Paul Holmes MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s generosity, which he always shows in this Chamber. Based on the poverty assessment, he now says that 50,000 children will be uplifted and taken out of poverty. Given that the decision was taken because of the fiscal impact of the Chancellor’s Budget, I asked him last week about the £5 billion of savings that then became £2.5 billion. He then said that he had not costed his decisions, which would have put an extra 150,000 children into poverty. Will he tell the House how much extra the measures on which he has capitulated will cost the taxpayer?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Draft Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I thank the Minister for that thorough explanation of the draft regulations. As she outlined, they establish the eligibility criteria and procedural framework for the super-complaints mechanism under the Online Safety Act 2023—a long-awaited and essential step forward in the effort to protect users, particularly children, in the digital space. Protecting children was one of the top priorities of the last Government, which is why we introduced and passed the Act. Although we welcome the implementation of this mechanism, we must acknowledge that there is still a risk that we will fail our children. As Ian Russell has powerfully and heartbreakingly stated, the Government are “going backwards”. The super-complaints process that we are discussing is not about minor grievances; it is about systemic failures across services, or, in exceptional circumstances, failures within individual services, that put users, especially the most vulnerable, at real risk. These are serious matters, and deserve to be handled with the utmost care, scrutiny and understanding. Progress is being made. We welcome the clarity on the eligibility criteria, which require that organisations bringing forward complaints must be independent from the services regulated under the Act. That is a sensible and important safeguard. Similarly, the decision to allow a shorter application process for organisations already deemed eligible is a pragmatic move that will avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. None the less, we must also ask hard questions. Ofcom is already under considerable pressure to deliver its duties under the Online Safety Act, so it is right to ask whether it will be given the support it needs to manage the new mechanism effectively. Expanding the scope of complainants, as the Government appear to be doing, risks compounding the burden without necessarily improving the quality of complaints. That is a key point of divergence from the previous Government’s approach. We believed, and continue to believe, that the super-complaints process should focus on quality, not quantity. We must prioritise high-quality, evidence-based complaints from trusted organisations. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the £72.6 million allocated to online safety in 2025-26 is not just headline money, but is actually proportionate and sufficient to deal with the likely increase in the volume of super-complaints? The framework around super-complaints matters. It is not just about the process; it is a test of whether we are serious about holding online services to account for systemic harms. Let us not fall into the trap of creating a mechanism that looks good on paper but fails in practice due to a lack of focused resources or political will. We owe it to the families who have suffered like the Russell family have to get this right, and we owe it to the children whom we promised to protect. I look forward to the Minister’s answers to those questions.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman never lets me down. I hope he does not say that within earshot of the Leader of the Opposition, but I can promise her on the Floor of the House that she has nothing to worry about from me. Like him, I will carry on engaging in debates in this House. Where we do not agree, we can do so in a nice, polite and respectful way. We are talking about enhancing democracy for the people of Scotland through this legislation; the way that Members have conducted themselves today serves as a lesson on how people should conduct themselves. I am not talking about any specific parties. The Bill is welcome, and makes the necessary provisions to ensure that where there is divergence, the whole of Great Britain’s shared democratic values are brought into closer practical alignment. It supports the unity of our democratic system while respecting the devolved nations’ identities. The Conservative party will always look to bridge the gaps between the constituent national communities that make our country so vibrant. In my role on the Opposition Front Bench, I spend much of my time fighting against what I perceive to be the Government’s repeated attempts to strip local people of their agency and voice. I have had disagreements with the hon. Member for Glasgow East on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but this Bill is refreshing. Frankly, it is a relief to be able to support the work of the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, who has brought forward a Bill that empowers, rather than undermines, our citizens. Specifically, we welcome the provisions that make it easier for people across Scotland and Wales to participate in elections. This Bill honours the principle that democracy should be accessible to all, not a privilege for the few. That is a principle that we on the Conservative Benches will always defend, as I know the Minister does through her role. Accessibility is vital, but so too is security. Protecting the integrity of our elections and guarding against fraud or interference is a core responsibility of any Government. Ministers must take decisive and proactive steps, while modernising and reforming our system, to prevent malign influence, whether domestic or foreign. We do not have to look for long to see instances of electoral interference from foreign state and non-state actors. Indeed, most recently, it was reported that dozens of anonymous pro Scottish independence X accounts allegedly operated by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have gone silent since Israel launched strikes on Iranian military and cyber targets on 12 June. The accounts, which seemed to use fake Scottish identities to spread anti-UK sentiment, were identified by Clemson University researchers as being part of a suspected foreign influence campaign. That example is one among many, and it illustrates an important point that we all must take seriously. That is why I welcome the Government’s stated commitment to working closely with the Electoral Commission and others to protect the integrity, security and effectiveness of UK elections and referendums. I urge them to ensure that this is not just rhetoric but reality. It is right to note that the Bill builds on work by the previous Government, including the Elections Act 2022, which took important steps to strengthen the security of our democratic processes, introducing requirements such as digital imprints on online campaign materials and enhancing transparency in political funding. Those were much-needed reforms, and it was a shame that legislative consent was not given to those measures in 2022. The Bill now mitigates the effect of that decision. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith said, the inclusion of identity verification for postal and proxy vote applications is another necessary measure to close off vulnerabilities in our system. There must not be a mismatch between how people register by post and how they do so digitally. These are technical details, but their impact on the integrity of our electoral process is profound. We must not allow inconsistent standards to become weak spots in our democracy, because we can be sure that our adversaries abroad would use those to divide us and cause chaos in any way they can. This Bill represents a sensible and timely move to enhance voter access and uphold the integrity of our electoral system. By aligning absent voting procedures in devolved elections with those across the rest of the United Kingdom, it helps to modernise and safeguard our democratic processes for the future. Crucially, it also empowers voters in Scotland and Wales by making participation in elections simpler and more accessible. I must reiterate what I said on Second Reading: I urge the Government to abandon their plans to water down voter ID requirements. They have found it within themselves to make U-turns in other areas. Today we are legislating to make voting easier for people while maintaining adequate security, but we cannot also have the Government watering down voter ID requirements, which would reduce security in our voting system. On that rare note of disharmony during an afternoon of unity, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith again on the constructive and inclusive approach that she has taken. I look forward to seeing this legislation on the statute book. Let us see whether she brings more legislation forward over the next four years to make a real difference in this country.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on her tenacity in getting this Bill through its parliamentary stages. It is timely that the hon. Lady has today—on the first anniversary of an election that I might care to forget, but that she will definitely care to remember for the rest of her career—made such a great change to our democratic structures through our Bill. If she has achieved this much in the first 12 months, I, for one, look forward to seeing what she will achieve in the next four years. I would like to genuinely congratulate her on behalf of the official Opposition and Members across the House on the way she has conducted herself in getting this legislation on the statute books. Her constituents will also quite rightly be proud. I also want to take this opportunity to wish Members across the House a happy first anniversary—although, technically, the anniversary is tomorrow. We were all tired in the early hours of that morning; for me, it was 4.36 am, as I remember. I wish a happy anniversary to all new MPs across the House on their first anniversary of serving in this place. I look forward to working with them on a cross-party basis over the next four years, and maybe beyond.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As if I could not.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thou doth protest too much—I think we will just keep it to the fact that the hon. Gentleman is the most sartorially elegant member of the Labour parliamentary party, and I would be grateful, after this debate, if he could tell me where he gets his ties. By the way, I also want to say happy anniversary to those of us who survived the last election, too—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), who is sitting on the Front Bench next to me. I welcome the Minister being in her place. The Conservatives completely agree with her remarks on the amendment that was tabled. It is perfectly straightforward, and we support it. In a rare moment of cross-party unity, we completely echo what the Minister has said, and therefore we do not need to say much more on that. I will just pay tribute to the four Back-Bench contributors for their remarks. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has said he is making a habit of beating Conservatives, but let us just see what happens in four years’ time—I will not predict what will happen at the next election. As I said earlier, he is a genuine friend, and I genuinely like his engaging contributions to many debates in this House; they are always backed up by the principled aims he has in any area of policy in this House—long may that continue. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) gave a great speech. She set out the full scope of the Bill clearly and how it will make a tangible change to many people who live in Scotland. I congratulate her on that. Even though the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is from a rival city down the Solent from me, I thought she made an excellent contribution. She made important points on the changes to the legislation to ensure that veterans cards can be used as official ID for voting. I represent many veterans in my community, particularly naval veterans—as I know the hon. Lady does, with the home of the Royal Navy in Portsmouth North—and I know that that is a vital change that is being made. It was a commitment of the previous Government; I think it is fair to say that parliamentary time ran out, so we were unable to do that, so I am pleased that that the new Government took that forward. The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) was right to share his expertise on devolution, and gave fascinating historical context for this Bill. I remember being in the Stag’s Head pub on the University of Southampton’s campus in 2006, when he was chairman of the university’s Labour Society and I was chairman of its Conservative Association. For transparency, I will declare that it was a lot smaller than the Labour Society. I am not sure whether he ever imagined that we would share a Chamber today. As we saw from his speech, he is a fierce defender of democracy, a fierce supporter of devolution, and a passionate defender of his beliefs and principles. I wish him well going forward.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman—my friend—for what I know are warm and genuine congratulations. I was about to say that I even congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme a happy anniversary on his election. I am still utterly convinced that while he is the most sartorially elegant MP on the Labour Benches— [ Interruption. ] The Whip on duty, the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), who has not even bothered to wear a tie, is somehow shouting “Shame”. I say to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that I am still convinced that deep down, he is a secret Conservative, and we look forward to seeing his slow conversion to this side of the House over the next four years.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was just about to refer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), but I will let him go first.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) just said that he could not think of anything worse, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I saw something very special in him when we battled together. He was in the year above me, though hon. Members might not think so from looking at him. I absolutely agree that universities can be at the forefront and heart of early democratic engagement, and can shape people’s views and political compass. I am perfectly willing to say in this House that my politics 15, 16 or 17 years ago were very different from my politics today. That is down to the genuinely open nature of debates in this Chamber and, most importantly, on university campuses. I am feeling a bit left out, because the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) regularly intervened on others but has not intervened on me. He gave a staunch defence of the Bill in some particularly pertinent areas, and talked about other areas that are maybe not so pertinent. I will watch him over the next four years. I wonder how many schools in his constituency he has mentioned in his first 12 months in this House.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State is absolutely right that any Government that take office should aim to reduce poverty in this country. Why then do her own Government’s figures show that the actions she is taking this afternoon will put an extra 150,000 people into poverty? Does she really think that is what her Back Benchers expected when they were elected to government last year?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is doing an admirable job defending the farcical. Last week, there were £5 billion of savings. Today, there were £2.5 billion of savings. Then he came to the Dispatch Box and did three more U-turns. As he stands at that Dispatch Box today, how much will these new measures save the taxpayer?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister’s inability to control his Back Benchers means that the Chancellor now has to find an extra £2.5 billion to fill the savings that she is claiming to have made. Can the Leader of the Opposition guess how she might raise that money?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the Chancellor will be delighted that the flip-flopping of the Prime Minister means she has to find another £2.5 billion in taxation on people in this country. Does the Secretary of State think that it is fair that a two-tier system has been created? Why would anybody on the old rate seek work when they know that if they go into work, it does not work out and they claim again, they will get a reduced rate under her Government?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Water Safety Education · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. I want to make a similar point to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore). A number of schools in my constituency have closed their pools over the past 20 years. When I grew up in Lewisham, I had access to a school pool. Does he agree that we need to work together on national policy to ensure that, although some school pools will still close, our young people can access their local leisure facilities at a discounted rate, through local government?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Water Safety Education · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is right and I agree with everything that she has outlined on ensuring that those lessons are delivered at school and particularly as early on as possible. May I have her reassurance, and will she briefly outline, how she intends to ensure that is enforced further down the line, once the national curriculum comes out?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Water Safety Education · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) on securing the debate—he genuinely is an hon. Friend. We served together on Southampton city council, we have both been education lead members, and now we are constituency neighbours. I know that he consistently stands up for the great people of the great city of Southampton, and in particular the constituents he has mentioned today. I pay tribute to Joe’s mum for the work she has already done and the work she will do in future to make sure we lose fewer people on our waterways across the country. Although the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen and I share Southampton Water, which is the busiest part of the waterways around and into Southampton, I also have in my constituency the entirety of the River Hamble, which comes off Southampton Water. The River Hamble is internationally known as one of the most difficult rivers to navigate for our sailing and boating community. It is known as an international sailing hub but also as one of the most difficult tidal waterways to navigate across the world. We saw that, unfortunately, in 2020, early in my career here as the Member of Parliament for Eastleigh, which is in the same area. Emily Lewis, who was on a fast boat in the Solent, was tragically killed after being catapulted out of it when it hit Netley buoy. She was travelling at 44 mph, and two charges were eventually made of manslaughter and failure to ensure safe navigation against the person who chartered the boat. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen is absolutely right that we need to have water safety education. I put it to the House and the Minister that we also need to have proper education for not only those who enter the water through our seasides, lakes and rivers, but also people who use the water on a daily basis. As I said, we have the whole of the River Hamble in the constituency of Hamble Valley, and a vast array of people use our rivers and Southampton Water—sailors, motorboaters, kayakers, paddleboarders and rowers. Many people use the river, as they should be able to, because that is intrinsic to the identity of those who grow up and live in my constituency. Given the hot weather this weekend, I intend to go out on the Hamble on Saturday to kayak, but I am aware of the intrinsic dangers of a river such as the Hamble. It is vital, as the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said, that we educate from a very early age. I also want to outline and make colleagues aware of the role of our independent lifeboats. Hamble lifeboat in my constituency has already been called out over 60 times this year. We must raise awareness of these services, because they play a very important educational role for many people in our constituencies. I was delighted to be a founding member of the National Independent Lifeboat Association, which looks after our independent lifeboats, alongside our former colleague Anthony Mangnall, who was the Member for Totnes. I encourage all Members who represent areas with independent lifeboats to get in touch with NILA and to raise awareness of water safety. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen highlighted the key variations in access to swimming pools and water education. As I indicated in my intervention, we will both be aware, from our time leading the education system in Southampton, of the number of schools there that have had closures. This is not a political point at all, because we have both been in control of the Administration, and we have had national Governments of different colours, but he will be aware of a reduction in funding for our education system from local authorities, whereby many schools have had to close their pools. Partnerships that allow kids to be taken to local leisure centres for school lessons have been reduced as well. I remember being a young person—I used to be young once—growing up in Lewisham. The council school bus would come and take me to Lewisham swimming baths every week for a two-hour swimming lesson. That has diminished, and it is vital that we work on a cross-party basis to get swimming lessons and water education delivered to people across the UK. As I said, this is not just about young people. A brief story: a couple of summers ago, I was out on my kayak when I saw an older gentleman clinging to a kayak in very cold water. He had lost his energy and would have died that day, had I and my friend Jerry not gone past and rescued him. He was not wearing a life preserver, he was very cold, and he was running out of energy, clinging to his kayak. We managed to take him out of the water and save him, and get him medical attention. Frustratingly, such things still happen, which is why any measures taken forward by the Minister need to be attentive to not only young people but all users of the rivers and waterways across the UK. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen and all Members who will speak in today’s debate. He has my commitment, alongside that of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and, I am sure, the shadow Minister, that this is a cross-party issue that we all need to work on. I wish the hon. Member well in his endeavours.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q14. A small family business in my constituency was recently burgled by a prolific offender serving an eight-month suspended sentence. The man was caught, arrested, charged and appeared in court, where he was given another eight-month suspended sentence and was released. The business was offered £200 in compensation. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that that is justice served, or is this Government now soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given the Speaker’s Office advance sight of this point of order on process, following proceedings last night in relation to new clause 82 tabled to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which was not put for a separate decision. First, I want to say very clearly that this is no criticism or challenge of the decision of the Clerks, Deputy Chairs or Chairs, for whom I have immense respect, but it is a request for clarification on the process and the decision that was come to last night. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the following. New clause 82 was accepted for a separate decision yesterday, and it was signed by over 70 Members of Parliament. The Member who tabled the new clause, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), had indicated outside the Chamber before the conclusion of the proceedings that he would not push the new clause to a vote, and that is his right. However, advice was given to the Chair that the Chair has discretion not to mention or put the Question at the conclusion of proceedings, despite the new clause being allocated for separate decision through the usual channels; thus, when the conclusion of proceedings came, there was no mention of new clause 82. Precedent in this House says that another Member who has signed the amendment can push the new clause to a vote. However, that option was not given to a Member who wished to do so and had signed the amendment. “Erskine May” states under paragraph 28.139, titled “Conclusion of proceedings on consideration”: “If the time available for debate on consideration under the terms of a programme order has been exhausted, Standing Order No 83E is engaged. In order to bring proceedings to a conclusion, the Speaker must put forthwith the following questions (but no others): a. any question already proposed from the Chair; b. any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed; c. the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Speaker for separate decision; d. the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister; and e. any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.” Another example comes in Standing Order No. 32, which says in sub-clause (1): “In respect of any motion or any bill under consideration on report or any Lords amendment to a bill, the Speaker shall have power to select the amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be proposed thereto.” Sub-clause (5) states: “The powers conferred on the Speaker by this order shall not be exercised by the Deputy Speaker save during the consideration of the estimates.” I have a concern that this has set a precedent. Over 70 Members across the House who had signed a new clause did not have the chance to put it to a vote last night. The Member who tabled the clause spoke to it and outlined the measures that it would bring into the legislation. I am worried that Members from all parties across the House who have signed amendments and new clauses will not have the opportunity to put them to a vote just because the Chair decides they have the discretion to eradicate that Question from being put in the proceedings of this House. I would be grateful for your clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, and maybe you could offer a meeting with the Principal Clerk, so that I can discuss my concerns about this issue.

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

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The expert he quotes is from Hampshire, so as a Hampshire MP I am bound to say that she is spot on. My right hon. Friend is spot on too. Many Members made contributions yesterday in which they raised concern about the Minister’s response to some of the environmental concerns that were raised, particularly by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), but also by the Liberal Democrats and Conservative Back Benchers. There are concerns that environmental protections will be diminished under this legislation. The Minister seemed, quite frankly, to not take those seriously. The quote my right hon. Friend read out is a very good example of why there are many people who are experts through their professions and who day to day live their ambitions to ensure that the environment is improved. I note that the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), has said, “When did you start caring about the environment?”. [ Interruption. ] She can intervene on me if she wants to, or if she wants to contribute to the debate she might want to bob. As I said, Members across the House have made very well-intentioned appeals to the Minister. I hope that between now and when he winds up he will open up his arms and ensure that he looks seriously at the amendments, not just from my party but from all parties, that seek to strengthen this legislation.

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

  More

  I expect to see a “Focus” leaflet—or whatever the Lib Dems put out in Hamble Valley—saying that is a Tory broken promise, but when did we ever take notice of the accuracy of Lib Dem literature? But I will buy him one, I promise. With regard to looking in the mirror and not liking what we see, I wake up daily basis and consider how much weight I have gained in this House over the past four years. What I will say to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) is that in Committee the Minister consistently said that he would reflect, so she is right; she has accepted the premise of my argument on this. However, not once in this legislation has the Minister made any attempt to take into account our serious concerns. He has not changed this piece of legislation once. This is a parliamentary democracy and there is not a monopoly on brilliant ideas, despite the fact that the Minister likes to think he has one. If the Minister wanted to make the Bill better, he could look openly at some of our amendments and accept them. I know that when he stands up to make his winding-up remarks, he will not accept them and that this legislation will therefore not be able to be supported by all parties in this House. If he had made some changes that could have delivered to the people of this country, we would have been able to support it. This is a shame, because some of his genuine and well-intentioned attempts to change the housing market in this country will now not be achievable because of the Labour Government’s intransigence. As I have said, the Minister could have made some decent changes to the Bill. We and the Green party and the Lib Dems had serious concerns on environmental standards— [ Interruption. ] I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary for a very long time, and I thought that PPSs were supposed to sit and ferry notes for their Minister, and not to contribute to the debate. I am having real difficulty with this consistent heckling from the two PPSs. They are aspiring to high office and I really do not think they should be carrying on in this way; I never did—then again, I was never a Minister, so there we go. I am a big fan of them both, of course. I shall finish on this point. The Greens, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party had a real disagreement on environment standards, and it is still our contention that environment standards will not be improved under this legislation. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) tabled a number of amendments because experts had clearly stated their concern that environmental standards would be reduced under this legislation. The Minister did not make any concessions. On the centralisation and erosion of local powers for planning committees, we tabled a number of sensible amendments—

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

  More

  I know that many of my hon. Friends were concerned to hear about my generosity in the Tea Room. It was simply that we were very tired and I bought an espresso for the Minister, just once. I did offer one to the Lib Dem spokesman, but I have not delivered on that promise—

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

  More

  I was expecting so much from the hon. Gentleman, given how he intervened on me consistently in Committee with an encyclopaedic knowledge of my previous quotes. I did not know that he took such an interest in my career up until this point. I know, as a county neighbour, that he is a dedicated and assiduous Member of Parliament who genuinely stands up for his constituents. I will say to him that my comments yesterday were absolutely accurate. Over 1 million homes were approved, and many more first-time buyers were given the chance of owning a home, under the last Government.

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

  More

  I understand, and I say this with respect to the hon. Gentleman: I think the new clause is well intentioned, but roads are absolutely necessary. Sometimes, on the CPO powers currently allocated in existing legislation, even though we disagree with some of the overreach that the Minister wants to put forward, we believe fundamentally in the rights and responsibilities of local government to decide how they want to allocate routes in localities. We agree that in some cases, as in my constituency, which covers half of Fareham and half of Eastleigh, there needs to be better co-ordination between local authorities. However, we fundamentally disagree with the extension and provision of powers, which we do not believe should be allocated, in new clause 22.

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

  More

  My right hon. Friend, not uncharacterist-ically, has made an excellent point and I entirely agree with her. As I said yesterday, the Minister has had a unique opportunity with this Bill—a detailed and potentially groundbreaking Bill—to fundamentally change the planning processes in this country for the better. He told us many times on the Bill Committee that he was reflecting on some of the genuine points and key concerns that Members from across the House brought to him. However, those reflections amounted to nothing. He consistently said that he would reflect on the genuine principles that we brought forward, but we have seen no changes in the legislation. We have seen no acceptance of our thoughts and no efforts to change this legislation to reflect the genuine concerns that so many of us brought to this place. The Liberal Democrats tabled many amendments and new clauses. As the Minister knows, I very rarely praise the Liberal Democrats on the Floor of the House or in my constituency of Hamble Valley, and I am not likely to do so going forward. However, what I would say is that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and his colleague, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), tabled some really good and principled amendments that would have this improved this legislation, particularly on chalk streams and on some of our other concerns.

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

  More

  I will briefly, but he will let me finish this point. The proposals have been put forward by all parties to ensure that the legislation is better and more efficient, but fundamentally serves the people who send us here and who want to see differences in the way in which their country is run. We argue that this legislation does not do that, we argue that this is a massive centralising overreach advocated by the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and we stand fundamentally against it.