Pippa Heylings MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I completely concur. We appreciate the work done by my hon. Friend and others in the Bill Committee, and by tabling numerous amendments at this stage to help the Government improve the Bill. Why do we need more stringent regulations and demands on developers, rather than less? Why do we need evidence and mitigations approved prior to development, rather than a “pay later for something, somewhere” nature restoration fund? It is because we have the evidence to show what happens without much-needed investment in enforcement capacity for local councils. On the Environmental Audit Committee, we heard the conclusions of the Lost Nature report: for nearly 6,000 homes across 42 developments, only half of the environmental pledges were kept. The others were missing in action—a staggering 83% of hedgehog highways, 100% of bug boxes and 75% of both bat and bird boxes. We need more. That is why I am speaking to the targeted amendments my hon. Friend has mentioned, to make sure we can have this win-win. His ew clause 1 would reinstate the mitigation hierarchy as a legal duty. Simply put, the duty is: first, avoid harm; then mitigate if that is not possible; and only compensate and offset as a last resort. This principle has underpinned environmental planning for decades and cannot be cast aside. Amendments 6 to 10 and new clauses 26 and 29 aim to address the Office for Environmental Protection’s concerns and strengthen the overall improvement test for environmental delivery plans. I support new clause 21, which requires local plans to have due consideration to the local nature recovery strategies, which are currently silent in the planning system. Amendments 16 and 70 would give protections to England’s globally rare chalk streams—our rainforest and our groundwater. We have 85% of the world’s chalk streams, many of them in Lib Dem constituencies, including mine, yet they remain unprotected. I hope the Government will consider amendments to the Bill, because we face a choice: pass this nature-wrecking Bill as it stands, or fix it by adopting amendments to protect chalk streams, restore wildlife and create a planning system that works with nature, not against it. I know what the Liberal Democrats will be voting for.

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

  More

  I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party group on local nature recovery. When the Government first introduced this Bill, they branded it a win-win. They said that we could build the homes and infrastructure that this country desperately needs and protect and restore nature. We have seen in my constituency—one of the fastest growing areas of the country, with a Liberal Democrat-run local planning authority—that it is indeed possible to demand from developers both ambitious house building and high environmental standards that restore nature. We Liberal Democrats believe that a healthy childhood for all children includes homes that are energy-efficient and warm, not cold and damp; access to green space for mental and physical health; and infrastructure, including public transport, GPs and schools. When done well, nature is a partner to the healthy homes and green energy that our country needs. However, through this Bill, the Government risk taking a wrecking ball to good-quality development. Nature is not a blocker to development. We are pointing the figure at the wrong culprit, and this is cheap, false rhetoric. Nature is not to blame. The Government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, has publicly warned that the Bill in its current form will be a regression from current environmental protections, rather than increasing the number of homes, helping nature and helping us to meet our binding climate and nature pledges. Instead it will remove vital safeguards and put protected sites and species at risk. Over 30 leading environmental organisations, including the RSPB, the wildlife trusts and the National Trust, have raised the alarm about part 3 of the Bill, with its very worrying plan to move to a “cash to trash” model for the nature restoration fund. I know the Minister has rejected that characterisation, but in the Environmental Audit Committee we heard robust evidence from expert witnesses that we could call it a “pay some amount later for something, somewhere” fund.

• 20 May 2025 · Clean Energy Transition: Spending Review · Hansard source

  More

  Successive Governments have failed to deliver a fair energy transition for workers and communities. We have seen the devastating closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery, and now we are seeing uncertainty around the gas storage facility off the east coast. Just seven out of 87 offshore oil and gas companies are planning to invest anything in renewable energy by 2030, so the Government must be the ones in the driving seat to ensure that our North sea oil and gas workers do not meet the same fate. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on new financial support to create recruitment and retention pathways for workers moving into the clean energy pathway?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  We welcome the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, but we urge the Government to go further, particularly with regard to the protection of chalk streams. That is very personal to me and to many Members across the House. I have campaigned for many years to stop the dumping of raw sewage and for the better protection of our chalk streams, alongside campaign organisations, the Cam Valley Forum, and the many local river action groups for the Mel, the Granta, the Shep, the Rhee, the Wilbraham, the Orwell and the Cherry Hinton brook. Some progress has been made locally, with the hard-won award of a bathing water designation for the Sheep’s Green section of the River Cam. That has secured much-needed financing for clean-up actions by Anglian Water of the small sewage treatment work upstream in Haslingfield. However, not all our chalk streams can have bathing water designation as a mechanism of protection, especially when they have to struggle and suffer with overwhelmed small sewage treatment works as a result of unprecedented housing growth and development in our area. That is why I bemoan the fact that the 2025 Act and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill do not get rid of the damaging automatic right to connect for developers, which means that water companies cannot say whether they have the capacity to manage sewage in the area.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Onshore Wind and Solar Generation · Hansard source

  More

  We are absolutely and critically supportive of a just transition in the North sea, to move off fossil fuels alongside and parallel to our increased use of renewable energy. It is therefore right to reintroduce onshore wind into the nationally significant investment regime, ensuring that there is a level playing field with other generating technologies such as solar, offshore wind and nuclear, which are already assessed under that regime. The motion also raises the threshold for solar projects deemed nationally significant from 50 MW to 100 MW. In one way, that increased threshold will help to prevent poor land use, given that the previous threshold incentivised developers to put in an artificial cap of 49.9 MW, which led to 40% of proposals coming in at that level. Increasing the threshold in local planning decisions also means that biodiversity net gain will be required of solar farms, ensuring that, where they are approved, they are nature-friendly. It will also give local voices a greater say in determining the location and suitability of large-scale solar projects up to 100 MW—that is important. However, local decision making about large-scale solar cannot happen in a vacuum. We need a joined-up approach that balances the need for food security, energy infrastructure, new homes and nature recovery. That is why we welcome the Government’s launching of consultations on both the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plans, which together should determine the most strategic energy mix, how much solar we need, at what scale and where best to locate it across the country.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Onshore Wind and Solar Generation · Hansard source

  More

  We are living in the shadow of the former Conservative Government’s failure to invest in renewable energy and insulate our homes. Those failures have contributed directly to an energy crisis that has left households struggling with soaring bills and businesses facing crippling costs. The majority of people polled in this country want to see more action on climate change and saving our planet, not less. The Liberal Democrats are unwavering champions of renewable energy. Now more than ever, we need to strengthen our home-grown energy security and stop our dependency on despots such as Putin. We welcome the lifting of the effective moratorium on onshore wind, which we have long called for. That was an extremely short-sighted and irresponsible Conservative policy. The planning changes that they made in 2015 and 2016 introduced a de facto ban in England, resulting in a loss to our manufacturing and local economies. The project pipeline for onshore wind shrank by over 90%, and less than 40 MW was consented to and became operational in the intervening period.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Given our conversations in this debate about the importance of considering our coastal communities in relation to the new powers that are to be given to the Crown Estate, I draw attention in particular to an example on the north Norfolk coast, the fastest-eroding coastline in north-west Europe. Key sites, vital to our energy infrastructure and security, lie on that coast. For decades, Bacton gas terminal has been a cornerstone of the UK’s gas network, ensuring the smooth distribution of supplies arriving from overseas. Just along the coast, in Happisburgh, we find the landfall sites for the Norfolk Boreas and Norfolk Vanguard wind farms, which will generate 1.4 GW and 1.8 GW of power respectively—critical contributions to our renewable energy future. To protect Bacton’s vital infrastructure, a £20 million sandscaping project moved 2 million tonnes of sand, shielding not just the terminal, but the villages of Bacton and Walcott. In Happisburgh, however, despite its pivotal role in our transition to clean energy, no such protections have been put in place. Already, 40 homes have been lost to coastal erosion, and the latest national coastal erosion risk-mapping data shows that even more of the village is at risk in the years ahead. The amendment would ensure that, as we harness the power of North sea wind, we also safeguard the fragile North sea coast, protecting the communities that host that vital infrastructure. I will also speak to new clause 10. We have heard about the importance of considering coastal communities within all the decision making, and this new clause on marine spatial planning co-ordination would ensure that the Crown Estate’s decisions on marine priorities were properly co-ordinated and aligned with the Marine Management Organisation, which has the mandate for mediating use priorities on our seabed and along our coast. Affected communities, in particular our fishing communities, would therefore be properly and fully consulted through the Marine Management Organisation. Similar to the land use framework, this would be a sea use framework for the marine spatial plan that the Marine Management Organisation is mandated to under-take. We need a joined-up approach to decision making, with marine plans balancing economic, environmental and social interests. The Crown Estate must therefore work in full co-ordination with the marine spatial prioritis-ation framework of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Solar Farms: Agricultural Land · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, would it therefore be right to consider not overruling the Planning Inspectorate just now, in the build-up to receiving the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan from NESO, before making these big infrastructure decisions? We would take the public with us if they understood that we will decide where solar farms go once we have the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan.

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

  More

  It will not surprise anyone to hear that I agree wholeheartedly. The record has been corrected. It is vital that the Bill helps to repair that damage, and we look forward to the Minister’s commitment to bringing about these changes. As has been mentioned, the lack of ambition on the solar rooftop revolution has contributed to the barrier to public acceptance of larger scale solar farms. We are hearing people say, “Why not put panels on the rooftops of homes, industrial sites and commercial warehouses first?” We need a joined-up plan; we need the Government urgently to bring forward the much-promised land use framework and the National Energy System Operator’s strategic spatial energy plan, which will show how much solar farm energy is still needed and where it would be best placed. In that way, we can meet all our needs. The Bill is our chance to get this right. It is our chance for a cleaner, greener and more secure future that addresses the triple cost of living, housing and climate crises and takes people with us. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham.

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

  More

  As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for energy security and net zero, I am delighted to support the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson): the sunshine Bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am beaming. South Cambridgeshire is one of the fastest growing constituencies in the country in terms of house building and lab space. People constantly say to me, “Why are all of these new homes without solar panels on their roofs?” or “Why do these new homes only have one or two solar panels or only on part of the roofs?” Sadly, in 2025, developers are still required only to meet—not exceed—the Merton rule’s inadequate 10% energy improvement standard. That is why Liberal Democrat councillors in my constituency have been pushing hard to change this at the local level. In fact, in the five years since they took control of the council, South Cambridgeshire has rapidly become the district with the highest number of solar panels fitted and with the fastest increase in planning applications that include solar panels. It is the lack of ambition and political will at the national level that has held back the revolution in solar rooftops. That is why we are still building homes that are cold and damp and that have skyrocketing energy bills. The former Conservative Government disgracefully scrapped the zero carbon homes policy, and dithered and delayed on the future homes standard.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  After the Conservative Government’s failure to tackle insulation, fuel poverty is on the rise. In my constituency, almost 20% of households with young family members—those between five and 10 years—are fuel poor, living in cold, damp houses and choosing between eating and heating. While we await the warm homes plan that will deal with upgrading current housing stock, will the Minister meet the Minister for Housing and Planning to ensure that all future homes will come forward with an energy rating that is a minimum of C or higher, but not beyond 2025 for the future homes standard?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  It is so inspiring for women and girls across the country to have heard the first female Chancellor deliver her Budget today. As Liberal Democrats, we will always welcome those parts of the Budget that aim to take the NHS off life support after so many years of under-investment by the last Conservative Government. It is good to hear those commitments today. If we are to fix the NHS and bring down the disastrous treatment and appointment backlogs that are causing incredible suffering to constituents across the country, we need not only to repair hospitals with crumbling roofs but to build new ones, and urgently, because progress has been far too slow. We all knew that the new hospitals programme was ambitious but, sadly, the Conservatives failed. Originally, 40 new hospitals were promised by 2030, but not one of them has yet opened. In a cruel irony, we find ourselves with a backlog of hospitals waiting to be built, with no assurances in this Budget on how many will be funded. In my constituency, the cutting-edge Cambridge cancer hospital, with its great ambition to change the story of cancer forever, will offer lifesaving treatment to patients across the east of England, including, I hope, my husband. What really sets it apart is that in the same building, alongside the patients and their medical teams, academic and industry researchers will focus on delivering groundbreaking early detection and innovations that will transform the lives of millions of cancer patients, not just in Cambridgeshire and the east of England but worldwide. However, this new hospital is trapped in uncertainty. Despite having had a full business case approved, planning permission granted and spades in the ground, this essential hospital is on hold. Every day that we wait for the final green light, the costs escalate—not only the cost of the building but, potentially, at the cost of human lives, too. The Government have placed these hospitals that were promised in 2019 under review, because despite their promises the Conservatives never allocated the necessary funding. We wait with bated breath for the final decision, which is now set for January 2025. I had the pleasure of meeting the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to discuss the situation facing the Cambridge cancer hospital in my constituency. I received assurances that funding to support the costs of the contractor is still being paid. Will the Chancellor commit finally to allocating the funding necessary for the Cambridge cancer research hospital, so that the promises to all those in the east of England and beyond who are desperate for groundbreaking, lifesaving cancer treatments are not broken once again?

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Given your history as a civil servant and in government over the last years, one of the issues around governance under clause 5 was the level of scope and power given to the Secretary of State, without a review, being able to review, reverse or replace the statement. Given that in the past we have had the rolling back of commitments and that we are trying to create certainty for investment, do you have any reflections on whether there should be any kind of review before the Secretary of State can do anything? We are being asked to support this Bill’s being so broad and flexible that any change would be quite substantive. Is there any learning from the past where you would change the way that is described in the Bill? Josh Buckland: There is a question around consultative processes, I suppose. One thing we have seen, or that I have experienced, especially on the planning side, is that when the Government set out statements of intent—for example, through the planning regime and national policy statements—it is important to consult on those extensively in advance so that there is certainty around what they mean. Then they have to wait as institutions respond. There may be a question about what level of external input is given before the statement of strategic priorities is set out, or whether it is just a Government statement that is then passed through. There is an interesting question about consultation in advance. Once it is established, those acting and investing alongside Great British Energy will be more interested in how it as an institution interprets that statement. If it has to set out a strategic business plan as set out under subsection (8), that is the area that companies will be more interested in, because—assuming it is operationally independent—that is the thing that they will take more seriously. The other dynamic in terms of updates is the risk that regular updates to the strategic plan create uncertainty. That might go back to the question of timeline and expectations of when the statement is reviewed, when it is republished and at what stage, and what needs to change externally to make that a reality. That is probably an important dynamic. Whether that is a matter for the Bill I will leave to others to guide on, but obviously it is an area that will be of interest externally in understanding how Great British Energy operates in practice.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q May I follow up on that? We are looking at the governance side. We know that on the spatial side, we have the local energy action plan. Rather than taking an individual look, I am looking at how we ensure that where that spatial strategy happens, rather than talking about individual local community consultations, those who know about the place-making are brought into the energy planning early. I fear that leaving them out will once again endanger all the progress that has been made in local energy area planning. We just need a reference to it somehow. Adam Berman: That is a really good point. I think that there could be something in the legislation to ensure that GB Energy’s investments are consistent not only with the local area energy planning, but with the strategic spatial energy planning that the energy system operator is doing. Dan McGrail: There is a really important point here about how, to be successful in the market, GB Energy will need to engage with those processes anyway. There will be accountability around the company, but one nervousness I have is about trying to put too much into the Bill specifically on GB Energy. I agree that the point should be about complying with the things that we need to deal with, whether those are in law, in programmes such as the strategic spatial energy plan or in the work of the national system operator. Those are all interconnected and contiguous pieces of a system in which GB Energy needs to be able to operate effectively. The onus, if we put anything in legislation, is to be compliant with all that.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Great British Energy Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My question was exactly on that point. Thank you all for coming here to present your evidence. Can you explain a little more your concerns? First, given that innovation needs to pivot, but also given that we are being asked to allow for the objects to be so broad to allow for flexibility within them, Shaun, can you explain a little more why you think there should be consultation on such broad objects? Secondly, can you discuss any concerns you may have around environmental requirements for what GB Energy is going to do? That is also absent at the moment from the objects of the Bill. Shaun Spiers: On the concern about the ability of subsequent Secretaries of State simply to change the strategic direction of the organisation, you can look at recent history to know that there can be radical changes. It does not seem to me to be too demanding; it is just good governance to suggest that that should be consulted on, and that you do not give absolute powers to a Secretary of State to do that. I do not see that as a particular constraint on innovation; I just think of that as good governance. The Chair is keen that we do not lever in lots of other things on the Bill, but there is a concern. Clearly, 2030 power decarbonisation is an imperative and we need to achieve net zero, but we also have a nature crisis and there are concerns about whether GB Energy will seek to enhance nature or whether nature will take second place. Both the Secretary of State and Chris Stark, the head of mission control, have emphasised that there will be a role for considerations of nature in energy planning. But, again, that is not in the Bill, and it would be nice to see it there or to see some statement to that effect from the Dispatch Box to ensure that it is central to how GB Energy will behave. There are lots of public companies that do not prioritise nature—they prioritise bills or the delivery of their main objective—and we see the consequence of that, for instance, in the water industry.