Tessa Munt MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Jun 2025 · Covid: Fifth Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Today, we mark five years since the start of the covid-19 pandemic. Just under 227,000 people in the UK died with covid-19 listed as a cause on their death certificate. Every one of those statistics is a mother, a father, a brother, a sister, a child, a neighbour or a friend. Thousands were separated from their loved ones, and that loss and grief may never fully heal. Yet in the darkest of times, the British people shone with immense compassion and courage, and a sense of community spirit. Doctors, nurses and carers worked punishing hours, often risking their own lives; teachers, council workers and others worked in the toughest of conditions; and volunteers came forward in droves to collect and deliver prescriptions, shop for the frail and elderly, staff temporary centres to administer vaccines, and check in on neighbours. That resilience and solidarity showed the very best of who we are. Sadly, that same spirit of public service was not reflected in the highest offices of Government. The findings of the first covid inquiry, led by Baroness Hallett, laid bare the truth that the UK was ill-prepared for dealing with a catastrophic emergency, let alone the coronavirus pandemic. We had planned for the wrong pandemic, one based on flu; we ignored the risks associated with other potential pathogens; we ignored warnings; and then we failed to act on lessons from past civil emergency exercises and outbreaks of disease. These were systemic and political failings that worsened people’s suffering. Let us be frank: the most vulnerable paid the highest price. There was cruelty in the rigidity of restrictions, with families kept apart even in their loved ones’ final moments. All of this was made more painful by the bitter hypocrisy of partygate, a betrayal of trust that mocked the sacrifices of millions. The Lib Dems called for an inquiry in 2020, and we continue to demand answers. The full facts must be known about every aspect of the Government’s poor response. This is not born out of a desire for vengeance; the British people deserve to know the truth, and they deserve far better in future. We now have a moral responsibility to act, and this Government must commit to implementing the inquiry’s recommendations in full and without delay. Patients and care home residents must have a legal right to maintain contact with their loved ones; a comprehensive civil emergency strategy is essential; and the new UK Resilience Academy must train 4,000 people in resilience and emergency roles, as promised. Can the Minister give us confidence that this will be delivered? The voices of frail and older people must be heard at the heart of Government planning. We call for a commissioner for ageing and older people, to ensure that their needs are never neglected again. Public officials must be held to a duty of candour—the Government’s promise of a Hillsborough law remains unfulfilled. Can the Minister say when survivors and families will see the legislation for which they have waited so long? We must also confront a hard truth: our nation was less resilient because health inequality has left our population quite simply less healthy. Years of cuts to public health services under the Conservatives left us more vulnerable. The Lib Dems are calling for urgent action to increase the public health grant and allow communities to co-produce plans; establish a health creation unit to lead cross-Government efforts to improve health and wellbeing and tackle inequality; improve access to blood pressure checks in community spaces and expand social prescribing; introduce a new kitemark for health apps and digital health tools, ensuring that they are clinically sound; create a new levy on tobacco company profits to fund healthcare and smoking cessation services; and pass a clean air Act to tackle pollution and improve air quality. Lastly, we must not forget those living with the consequences of the virus, as Members have mentioned. We call for a long covid register. As we remember those whom we lost, we owe it to them and to future generations to ensure that these lessons are not buried in reports and left on shelves, but lead to real changes that make improvements in our constituents’ lives. The British people were courageous, generous and selfless; they deserve a Government who act to match that spirit.

• 20 Mar 2025 · British Sign Language Week · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I am sorry that my British Sign Language is incredibly rusty, having learned it 30 years ago and not having practised diligently. I want to pick up on what she said about access to learning British Sign Language. Having worked in a council as a lead member for children, families and education, it was evident that growing numbers of young people have speech, language and communications difficulties. If we can capture British Sign Language as a valid language for everybody, and teach our nursery nurses, early learning teachers and teachers right the way through our schools, that will be so much better. As I understand it, British Sign Language can be taken up to a level 6 national vocational qualification, so there is no reason why every child in this country cannot have a second language, even if it is not one of the traditional languages that we would normally recognise in the academic system.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend, and I add Tiverton and Minehead to my list. First, let me quote one of the people who wrote to me. They said: “It’s such a great scheme because the volunteers who raise money for church repairs find it such hard work making multiple lengthy applications for grants with usually little to show in return. This VAT relief once you have raised the funds is the one thing that is certain and takes the edge of all the effort”. I recognise that in 2024 this scheme already gave 5,000 listed places of worship the benefit of returning up to £42 million from the Government to congregations across the country. That £42 million is a fixed annual pot, and there are, I understand, over 7,000 applications. I will briefly indulge in talking about my own constituency, which I know the Minister has visited on occasion. I have had numerous communications with people, mainly from churches, but also, significantly, from Wells cathedral, where I saw Jethro Tull play a few years ago. The variety of activities is enormous. My partner and I should probably declare an interest; my partner played table tennis in Christ church at Theale last week. Holy Trinity church in Blackford has carols with vast slugs of wine provided to the whole congregation, St Cuthbert’s at Wells has a crib festival and St John the Baptist in Axbridge hosts the annual community awards presentation. There are others such as the Holy Trinity church in Burrington and St Mary Magdalene church in Wookey Hole. All of those places have Remembrance Sunday services where we recall the duty that people have paid to this country. My local church, St Mary’s in Wedmore, runs “The Clash of the Choirs”, which is now world famous, I have to say, and sounds sedate, but is actually a joyous celebration of all sorts of singing, school choirs, folk, handbells and a unique clap-o-meter. There are also the city of Wells almshouses, which are home to some of our more vulnerable elderly citizens. The chapel of St Saviour is benefiting at this moment from works that are being carried out under this scheme. One of the things I would like the Minister to consider is the conditions that are required for people to claim under this scheme, in which the VAT refund is dependent on having work commissioned, carried out and paid for against a VAT invoice of £1,000 or more—as I understand it—and only then can the church submit a claim. One of my concerns is that if this scheme is to be reduced, or stopped and wound up, then I ask the Minister for great understanding and for transition arrangements for those churches and chapels that already have works in train. It is quite difficult for people to get that work done, particularly when a number of my communities have been suffering from flooding and various other things, meaning that the number of available contractors has also been reduced. I will not carry on in too much detail, but I was very pleased to receive a letter from the Secretary of State that recognised that, “Listed places of worship hold great cultural and historical significance, representing some of the nation’s finest heritage.” I am grateful that the Minister and Secretary of State recognise that, and I would ask for some tolerance and kindness in continuing this scheme, which is so important to our various communities.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and particularly to the fact that I am a director of WhistleblowersUK, a not-for-profit organisation. I am the last remaining MP of the seven Members of the House of Commons who originally called on Theresa May to hold an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. My experiences are also on the record. I therefore particularly welcome the acceptance of Professor Alexis Jay’s recommendations and Baroness Louise Casey’s rapid review into child sexual exploitation. May I, however, draw the Home Secretary’s attention to my concern about police investigations? She has referred to the matter of the National Police Chiefs’ Council and to reopening cases, but I am concerned about people marking their own homework and we know that there is an institutional resistance to being found lacking and to deep scrutiny. One of the primary whistleblowers with whom I was involved has waited years for the truth to out, and senior police officers have threatened to sue her. It would appear that complaints can only be made about junior officers who are called and investigated, and that there is no ability to complain about senior officers. I ask the Home Secretary to look at the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Independent Office for Police Conduct reports, whether they have been published or not—particularly where they have not been published—and where there have been threats, as I understand it, from the police to sue members of those organisations about their findings. It is incredibly serious that we have organisations such as the IPCC and the IOPC—

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  Sometimes, small actions can help. A number of my constituents were incredibly concerned that premises owned by my local council were occupied by a company that they perceived to have been administratively involved in supplying parts for the arms business. The council has now relinquished its interest in that building. Would my hon. Friend recognise that?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come on to some of those issues. Sophisticated business entities are probably the intended target of the legislation, so there is good news for people who have divided their property assets, and bad luck for those who jointly own their property investments, which is a terribly random criterion. It was shocking enough for my constituents to find out that the nine-year-old building in which their flat sits had a cladding issue, but due to the fact that they jointly owned four properties on 14 February 2022, they were left largely unprotected. They are not like the developers or cladding suppliers. Not only that, but their status as non-qualifying leaseholders has been attached to their flat in perpetuity. Even after all the remediation work has taken place, centuries have passed—currently, this is another 990 years on the lease —and they have departed this world, every future owner of their flat will inherit the same diminished lease, while neighbouring flats are protected from the costs of making the building safe. The impact of the legislation is profound. Solicitors are advising their clients not to buy any flat with the non-qualified leaseholder status attached, even after the fire safety work has been completed. Lenders are refusing to lend on properties of that status. The values are expected to reduce considerably, possibly by as much as 50%. Estate agents realise that trying to sell properties with this status is pretty much a lost cause. Non-qualified leaseholders cannot sell their flats—they are mostly flats—and cannot mitigate the risks they have been exposed to. If a leaseholder has a 75% mortgage and the value drops by 50%, it is easy to see how financial crisis can hit ordinary people who saved hard, invested in bricks and mortar and are providing homes for rent all over the country, helping alleviate our housing crisis. Insurance premiums are sky high. If this continues, it is likely that lenders will not want to take possession if there is a default on the mortgage, because they themselves would become liable. Leaving a flat with this status in a will may expose family and friends to long-term problems associated with its status, as they will potentially inherit a liability not an asset. The legislation has removed a whole tier of property from the ever-increasing number of young buyers and those who want to downsize, such as older citizens. It is clear that without the support of surveyors, agents, solicitors and lenders, it will become increasingly hard to secure one’s first or last home. Whatever one’s political ideals, surely we all agree that there is a terrible shortage of affordable homes, and the affordable end of the market often comes in the shape of a leasehold flat. I cannot find the path of logic through this legislation. I have no idea who tried to think this one through—I recognise that it was not the Minister. It seems deeply unfair that someone’s legal rights can be different from those who own flats in the same building, just because my constituents had four or more properties in their ownership on 14 February. Will the Minister try to explain the logic, though I recognise he did not write the legislation? It would be nice if his opposite number, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), would have a crack at trying to tell me how it works—I just do not get it. It is a bit like someone having their car recalled for a safety issue and having to pay to correct the problem and any other safety problem in the future due to the fact that they and their family have three other cars between them, and they might want to sell the car once the safety fault is fixed. This is madness. The Minister is on the record as having confirmed that the Building Safety Act 2022 was written to safeguard the health and safety of those who lived in the affected buildings. If a non-qualified leaseholder has a leasehold flat as their principal flat, they are protected. What about the tenants who live in the flats owned by private landlords who are in this trap? Are they not important enough to be protected, too? The Minister further confirmed in a letter last month that once the property is brought up to standard and safety remedies are completed, in the years ahead “the expectation is that the qualification point should essentially become moot”. There is plenty in the Government’s guidelines about non-qualifying leasehold status remaining with the property in perpetuity. I can find absolutely nothing about it becoming moot. I wonder how the Minister sees that being legislated for. On the subject of Government guidelines, they are so complicated and hard to interpret that solicitors are at loggerheads over their ramifications. My constituents’ management company initially confirmed that they would be liable for all the costs associated with cladding remediation works, even if the building were accepted into the cladding safety scheme—that is, until my constituents were able to get the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to write to them confirming that they would be protected under the cladding safety scheme. However, it fell to my constituents to get proof and to convince their management company. Worse than that, the Department advises owners to contact LEASE—the Leasehold Advisory Service—to establish their rights. LEASE confirmed both on the phone and in writing that my constituents did not qualify for any help or support in the cladding safety scheme. They were advised by others in the same predicament to contact the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Can the Minister confirm who should indicate whether non-qualifying leaseholders are covered by the cladding safety scheme? These Government Departments are set up to help and guide people such as my constituents, yet they are giving completely conflicting advice. That situation has caused my constituents anguish, sleepless nights and constant worry about the possible life-changing financial burden that may be heading their way. If the Government do not sort that out so that advice is clear and consistent, we are all lost. Will the Minister meet my constituents and me to further discuss non-qualified leaseholder status as soon as possible?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) in recognising the pain, grief and hurt caused to so many connected to the Grenfell Tower tragedy, in which 72 lives were lost. I have heard the sombre comments in this debate and mean no disrespect by raising a specific matter relating to the understanding and interpretation of the legislation passed subsequently—namely, the anomaly of non-qualified leaseholder status, as it affects some constituents of mine. My constituents own a one-bedroom flat in north Somerset. It is not a penthouse or anything luxurious; it is simply a home. They purchased it in 2015 with a 999-year lease, and it was a new build, so it was theoretically covered by the NHBC 10-year guarantee. They believed it would be an ideal long-term rental property, without too many maintenance issues ahead. A neighbouring flat went up for sale in August 2024, and the buyer’s solicitor asked for an up-to-date fire risk appraisal. This prompted the management company to organise an assessment of the external walls, and the report strongly recommended cladding remediation work. My constituents would have known none of that, had it not been for the seller keeping them in the loop. The new financial protections in the Building Safety Act 2022 apply to leaseholders in buildings above 11 metres, or five storeys in height, with historical safety defects. From 28 June 2022, qualifying leaseholders in England could no longer be charged for cladding remediation, and there are legal protections for non-cladding costs. The accompanying secondary legislation came into force on 20 and 21 July 2022. The Government are clear that developers must pay to fix buildings that they had a role in developing or refurbishing, even when they no longer own the building. That seems right. The Act ensures that building owners who are, or are associated with, the developer must pay for the remediation of historical defects. The courts have been granted new powers to extend liability to associated companies, ensuring that civil cases for claims against defective buildings can be brought against companies associated with a developer, preventing the use of complex corporate structures to avoid that liability. Qualifying leaseholders are protected from all cladding system remediation costs. Those whose property is calculated to be worth less than £175,000 outside London, or £325,000 in Greater London, or whose building owner has a group net worth of more than £2 million per relevant building as of 14 February 2022, are exempt from all historical safety remediation costs. The Act also includes a robust package of measures designed to ensure that those responsible finally put right the buildings they have contributed to making so dangerous, and that leaseholders are firmly protected from the unfair costs of remediation that they previous faced. No one could disagree that, on the face of it, that is fair. Unfortunately, the previous Government failed to notify any leaseholders, qualifying or non-qualifying, of the implications of the Building Safety Act 2022, which came into force on 28 June 2022. However, four months ago, my constituents had no knowledge of the non-qualified leaseholder status that had been bestowed on them. Without any prior notice or consultation, my constituents’ legal rights as leaseholders had been significantly changed, backdated to 14 February 2022. That is because, as of that date, the threshold for non-qualified leaseholder status cuts in at ownership of four properties. It is very hard to find definitions of non-qualified leaseholder status on the Government website. There is plenty about qualified leaseholder status, but very little about non-qualified leaseholder status. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), has confirmed that, weirdly, under the previous Government’s legislation, a couple can own five properties, provided that they own their primary home jointly and two other properties each. However, a couple who own four properties jointly become non-qualifying leaseholders. Who on earth can think that is fair? That will discriminate against couples and families as compared with sophisticated business entities, which are probably the intended target of the legislation.

• 31 Oct 2024 · Cancer Strategy for England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for calling this timely and critical debate. It is good to see the Minister for Care in his place. I would like to mark the passing of many friends and some of my family who have lost their lives in a battle with cancer—a dreadful disease. When I arrived here in 2010, my team and I started a five-year project tracking the use of radiotherapy in England, using freedom of information requests every six months to gather data on the availability and frequency of the use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in England’s then 51 cancer centres. It was not a pretty picture. It is a pleasure to return to the subject of radiotherapy, about which many of my constituents in Wells and Mendip Hills care deeply, as do I. I recall that the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and I had common cause. He represented a constituency in the north-east and I one in the south-west of England, the two areas with the greatest incidence of cancer per head of population. I hope and trust that every one of us is persuaded that when confronted with a serious problem or challenge, the odds of successfully tackling it are immeasurably improved if one has a plan. Without a plan, there is a serious risk of misguided or confused action. Benjamin Franklin, one of America’s founding fathers, reportedly said, “If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.” That phrase is as relevant now as when he said it nearly 300 years ago. In England we are in a battle royale against this deadly disease of cancer, which will directly affect one in two of us and indirectly affect almost every one of us through our connections to friends or family. The evidence is absolutely clear: countries with a dedicated cancer control plan show a better overall five-year cancer survival rate. That is not anecdotal; it is the clear result of an international cancer benchmarking partnership study published in The Lancet Oncology. A report in The Lancet Oncology by 12 leading cancer experts published a blueprint for a national cancer plan. Those experts were from Imperial College London, #CatchUpWithCancer and Radiotherapy UK, the Faculty of Public Health and Policy at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the Institute of Cancer Policy at King’s College London. Their blueprint consolidates four reports published separately in The Lancet Oncology over two years, clearly outlining the necessary steps—a plan—to improve cancer outcomes. The need for a plan is urgent. We had a 10-year one, which ran out in 2022. The then Health Secretary promised a new one. There was a five-month consultation, and then the next Secretary of State binned the whole idea. We are in a dire situation on the cancer front. Cancer mortality in this country is among the highest in the OECD. The key 62-day target to start treatment has not been met in England since 2015. When we consider that international research shows that a four-week delay in cancer treatment can increase the risk of death by 10%, this failure to meet that 62-day target has potentially fatal consequences. If the Government are in any doubt about the consensus across the cancer care community on the need to get back to having a dedicated cancer plan, they need make only a cursory scan of all the charities and other stakeholders. Almost without exception, every organisation of any standing is in favour of getting a cancer plan and getting it fast. As is widely known, there are several main cancer cure pathways: surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Any cancer plan would obviously need to include all these pathways, but I would like to say a few words about radiotherapy in the context of any such cancer plan. For clarity, I am talking about radiotherapy, not radiography. Radiography is vital. It is the use of techniques to scan an image to detect potential issues such as cancer. Radiotherapy is the use of high-energy radiation to kill cancer cells. If anyone is perplexed by my need to clarify that, they may understand when I say that some former Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care have been heard to confuse the two. I am confident that this Minister and the current Secretary of State will not suffer a similar confusion. Radiotherapy offers technologically-advanced, cost-effective, personalised and precise solutions to treat more patients more quickly, more accurately and better. We have about 270 radiotherapy machines in England. Of those, 70 will pass their 10-year recommended life this year, and replacing them would cost £150 million. The Minister will know that this will be money well spent, as it takes people off the waiting lists and straight into treatment and gives them a life chance that is longer, and many will return to work, just like my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. Until recently, radiotherapy has been overlooked in both priority and investment, so I would like to pay testament to the impressive work of Professor Pat Price of Radiotherapy UK, the charity she founded and still leads. I also thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for agreeing to meet Professor Price, representatives of Radiotherapy UK and me, so that we can all do what we can to help. I am sure that the Minister for Care will also be involved in that conversation. Professor Price’s relentless campaigning is putting radio- therapy back at the heart of the political debate. This was reflected in the recent Budget announcement of £70 million for new radiotherapy machines. That money is not enough, but it is a really positive start. The recent Radiotherapy UK productivity report shows that smart investment in the sector could create 87,000 new cancer appointments, and the need for a new national cancer plan including measures to boost radiotherapy is clear. Only 27% of cancer patients in the UK can access the radiotherapy that they need, compared with the international recommendation of 52% to 53%. In total, 7.4 million people in the UK live in radiotherapy cancer treatment deserts. Lord Darzi’s independent review of the NHS revealed that more than 30% of patients are waiting too long for their radio- therapy cancer treatment. Radiotherapy cannot be used on all cancers, but where it is appropriate a typical radiotherapy cancer cure can cost as little as £3,000 to £5,000, which is dramatically less than chemotherapy. The case for a national cancer plan is well made. I urge the Minister to bring the experts in and to produce such a plan.

• 16 Oct 2024 · Flooding: Bedfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I was part of the call to which the Minister referred on 30 September. I am an MP in Somerset, and we requested a meeting. We have the benefit of the Somerset Rivers Authority, which I believe is unique in the country. We need to wrestle with how we enable the Environment Agency, the internal drainage board, the council, the rivers authority, and every other agency to address the problem of flooding for people in Somerset as well. Will she please ensure that her officials make that meeting happen?

• 9 Oct 2024 · Proposed Salt Marshes: Pawlett Hams · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute, as I am sure the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) would, to the amazing community at Pawlett Hams, who campaigned ferociously, but in quite a gentle way, and single-mindedly to get its aims and dislike across. I hope that that is reflected in the comments made by the hon. Member for Stroud about the community; indeed, we have a meeting in the communities that I represent on Monday next week. It is the case that the communities feel that EDF and the Environment Agency may have been a little heavy-handed in their first approaches. They seemed to be rather fierce and not accepting of the fact that people have a view about their own community and its sustainability.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Proposed Salt Marshes: Pawlett Hams · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Twigg, for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I recognise that I have very little time, because I wish to ensure that the Minister has an opportunity to respond to my questions and those of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). I have already mentioned that this was a heavy-handed approach, which is how my constituents feel. The fact that there is little detail has caused enormous distress in my community of Kingston Seymour. I thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater for talking about the campaigners, many of whom I know. I also recognise the efforts of Claire Sully, who was one of the hon. Gentleman’s opponents in the general election. In an effort at balance, I recognise that in 2011, when a proposal affecting Kingston Seymour came from the Environment Agency in a previous iteration, Liam Fox helped us to see it off. I want to mention a number of things briefly. Some expert evidence was offered in 2011 by Dr Robert Kirby, a coastal geomorphologist and scientist. He advised that any salt marsh would eventually wash away or be eroded. As I already mentioned to the Minister, this piece of coast is on the Severn bore. The rise and fall of the tide will have an impact on every one of the communities. It is the second highest tidal rise in the world, and therefore that seems highly likely. I have been informed by local historians that the existing seawall is of Roman origin in places, and I cannot understand exactly what the Environment Agency intends. If it intends to breach the seawall, that will increase the level of flooding. If it intends to build up the seawall, it will not create any more salt marsh, so I am really very unsure about this. I will pick up on exactly the point made by hon. Member for Bridgwater about why we were all told that the acoustic fish deterrent would be the absolute answer to all problems many years ago. Now it appears to be utter fiction, and I do not understand how it is that we can suddenly be looking at creating salt marsh and dismissing the number of fish that are going to be killed when that was a critical factor when Hinkley Point C was being discussed. Everyone threw up their hands in horror at the possible mass destruction of fish, but the acoustic fish deterrent was supposed to get rid of that problem. In the area that we are talking about, Kingston Seymour, the residents have concerns. I have to say that 100% of the population is not against this, but people need the detail. There was a meeting and a number of constituents raised the following points with me. They are really concerned about solar farms, the sewage works in this area and the adverse impacts of saltwater on the three freshwater fishing lakes in Kingston Seymour. They are also very concerned about the increased risk of flooding, and they have already experienced increased insurance costs for their properties and businesses in 2011 as a result of the Environment Agency’s proposals then. There is a brilliant coastal footpath, which is an opportunity for people to move back and forth along the coast. Shortly after being elected on this occasion, I went to the opening of the pier to pier coastal path, which is a multi-user path that connects Weston-super-Mare pier with Clevedon pier. It was massively well used even before it was opened a week after the election. It was incredibly popular in that first week and huge numbers of people were using it. The other thing that the Minister might want to know is that Kingston Seymour contains sites of special scientific interest. It seems slightly perverse that, where we have conservation sites and we have all been working hard to protect that area, and there are a number of protected species there, we are now proposing to mitigate the mitigation that everyone has provided. It is absolutely bonkers. We will end up mitigating the mitigation of the mitigation of the mitigation if we carry on like this. I really do not see that it is particularly helpful. I am aware that there are different and expanded tourist offerings in this area since the last EA scheme was got shot of in about 2012 or 2013. There has been significant investment in businesses, including barn conversions that have created tourism accommodation, office and commercial activities, new caravan and camping grounds and new golf course facilities, and several of those businesses have created all sorts of recreational amenity. I am really concerned and I wonder whether the Minister might enable local people in Kingston Seymour to understand exactly what it is that the Environment Agency proposes and the impact it will have on them. That needs to be done really quickly before investigations take place as to the suitability of the land.

• 8 Oct 2024 · Grid Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  Communities are doing their very best, and lots of people are trying to help each community to power itself. My own village has its community solar project, which was fully funded by local residents. There are non-profit organisations which have dealt with local schemes by putting solar panels on schools with an element of community ownership, and there are individuals who try but are faced with extortionate costs for connection to the grid. The grid was really designed for big old power stations rather than smaller power creators trying to plonk power into the system. What can the Minister do to encourage National Grid to pivot, and help communities and individuals to create their energy nearer to their homes?