to undergo restructuring. That is slightly outside the scope of the SI, but it is in the policy that we would have to see statutory instruments such as this one. Where will councils’ debt go when they merge into a new devolution settlement? Will councils have to have the difficult conversations on their own, and organise their own affairs, or will central Government support them as they go forward locally? Liberal Democrat-controlled Eastleigh borough council has a debt of £500 million. I do not think it will surprise the Committee that other councils do not want that council to merge into their functions under future devolution plans. [ Interruption. ] It comes as a surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, but it should not. I wonder whether the Minister will facilitate plans going forward and what Government support will be given to local authorities as they go through the mergers. I note that for the general power of competence for economic development and regeneration to be conferred on the East Midlands combined authority, a public consultation was required by law, as the Minister outlined. That is perfectly acceptable and right, and he gave a detailed review of the responses from the local public. I think it is safe to say that the feedback indicated general but not overwhelming support. What lessons will the Minister and the Government draw from the consultation mechanisms that were outlined? On reflection, how will he adapt transfers of the devolution of powers? What shape will future consultations take to encourage greater co-operation and participation by local residents when they face changes in their local authorities? Lastly, as we enter this phase of quite disruptive top-down restructuring, I hope the Minister will outline some detail on the policy going forward, and particularly on my specific questions this morning, beyond its current embryonic nature. Overall, we support the mechanism. We believe in devolution as an Opposition and as a party—it was set up by this party originally—and we look forward to seeing locally elected mayors deliver the powers and functions that this Government want them to.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During an answer about police numbers, the Prime Minister said that someone on the Conservative Benches shouted “Boring!” May I correct the record following a request from Hansard ? I actually said “Bingo!”, because of the repetitive and overused clichés that the Prime Minister was using.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Playgrounds · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) on securing this debate. His speech this afternoon has shown Members in the House that his half of Bournemouth are very lucky to have him. He is lucky to have them too, and I know that he works very hard for his constituents, considering that he has been a friend for a number of years. Playgrounds are essential to the physical and mental wellbeing of our children. They are places where children exercise, build social connections and foster creativity, yet the provision of playgrounds by local authorities remains uneven across the country, with concerning disparities that demand our attention. According to the Fields in Trust group’s green space index, an alarming 2.3 million children in Britain under the age of nine—31% of the total—live more than a 10-minute walk from their nearest playground. Even more troubling is the fact that 40% of councils report that over a third of children face that challenge, with some areas seeing the figure rise as high as 65%. That disparity reflects the struggles that local authorities face in maintaining playgrounds. Budget constraints mean that some councils have been forced to remove or repurpose play areas, depriving communities of vital green spaces. Regional variations further highlight the inequality. For example, children in Scotland enjoy access to nearly five times more public playgrounds than their peers in London. Welsh children have access to more than twice as many playgrounds as those in London. The previous Government recognised the importance of improving access to quality green spaces, with initiatives such as the £9 million levelling up parks fund and an additional £30 million of investment focused on improving facilities for young families. The funding aimed to enhance green spaces in deprived areas, support tree planting and improve play areas, with up to £85,000 available per area. The measures were complemented by nearly £60 billion of funding for local authorities in 2024-25, which was a 9.4% increase compared with the year before, with most of the funding left un-ringfenced to promote local choice. The Conservative party firmly believes in empowering local authorities to make decisions to best suit their communities, but central Government must also ensure that councils are equipped with sufficient resources to deliver essential services such as playgrounds. The revised national planning policy framework provides an opportunity: as hon. Members have outlined, play spaces will now be included, which I welcome, but that needs to be enforceable under the NPPF. As outlined by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), we often find that developers promise things to local people, but local authorities cannot take the enforcement action necessary to ensure that those facilities are built. I have found that within my own constituency, which has seen excessive development. I look to the Minister to enforce that action through the NPPF, and through regulatory statutory instruments if need be, so that local councils have the power to ensure that those services are provided. Unfortunately, challenges persist. The Local Government Association has estimated that the employer national insurance contribution hike will cost councils £1.77 billion, yet only £515 million of new funding has been provided to support the increase. The shortfall puts further strain on local budgets, making it even harder to maintain and improve local playgrounds. I hope the Minister knows that I often try not to be too political, but the decision in the last Budget to scrap the charitable status of private schools means that facilities provided for local children in local areas by private schools may be taken out of service. That will affect all kinds of children who are entitled to use the many playgrounds that private schools provide. To wind up, the provision of playgrounds is about more than just swings and slides; it is about investing in our future, fostering healthier communities and ensuring that every child has the opportunity to thrive. I say to the Minister that we are willing to work together to protect and enhance these vital spaces, recognising their role in creating a fairer and healthier society.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Health and Adult Social Care Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking community diagnostic hubs and expanding their hours, which is something that the last Conservative Government established. Will he outline what impact that will have on his workforce plan and expand on that? Have the unions accepted the extra hours—they are not excessive by any stretch—that he has proposed? Will he have a serious conversation with me, please, about Fareham community hospital, which has space for a community diagnostic centre that would be welcomed by my constituents in Hamble Valley?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The fact that the Minister has come here expecting us to welcome her announcement and congratulate her on giving money that her Government took away in the first place really beggars belief. Mountbatten hospice in my constituency needs an extra £1 million because of the NICs increase that her Government have brought forward. Will she guarantee to Mountbatten and the charitable sector, including hospices—which the last Government increased funding for, before she comes back to me with that answer —that today’s announcement will cover the £1 million that her Government have taken away in NICs?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Christmas Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to wind up this end-of-term Christmas Adjournment debate for the official Opposition. We have had a wide and varied range of issues raised during this debate, as well as a fantastic array of facts from constituencies across the United Kingdom. Members in all parts of this House have spoken about the issues that really need tackling, and about the pride they feel in their constituency and their constituents. Might I give newer Members on the Government Benches a top tip—a genuine, non-partisan top tip? When they speak in these debates in future, they should know that this is the only time when they can speak on the Floor of the House to a Government Whip. They are able to tease that Whip, claim what they want for their constituency from them, and sometimes tease out where they think the Government might be going wrong. I encourage Members to tread gently, however, because if they do so—and I encourage them to; I used to do it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew)—the meetings without coffee will start again in January. They should enjoy themselves in this afternoon’s debate, though, and I know that they have. The Whip responding, the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), will be making a list. She will be checking it twice. She will be looking to see which of her Members have been naughty or nice, and they never know, Santa Claus might be coming to a town near them. I note that the hon. Lady was chair of the all-party parliamentary group for bingo at one stage of her career. I wonder whether in her winding-up remarks, we will see a game of Labour bingo—“14 years”, “fixing the foundations”, “dire inheritance”. She should not be surprised if I shout “Full house” at her while she is winding up, because I am afraid that we will not be taking any of that broken record from the hon. Lady. However, it is a lot less broken than the record that I encourage Members on all sides of this House to buy as we approach the Christmas No. 1 competition: “Freezing This Christmas”, which is raising money for Age UK. I apologise to the Liberal Democrats for not endorsing the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey). I will run through contributions made by Members from all sides of the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned that he has been elected Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and opened this debate in his typically charismatic and factual way. He wears two hats, also being chairman of the 1922 committee. I can guarantee that he will not be receiving any communications from me over the next five years. He also said that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is a winning candidate, and I look forward to her taking over as Prime Minister in five years’ time. We should respect the fact that she is the fourth female leader of the Conservative party—something that the governing party needs to take note of. My hon. Friend also spoke about his campaign on London transport. That is what you get with Sir Sadiq Khan. Labour wants to bring in more directly elected Mayors by central diktat across the whole country. We on the Conservative Benches will absolutely hold Sadiq Khan to account for the dire services that he offers his constituents in London. Finally, my hon. Friend outlined his absolute commitment to the proscription of the IRGC—an issue that he has championed on both sides of this House. I know that he will keep pushing for that, and he is absolutely right to do so as he stands up for the great nation of Israel. The right hon. Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz) mentioned the really important issue of accessibility for all funding for railway stations. All Members from across this House have over the last five years brought up cases of constituents. I have many times brought up my constituents and the funding for Hedge End and Swanwick; feasibility study money was allocated by the last Government. I ask the Minister on duty to request that the Department for Transport comes back to all Members who were promised that money in the last Parliament—it was allocated by the last Government—and outline where we are going with accessibility for all. The ministerial letters that I received did not say when the next steps would happen. I ask the Minister very politely, on behalf of my constituents, where we are on that project. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned, in a heartfelt speech, all the volunteers across his constituency. He is absolutely right to pay tribute to the volunteers we all have in our constituencies, particularly in the NHS and the armed forces. They are a credit to our nation. They will be working across the United Kingdom this Christmas, and we all owe them a huge thank you. My hon. Friend mentioned the men’s shed charities, which I know from personal experience have helped many men with mental health issues. I do not think we talk enough about that topic. I pay tribute to the men’s sheds across the country for the things that they build on behalf of community centres. We have some lovely flower beds in Hedge End village in my constituency that were built by such volunteers, and I pay tribute to them, too. The hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland)—this is testing my pronunciation of place names across the UK—is a dedicated champion of his constituency. Before we entered this place, we worked together in another sector, namely the social housing and housing association sector in the UK. He is a first-rate brain on housing policy in this country, and I hope that he is used by the Government to unlock the social housing that is much needed. The hon. Member mentioned the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I declare an interest, in that I am a trustee of the scheme, and I encourage Members from across the House to take part in it. It is fantastic. We obviously honour the work that our armed forces do, and the scheme allows us to get closer to them, and to really listen to what they have to say about what they go through on our behalf, day in and day out. As he does every time we have one of these end-of-term Adjournment debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) raised really important issues in his constituency—particularly the direct train service to King’s Cross, which he has been bringing up consistently in this House since 2011. I say to him: keep going. I did not find him boring, and I look forward to his bringing up the issue in the next such debate, probably in the summer. I look forward to responding on that occasion, too. The hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) mentioned animals in her constituency, and a dog is for life, not just for Christmas. I hope that she buys her dog Maisie a big bone this Christmas. I see that she has Maisie on her phone. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) is a dedicated and doughty champion of his constituents. He and I were elected to this House in the same intake, and I do not mind saying to him that his was a stand-out result for me on election night. He is a doughty and committed constituency MP, but his result surprised me—not because of any lack of ambition or lack of ability on his part, but just because winning his seat and getting through this election, which was very difficult for Conservatives, shows the dedication and the work that he puts in. My hon. Friend mentioned a number of Conservative initiatives to fund programmes in his constituency that were ringfenced, and he wants to drive growth. I fear that growth will be damaged by some of the policies of this Government, but he is a tireless campaigner. I would like to know what was in Clara’s Closet, a shop that he mentioned. He was also right to pay tribute to Ian Hayfield, the chair of the town’s bid, who passed away a couple of days ago, and Members across this House send our condolences to his family. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) championed McClaren, and outlined the local investment that such businesses, particularly F1 businesses, bring to his constituency, and he is absolutely right to do that. The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) made a couple of puns about Christmas lyrics. I recommend that he stick to the day job of standing up for his constituents and focusing on solving issues. However, he brought some fun to this debate; that is entirely what such debates are meant for, and I hope that he is successful in lobbying Ministers for investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always comes to this House—well, he is here most of the time. He said that we all need to think of others at this time, and had a message of hope at Christmas. Whenever he stands up in this House, he offers us hope and shows us how we should be doing our jobs. I wish him and his family a happy Christmas. The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) mentioned volunteers and special educational needs and disabilities children. When I am sitting here heckling the Labour party, she has often brought up that issue for her constituents, in her short time here. I know that she will continue to do so in her way, and I will work with her to make sure we improve on those issues. May I take this opportunity to thank all of House staff for their unfailing help to all Members, particularly new Members? A record number of new Members came into the House. I would particularly like to mention—other members of staff should not take it personally—Godfrey, Daphne and Dawn in the Tea Room, who make my lunch and serve me tea very well. I have a lovely cup of tea after being in here, and I will have one after this debate. I particularly thank the Doorkeepers for putting me right when I have got lost, and putting up with my humour. I thank all staff, and I wish them a very merry Christmas. I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the other Madam Deputy Speakers and Mr Speaker a particularly good Christmas, and a rest. I also thank my team, who help me and keep me on the straight and narrow: Steph, Emma, Dan and Charlie. This debate shows that this really is a place of worthy ideals. It is a place for decency, and a place where we share a common bond: the privilege of representing our constituencies, places we care about, and our constituents, the fantastic people who make up this country. I wish my constituents in Hamble Valley a great Christmas. To all Members right across this House, I say: I look forward to seeing all of them back in the House in 2025, and I hope everybody has a very good rest.

• 19 Dec 2024 · Christmas Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has plenty of time, but can I just say to her: one line, two lines, full house.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Responsibilities of Housing Developers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this important debate. I am delighted that the tractor beeps have stopped, partly because anyone watching the debate might have thought that the beeping was in case I swore pre-watershed. I assure people that it was the tractors outside. I thank hon. Members for their important contributions. I will pick out a few, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, and then address a number of issues raised by Members around the Chamber. My hon. Friend made several important points, which many Members understand because we go through the same things. As in his constituency, there is an excessive amount of development in mine, where it is being led by the Liberal Democrat local authority. We know there are similar cases around the country, and we know that developers do not always stick to the standards that we need them to and that consumers are entitled to when buying something as big as a property that they expect to live the majority of their lives in. My hon. Friend also mentioned early consultation, which is an important concept, and talked about local plans. It is important that the new Government take a strong line, like the previous Government, to ensure that local authorities deliver a feasible local plan. I hope the Minister, in keeping with the Minister for Housing and Planning, will reassure us that she will stick to the importance of neighbourhood plans. Local people know what they want in their area, and they deserve the Government’s protection from excessive and speculative development. It was interesting to hear hon. Members talk about their constituencies and housing. I worry that many of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley will be exacerbated by some of the policies announced by Ministers. I am worried that the centralising zeal of the new Government will take power away from local councillors. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) said that he wanted planning decisions made closer to the ground, and by people who know their local area. Unfortunately, the policies announced this week will take planning decisions away from locally elected councillors, who act on behalf of his constituents. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) wants a bolder and more ambitious offer in his area, which I know well because he is my constituency neighbour and we served on the same local authority together. He might want a word with his ministerial colleagues who have reduced housing targets in his city from 1,450 to 1,100, while doubling or tripling targets in neighbouring more rural areas. If he wants bold and ambitious plans for his area, perhaps he should speak to his Government about taking targets away from Labour areas and putting them in Tory and Liberal Democrat ones. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) mentioned hedges and local features of his constituency. I am sure it is beautiful, but I say the same to him: if he wants more resources for planning departments across the country, he should have a word with his Ministers, who are taking power to say yes or no away from local authorities and putting it in the hands of Ministers in Westminster.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Responsibilities of Housing Developers · Hansard source

  More

  That is not what the Minister for Housing and Planning said in the Chamber on Monday. He said that local authorities and councillors can make decisions about their area as long as the Minister is able to call applications in. It is a bypassing of locally elected councillors and a bypassing of local authorities, and the Government need to look again at the power that they are taking away from people at the grassroots and putting into the hands of Ministers at their desks in Westminster. The last Government would never have done that. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley also mentioned section 106 agreements. It is really important that we make sure that section 106 funds are allocated to local areas as much as possible. Experts have criticised systems such as section 106, with Professor Christian Hilber of the London School of Economics describing them as “inefficient—even counterproductive” and arguing that they potentially drive up house prices instead of delivering the affordable housing and public goods that they are meant to provide. Research by the Home Builders Federation highlighted that, troublingly, local authorities in England and Wales are holding on to £8 billion of unspent developer contributions. Those funds could transform communities: 11,000 affordable homes could be built, 12 million potholes could be repaired and 126,000 new school places could be created. We agree that it is time for policies that empower local councils and deliver tangible benefits for residents when it comes to the standard of developments. It is vital that local authorities have up-to-date local plans to ensure that people have a say in shaping the vision and framework for their communities over the next few years. That is why I am concerned about the centralising structures that this Government have introduced. They are bringing forward planning reforms before the revised national planning policy framework, which we think will be released tomorrow, has been published. That does not seem transparent, and it does not seem like joined-up government. They really need to look at bringing in wider reforms together. There are also fears that the Government’s ambition to build on the green belt could extend to undermining local democracy itself—that even includes hedges. In their reform of planning committees, the Government are planning to strip back the democratic role of local government and impose top-down reforms at a later stage. How will the Minister ensure that the local voices of elected councillors are heard in this process? Her constituents and the constituents of every Member in this House elect councillors to represent them, and I do not understand why the Government seem not to have confidence in local authorities, even those controlled by the Labour party—because its local authority leaders have said that these plans are not deliverable—to make decisions themselves. We must ensure that consumers are protected from abuse and poor services from developers, especially when it comes to the management of their homes and estates. The Government must work hard to ensure high standards among managing agents and hold them accountable for their actions. It is essential that any reforms under this Government enable our communities to take positive steps towards building more homes, regenerating local areas and supporting economic growth. The last thing we want is for these reforms to inadvertently create barriers to progress or leave communities disempowered. I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley about the fees charged to maintain estates, particularly where communal areas remain under construction. The law is clear that service charges must be reasonable and the work or services paid for must be of a reasonable standard. Leaseholders have the right to ask for a breakdown of these charges and the evidence supporting them, such as receipts, and it is a criminal offence for a landlord to withhold that information. If leaseholders believe a charge is unreasonable, they have the right to apply to the tribunal. I say to the Minister that we will work together on leasehold reform. The last Government made great strides in making sure that leaseholders are looked after and that they have protections under the law. The Minister has announced further measures. Will she confirm when she will bring those proposals to the House? Another Minister in her Department said that extra leasehold protections may not take effect for the lifetime of this Parliament. We ask the Government to move faster than that and to introduce those powers as soon as possible. On infrastructure, I encourage councils to make use of the powers available to them to achieve the best possible outcomes for their communities. However, I do not believe in imposing overly prescriptive mandates from the centre. There are instances in which a more tailored approach may be necessary. Finally—many Members may be happy that I am winding up my contribution—I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley again. One thing I will say about this debate is that despite our political disagreements, everybody around the Chamber has the best interests of their constituents at heart. They want their constituents to have accessible housing of a good standard, whether that is private housing, socially rented housing or housing for affordable rent. All of us in this Chamber have a responsibility, across parties, to ensure that the houses built across this United Kingdom are fit for purpose, and that they are ones that are wanted by local people and not imposed by central Government.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  In the last few weeks of the last Government, we awarded millions of pounds to remote train stations such as Hedge End and Swanwick in my constituency under the Access for All scheme. In the first two weeks of this Government, that was scrapped. Will the Prime Minister use his good offices to give my constituents and stations across this country an early Christmas present, and give us our money back, please?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Apologies, Mr Efford, for not announcing it this morning, but I am a trustee of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Examination of Witness Abby Dryden gave evidence.