Paul Holmes MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will try not to take that personally. The Minister should be grateful for what he has got. If he wanted a shadow Energy Minister on the Committee, he could have made that known through the usual channels.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 83 was tabled by the shadow Scottish Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). We welcome clause 22, which empowers the Secretary of State to establish a financial benefit scheme for people living near new or upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. It is vital that people living locally to such works, who will see their life disrupted, should receive fair compensation for their trouble. I said in the last Committee session, as did other Opposition Members, that we support the Government’s move to do that and to involve local communities, following on from some of the provisions that the Conservatives made in government. Where there is a disagreement, however, is on the level of that compensation. Amendment 83 would require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme under which persons with a specified connection to qualifying premises are entitled to a financial benefit of £1,000 per year for 10 years, provided directly or indirectly by electricity providers. We believe that this would be able to be monitored under the current scope of the legislation, particularly where it says that the Secretary of State may provide funding from Parliament to those administering the scheme. Provisions would also be made for complaints, procedures, appeals or dispute resolution related to the scheme. The regulations would be subject to an affirmative procedure—we do not see any need to change that. The clause would apply to England, Scotland and Wales and come into force on Royal Assent. We would argue that the level set out in the amendment would not need to change the Bill. The scheme would allow eligible residents, mainly through electricity suppliers, to receive benefits based on the proximity to above-ground transmission projects, including past projects, which are fair and proportionate. Under our amendment, any scheme established under proposed new section 38A(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 would have to include provision for, for example, homeowners residing within 500 metres of qualifying premises to be entitled to financial benefits of £1,000 a year for 10 years. The Minister and I did not argue—we never argue—but debated last time, and the Opposition accept the nature of what the Minister intends to do, but we feel that there needs to be more clarity for the consumer and for local people. There were stories on Sky News that the consumer benefit for homes near electricity transmission infrastructure would be set at about £250 a year, so I would be grateful if the Minister would state what he expects the level of compensation to be and clarify that for the rest of the Committee. Whether the Minister chooses to accept our very reasonable offer of £1,000 a year or not, will he answer how errors or instances of fraud will be handled within the administration of the benefit scheme? What rights do residents or other parties have to appeal decisions or penalties related to the benefit scheme? What role will the Secretary of State play in ongoing monitoring and enforcement of the scheme, with particular regard to regulatory powers? As I said, I do not want to go over the arguments again, but the Opposition believe that we must take communities with us, when it comes to consumers and people affected by large-scale planning decisions through centralisation and an attempt—to be fair to the Minister—to reduce the bureaucracy and deliver the infrastructure that we need. We talked last time about community benefit under other amendments and clauses of the Bill. The Opposition believe that residents and local communities deserve to know that there will be a certain amount for a certain period, and we believe that £1,000 a year for 10 years is something that local people would welcome. I commend amendment 83 to the Committee.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  May I say, Mrs Hobhouse, that you are absolutely on fire? We are getting through things very quickly, and I will adhere to your instructions. The clause updates the objection and decision-making timelines under the Highways Act 1980. Although the goal is to align with other planning regimes, several concerns remain. First, the clause reduces the objection period in England to a minimum of 30 days, but maintains it at six weeks in Wales. What justifies that discrepancy? Should there not be consistency across all authorities? Furthermore, is it not the case that reducing the objection period may limit the time available for affected parties to prepare responses? I know that this is outside the remit of this very prescriptive clause, but many constituents will say that they did not get the letter or see the things that were posted, or that local people simply were not able to see things. I really think that this 30-day restriction will harm many average Joes—I hate that term, but I do not know how else to put it. People out there, who have busy lives, busy jobs and families, and who are working on their daily lives, will really struggle, in the first place, to see things within 30 days. However, they will also not know that the period is now 30 days and may therefore not be consulted on some of the actions that authorities may take. I ask the Minister to assess whether 30 days is the right length of time. I am not talking about having an unrestricted length of time for consultation, and we absolutely need to make sure, if we want to deliver on some of these policies, that the timeframe is reasonable. However, I question whether 30 days is far too rapid and will cause more harm than good to the consultation rights of the British public. I would also ask what systems will be in place to notify stakeholders of deadline changes and extensions in individual cases, to ensure clear and accessible communication. I have a last question. While the intent of the clause is to streamline processes, we must ensure fairness, transparency and quality decision making, allowing stakeholders to engage meaningfully. We absolutely accept that there is currently no statutory deadline. Ten weeks is adequate, but on the 30 days element of the consultation period, when we think about people out there with busy lives, I think could cause a huge problem for democratic accountability and for the transparency of the system in allowing local people to have their say. I ask the Minister to look at that 30 days again, but we will not press the clause to a Division.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Good morning, Mrs Hobhouse. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to see you again. I welcome both Ministers to their places. As soon as you said that we can start removing layers, Mrs Hobhouse, my button suddenly popped off. I apologise, and I guarantee that I will not remove any more layers, for fear of disrupting the Committee. The clause amends the Electricity Act 1989, requiring the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to implement a cap and floor scheme for long-duration energy electricity storage or LDES. We are concerned that the clause introduces unnecessary bureaucracy and will distort the market with the introduction of the scheme. I have several questions on this. Can the Minister explain what criteria will determine the initial cap and floor levels? More importantly, how frequently will they be reviewed to stay responsive to market changes? We know that the scheme aims to provide financial stability to LDES for operators by setting revenue caps and income floors, and to encourage investment in this technology. However, will LDES operators and investors have a role in reviewing or adjusting the scheme to ensure that it reflects real-world conditions? Will there be eligibility criteria for a formal application process for operators to access the scheme, ensuring fair access for all players? Those concerns, we would argue, highlight the need for clarity and effective integration with broader energy policies and to ensure the scheme’s success. I look to the Minister for clarification on those elements of the clause. We do not intend to divide at this stage, but we will provide further scrutiny at further stages of the process.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the clarity in the Minister’s opening remarks on the clause. While the theory of generating renewable energy, and deriving income by selling electricity generated from renewable sources, on public forestry land is positive, several concerns need to be addressed that do not lend support to the Government’s initiative. I issue a word of warning to the Minister from experience: measures that concern public forests can be very divisive. As the previous party in government, we still have the scars on our back when it comes to forests. However, we accept that there are clear precedents in Scotland for what the clause will do. I have a couple of questions for the Minister on these very well intentioned measures. Again, there is a need for clear consultation with people who live locally. We accept that these forests are run by experts, and we pay tribute to them for the way in which they run our forests across the country, but there will be people who have an absolute passion for our forests. Believe me: we saw them in our inbox when I worked for an MP. We need some clarity on that. My first question is how the powers will balance commercial activity with conservation duties. The Minister said that there are examples of where we have done that before. It is a genuine question. We must make sure that when there is a drive to allow this to happen, some of the conversation elements are not lost in the management of the forests, and that renewable projects do not undermine biodiversity, recreation or climate resilience. Secondly, what criteria will determine when ministerial consent is required for projects? As I am sure we agree, clear thresholds are necessary for consistency and community confidence. Within that, there must be consultation of local people. As I said, it can be an incredibly emotive topic when people find out from their local forestry commission that it is engaging in some electricity generation. When it comes to our beautiful forests, such wording can mean that people need to be told about it properly and consulted properly. What is the Minister doing to ensure that that will be at the forefront of these projects? As I said, we have been there before. Does the Minister have any concept of how income from renewable generation will be managed? Oversight mechanisms will be vital to ensure transparency and accountability in these commercial activities. Are there limits on the scale or type of renewable projects on public land to prevent industrial-scale developments, and how will local communities be engaged in decisions affecting their access to public land? While the clause offers opportunities, it poses risks that need careful management, so I urge the Government to provide more details to ensure that the powers are used responsibly, and that there is no mission creep at the end of the day from this very well intentioned clause.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will, yes—is he going to give me another one?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 22, page 29, line 33, after “benefits” insert “of £1,000 per year for ten years”.

• 12 May 2025 · Immigration System · Hansard source

  More

  She won’t answer it.

• 8 May 2025 · Cold and Damp Homes · Hansard source

  More

  Good luck to him—I hope he sends his sponsorship details to every Member in the House. He outlined a very important case. Whatever party and constituency we represent, we will all have received the bog-standard response from a housing association or council saying that residents who have damp and mould have had their mould wash put in, and they need to keep their windows open and they need to stop using the tumble dryer indoors. It is not good enough. All Members in this House need to push harder on the sector, and we need to push harder in raising the concerns of our constituents who have those problems. We must all do better, and there is much more to do. In that spirit, I refer to the fantastic speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). She set out the clear conflict in the social sector between building more homes and ensuring investment to keep standards up in the housing stock. Those concerns have been raised by the sector with me, as shadow Housing Minister. I would not go as far as to say that I agree with the hon. Lady that it is impossible, but it is certainly a lot harder. I myself used to work for the largest housing association in the United Kingdom. We consistently had a line back to the previous Government; we wanted to be ambitious, and we absolutely wanted to commit to making sure that we had decent homes. The issue is that, with homebuilding targets relying on the old profit model, not-for-profit companies get stuck trying to deliver those targets. We need to do better at making sure that the sector is supported. I am a great fan of the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). She said that there is still a taboo around social housing. She is absolutely correct. I am proud to have grown up on council estates in New Cross, Bermondsey and then Lewisham. My parents still live in their council house. In all parties, we should express our support for people who live in council housing. For many, it is a great step up and a security blanket. I would be the first to admit that the last Government did not go far enough in supporting the housing and social sector. I am determined to change that, because I was created and grew up in the sector myself. Every home should be a place of pride, safety and stability. That sense of pride is shattered when people are handed keys to a new home built with shoddy workmanship, incomplete fittings or insufficient insulation, or when people’s homes are not looked after properly, with poor repairs and maintenance regimes of housing associations or private landlords. They need to be supported more. On new builds, the last Government did important work to make new homes fit for the future, including by improving insulation standards, but where insulation is still lacking, we need urgent action. I welcome the new responsibilities given to Ofgem to oversee repairs and remediation in this area. This debate is not just about building new homes to a suitable standard; it is also vital to legislate for the proper and safe maintenance of the existing and ageing stock. I am pleased that in the last Government we passed the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2024, a landmark piece of legislation that strengthens the powers of the regulator of social housing. The Act introduced Awaab’s law, setting strict limits for social landlords to deal with hazards like damp and mould. The tragic death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak—I used to share an office with his MP, before he left this place, so I saw the tragic case borne out in real time—was caused by prolonged exposure to mould in his home and is a heartbreaking reminder of what can go wrong when we fail to act. Such a tragedy should never have happened, and we must ensure it never happens again. There must be nowhere for rogue landlords to hide—either private landlords or social landlords. While of course holding this Minister and Government to account, I will continue to work with them to build on the progress we have made in protecting tenants from dangerous living conditions.

• 8 May 2025 · Cold and Damp Homes · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is correct to say that there are areas in which we could have gone further. Some of that could have been met by actions we brought forward, such as a new housing ombudsman and making sure that regulation was better, but I do not think we worked at pace to do that as fast as we could. We need to learn from that, as I said openly to the Minister. I congratulate him on his position, as there is no one in the House who knows more about the housing sector than him, having prepared the manifesto. We may disagree vehemently about it at times, but I cannot knock his talent and expertise. That is where we will offer to work with the Government on making those great strides. It is utterly unacceptable in 21st-century Britain that any family should be put in danger because of where they live. Everyone, regardless of background, income or postcode, deserves to live in a decent, safe and secure home. The last Government’s consultation on Awaab’s law proposed sensible timelines. Landlords must investigate hazards within 14 days, act within a further seven, and complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. I welcome this Government’s commitment to implementing the law from October. That implementation must be timely, thorough and enforced, and they will have our support in doing so. It is important to highlight that providers across the sector continue to invest in their existing stock to drive up standards. The previous Government oversaw the halving of the number of non-decent homes in the social housing sector since 2010, but the cost associated with these new requirements will likely require a rise in rents and service charges, which present their own associated challenges to an overburdened sector. As L&Q Group—not the housing association I worked for, but its rival—noted “providers across the sector invested £37 billion in bringing homes up to a decent standard, at an average cost of £10,000 per home.” But without additional Government support, this pace will slow, adding more pressure on renters. As the hon. Member for Bath outlined, it will also slow house building in this sector for the people who most need it, and it will harm the Government’s 1.5 million housing target. On that topic, I must turn to the issue of winter fuel support, as the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley did. The Minister knows our views on winter fuel support, which I will not rehash, but it is a lifeline for many, and especially for our pensioners. I know I speak for many colleagues across the House when I say that I am deeply concerned about this Government’s decision to scrap the winter fuel allowance, which will impact 10 million pensioners nationwide. Age UK research shows that, in the north-west alone, 1.2 million pensioners are losing support and 300,000 of them are already living in or close to poverty. That is not just a policy failure but a moral failure that we all must bear. Our pensioners have worked in, contributed to and built this country, and we cannot and must not leave them out in the cold. Energy bills are still going up, and there is the double whammy of removing the winter fuel payment and the energy inefficiency of housing, particularly for pensioners. The Government’s promises to freeze energy bills have not been met, which is not only harming those who are vulnerable but stopping them heating their homes when they need to. I hope that the Minister takes my criticisms, suggestions and support in the spirit in which they are intended. The Government have a lot to reconsider: a settlement for pensioners that exacerbates their strained living conditions; a housing algorithm that abdicates responsibility for the issue to overburdened local authorities; and a faltering ambition to build a record number of homes. We all want to see more houses built—I have repeatedly said that—and for those houses to be of high quality, but we also want to have a decent standard of homes across the private rented sector, too. There is much more work to be done, and the Government must rethink their approach to benefits for pensioners and vulnerable people while they still have a chance to correct their course, or it will be the general public who suffer the consequences of the Government’s mismanagement. I stand ready to offer support to the Minister in a genuine, open and constructive way, and I look forward to his response.

• 8 May 2025 · Cold and Damp Homes · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing this debate. It was the English Army officer and playwright Guy du Maurier who wrote that every Englishman’s home is his castle. In that phrase, he summed up the immense feelings of pride and belonging that people should feel about their home. Whether they are homeowners or renters, it should always be the case that everyone in this country—every child, every parent, every pensioner—can live in a home that is warm, dry and safe. I know that all colleagues in this House will agree that that should be the bare minimum. The hon. Member’s timing in calling this debate is, as usual, perfect—it is almost as good as his timing in arriving at the debate with 30 seconds to spare. Maybe he should think about entering a marathon with sprinting like that—

• 1 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted that the Leader of the House has given time for a general debate on VE Day. It is vital that we remember the sacrifice that each and every one of our communities made through the loss of servicemen for the liberties won for each and every one of us. We will never forget them. If I may, I want to pay tribute to the parliamentary security and policing teams. On Monday evening a friend and I, while on the Terrace, saw a man enter the water outside from Westminster bridge. We ran to report it to a police officer, who took us very seriously and immediately reported it in. Five minutes later, emergency services located the person and evacuated them. I thank the emergency services and that police officer, whose name I did not get, for acting in a timely way. We wish the affected person well, as he was taken to hospital. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for outlining the forthcoming business. She will, I know, be looking forward to the FA cup final on 17 May and will be cheering Manchester City on to victory against Crystal Palace almost as loudly as she heckles Opposition politicians here. I look forward to my team, Southampton, meeting her team later on that month, although from our record I am not sure it will go too well. On the subject of own goals, I am sure Members on both sides of the House will be looking on with some confusion at the chaos in the Government’s ranks following the former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s suggestion that the Government’s plan to phase out fossil fuels in the short term are doomed to fail. That election-winning machine, at whose name many on the Labour Benches now groan at the simple mention of, has spoken sense. Of course, it can be frustrating when former leaders weigh in on debates with contrary views to the parties they once led. Believe me, I know how the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero feel—we have had more than our fair share—but the Government know that the former Prime Minister has a point. We know that the Government are dreading the local elections today, the first real test of their performance in the nine months since they took power. What will we see? An ideological kamikaze dive towards net zero carbon emissions that tonight will deliver gains of net zero seats. I pay tribute to candidates of all parties who have taken the step to put their heads above the parapet and who are willing to charge into the political fray. Without them, our democracy would wither. Of course, I would like to wish those standing as Conservative candidates all the best, and I hope the House will understand why I have done that. As voters go to the polls, they will be asking themselves what sort of council they want to represent them and provide vital public services for them and their families. Do they want the high-tax, highly bureaucratic, debt-laden local authorities of Labour, or do they want efficient, effective and accountable local guardians, which they have under the Conservatives? Let us not forget that Conservative councils deliver better services with lower council taxes. We do not have to look any further than Labour-controlled Birmingham, where bin bags have piled up on the streets, to get an idea of the monumental failures of this Labour Government so far. That is to say nothing of the rats, which not only represent a terrible health and safety threat to residents but terrorise the neighbourhoods they infest. They will not be jumping from any sinking ships, but the Government’s past voters certainly are. Why is the Government’s ship sinking? We need only look over at the Labour Benches to see who is to blame. After nine months of Labour Government, the promise of change has ended up in the over-filling bins of the council they control. I will not argue that there have been some changes. The Prime Minister has changed his donor-funded Armani suits many times, while the pensioners that they have made poorer buy their clothes from the charity shops that this Government are taxing to the hilt. Talking of donors, a Labour donor is now becoming the independent football regulator. What a bargain for half a million pounds. Most important are not the changes the Government have made, but the fact that the public have changed their minds about Labour —and how can we blame them? The Office for Budget Responsibility has halved its estimate for growth this year. With the Government’s continued campaign against the elderly, farmers, the self-employed and small business owners, it is no wonder that the Government are so unpopular. They have run out of people to target. There is a saying that actions have consequences. Can the Leader of the House find time to schedule a debate to discuss the consequences of her Government’s economic failures and the woeful actions of their Chancellor? Growth is at all-time low. Taxes and debt are at an all-time high. Businesses and charities are alarmed at how they will keep going. Can we have a debate on that mission for growth and how it is going? I suspect the answer will be no. I want to raise one final topic with the Leader of the House, which I and other colleagues have touched on previously: the long timeframes and poor-quality responses to written correspondence and written questions from Members. As I am sure all Members and the Leader of the House will agree, it is vital that we, as parliamentarians, are able to make representations to the Government and receive responses to our queries in a timely manner, with a reply that takes full account of the questions made. Too many times now, Members have had to raise in this Chamber the response times, or lack of response to their constituency inquiries. The number of written questions being answered by this Government is down, and I have to say that the quality of response is deteriorating. I do hope she will take this up with her Cabinet colleagues. As we go away for our bank holiday, I wish the Leader of the House and all Members a restful weekend, with a chance to spend time with loved ones and, perhaps, put a call in to their Chief Whip. We will return on Tuesday, when we will continue to hold this Government to account for the people of this great country.

• 1 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I please ask the Leader of the House to outline the forthcoming business?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My contribution will be very short, because the Opposition agree with what the Minister said. It seems perfectly reasonable to amend section 36D of the Electricity Act 1989, which allows anybody aggrieved by the process to appeal. That is a welcome step that meets some of our challenges in other areas of the Bill—not those for which this Minister is responsible—in relation to people being intimately involved in some of these decisions. If people are not happy with what is happening in their local communities, they should be able to challenge it. I welcome the clause, and we will not press it to a vote.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Do I move the new clauses now?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross). Just as the Minister is not an expert on the south coast, I am not an expert on Scottish constituencies, particularly as they all changed their names at the last boundary review. This simple amendment would introduce additional consultation requirements. It is in a similar vein to amendment 81, which, with your permission, Mr Twigg, I intend to move later. It would enable community and public consultations when an application goes forward. As I said in the last debate, I do not think it is unreasonable that, when an application is put forward, members of the public should have a public consultation to hear about the perceived benefits and to challenge the organisations trying to bring forward infrastructure projects. We must also accept that consultations can take effect in a number of ways, based on whether the infrastructure is being built in rural or urban areas. This is a simple amendment that seeks to make sure that, when an application goes forward, Scottish Ministers have the powers that the Minister has outlined to ensure there is a public consultation, so that the people on the ground who are genuinely affected by such infrastructure projects have a say and see the transparency that we hope the Bill will put in place.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you. I must apologise, Mr Twigg; this is the first time I have been a shadow Minister on a Bill Committee and I am a bit rusty, but I am learning very quickly. I thank the Minister for Energy for being very gentle with me as well when discussing Scottish energy connectivity and Scottish planning. He will understand that beggars cannot be choosers on the number of MPs that we have, but being a Member for what is possibly the most southern part of the south coast that one can get bar the Isle of Wight, I am doing my best to discuss the Scottish planning system. I am grateful for the spirit in which he is responding to our new clauses and amendments. I am also grateful to his officials for their work, too. I understand what the Minister is saying, and I know his reasons for refusing to accept previous amendments under clause 14, but these new clauses create a parallel system. He is absolutely right that Scottish Ministers are accountable to Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament, but Scottish Members of Parliament here are accountable to their constituents. The Secretary of State also has a role within this Parliament and within this UK Government. On new clause 54, the Minister is quite right to say that the Scottish Parliament already has that reporting mechanism, but I do not think that it is unreasonable that the Secretary of State should be able to do that for Scottish MPs here too; when we have questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland, we discuss UK legislation relating to Scotland.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Has the Minister identified or outlined any potential total income that will come out of this measure? I know that it is not a certain process and that it is not certain how many will come forward.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will confine myself to clause 17. The Minister has often said that he does not want to direct Scottish Government Ministers on a devolved issue. That is perfectly reasonable. When I last intervened on him, I did not ask him to dictate to Scottish Government Ministers; I asked whether he had sought an assurance from them—

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has had his say. All I am saying, politely, is that in a different provision of the Bill, the Government have completely removed pre-application consultation for nationally significant projects, yet the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero believes in them. He does not want to accept our amendment to ensure transparent public consultation because pre-application consultation is strong enough already, and the public will be able to have their concerns looked at. The Minister says that they are different systems, but the principles are exactly the same. Ministers cannot rely on that argument for this amendment but not accept the same argument for amendments considered by the Committee earlier. However, as a realist, I know that this will not go very far. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister keeps saying “reserved”. That is fine, but we have a Secretary of State for Scotland, accountable to a UK Parliament, who represents Scottish constituencies. There is a role for this Parliament to report and to scrutinise the successes of the Scottish Executive and the UK Government, with the Secretary of State having an overarching position as Secretary of State representing Scotland. Scottish Members of Parliament are entitled to the same rights and benefits as Scottish MSPs when scrutinising the Scotland Government north of the border. The Minister wanted me to pronounce “Gordon and Buchan”. I think that is right—I am not sure, but I did my best. Honestly, there are worse ones to pronounce. Clearly, we are going to disagree on our approach to these two new clauses, but the reason for new clause 53 is exactly the same. I am surprised by the Minister’s reticence in allowing his Scottish colleagues to be able to have the same rights of scrutiny as Scottish MSPs. It is not an arduous new clause. It would not be arduous on the Government or the Scotland Office to produce those outcomes or statistics. It would not be arduous on the Scotland Office or the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to provide evidence of community consultation, particularly when we have just discussed some of the amendments that the Opposition have tabled on community consultation. It would also not be arduous for the Scotland Office—or whatever Department would be answering—to provide estimates of economic benefits to local communities. That is exactly why many members of this Committee who represent Scottish constituencies are here in this UK Parliament: to develop policy that brings economic benefits to local communities. The Minister needs to think outside the box and allow Scottish MPs from all parties in this House to have those rights to scrutinise, to develop the economic benefits to local communities. He should not feel so constrained by the Scottish devolved Administration; he should branch out, improve and increase the power of the Scotland Office or his Department, and allow Scottish MPs to have their say in this area of legislation.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am not trying to be difficult with the Minister at all—I know it seems that I am, but I am not. He said that he has not had those conversations but he now will, and that is welcome. This clause is procedural and process-driven, but within the grand scheme of the Bill it is stated clearly in black and white that the UK Government have an objective for the extra income to be generated, yet the Minister has not had that conversation with Scottish Ministers. I do not blame him for that, but he will now have those conversations going forward. I hope that when it comes to other clauses, UK Government documents will be very clear about the aims, ambitions and outcomes of what they will do because what we have seen this afternoon has been questionable. The UK Government are setting an objective, with no way to actually achieve it.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Both—that is the world we are in, unfortunately. I would be grateful if the Minister could see if there is an opportunity for a meeting between himself and that shadow Minister on how we can strengthen the grassroots-level consultation that is important to the system. I look forward to the Minister’s response. If we could secure some unofficial channels on how we can strengthen this clause when we get to further stages, I would be grateful. I will not push the amendment, but I would like the Minister to respond to those concerns.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Notwith-standing the comments from my fellow shadow Minister, who made an excellent contribution, can I press the Minister on one question? My hon. Friend outlined the Opposition’s concern over removing wholesale—we are not saying that the Minister is doing this—the checks and balances relating to somebody being able to challenge a decision that they deem has not been taken in the right way. However, it would be remiss of us as a party not to acknowledge that there are cases where JR is used vexatiously. To use an example from my constituency, I waited for 12 years to get a 300-foot extension to Southampton airport’s runway. It took three judicial reviews before we finally got that through. There was unmitigated support from the local authority and me as the Member of Parliament at the time, and it was taken to JR for what I would say were very dubious reasons, just to try to delay the project. I understand why the Minister is bringing in the measures, notwithstanding some of the concerns that my hon. Friend mentioned about the balance. However, I am reassured by what the Minister said about not removing the ability to challenge and tightening the process around what can be accepted as being without merit. I have one question for the Minister, which he may not be able to answer today—I would not necessarily expect him to—but perhaps he could write to me about it. Following Lord Banner’s work, which was a thoughtful examination of how legal challenges could be streamlined, has the Minister made any assessments, through officials or the Department, of how much time or cost on average the changes to clause 8 might mean for the system overall? I am not expecting him to get his abacus out and look at that now, but I wonder whether he could outline to the Committee, through an impact assessment, the effect of some of the changes. We will not push this clause to a Division. We understand the principled reason why the Minister is bringing it forward, even if we have some concern about the detail of the measure.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Of course.