Victoria Collins MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the director of the National Cyber Security Centre has said, “Every organisation delivering the UK’s critical services…relies on uninterrupted digital operations. Disruptions to those operations isn’t simply an IT issue; it’s a…national resilience issue”. The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support that point, and it is why we welcome the measures introduced by this Bill, which strengthen existing cyber protections to enhance national security. However, as the Liberal Democrats have made clear throughout the Bill’s stages so far, there are many missed opportunities to truly future-proof our country’s cyber-security to protect our democracy, economy and national security. I will speak to the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill, which we think would achieve that. First, on the scope of the Bill, last year we saw the costliest cyber-incident in UK history. The financial damage caused by the attack on Jaguar Land Rover is estimated to have cost between £1.6 billion and £2.1 billion—a cost shared between JLR directly and its supply chain. In the public sector, cyber-attacks are causing eye-watering costs too—just look at Redcar’s cyber-attack, which cost them a staggering £10.4 million. Despite that, the Bill takes no consideration of the significant economic cost of such cyber-attacks, excluding retail and manufacturing industries as well as local government from the scope of the Bill. New clauses 4 and 5 address a crucial gap. New clause 4 would bring the manufacturing of critical transport equipment and the retail of food and essential goods, where they form part of a large-scale distribution chain, within the scope of essential categories under the Bill. That means that companies such as Jaguar Land Rover would finally receive the protections that their strategic importance demands and protect their supply chains too. New clause 5 extends that same recognition to local authorities, whose digital infrastructure underpins the delivery of services that millions of people depend on. The Government’s own industrial strategy recognises that sustainable and secure growth requires strong levels of cyber-resilience across the economy, but their own cyber Bill does not live up to this. If a cyber-attack brought JLR’s production lines to a halt or crippled the digital infrastructure of a council, the damage to our economy and people’s daily lives would be enormous. Those are not the only issues within the scope of the Bill. Safeguarding our democratic processes must be treated as a national security priority, and here, too, the Bill falls short. At a time when foreign interference in our elections is not a hypothetical but a documented and growing threat, the Government have chosen not to act. New clauses 8 and 9 would begin to change that. New clause 8 would designate the administration of elections and voter registers as essential services within the meaning of the network and information systems regulations—a straightforward recognition that the machinery of our democracy is as critical as any power grid or hospital network. New clause 9 would designate political parties as essential services for the purposes of cyber-security, extending meaningful protection to the organisations through which the British people exercise their democratic voice. I understand that the Bill is not a silver bullet for cyber-security, but these amendments make the modest, targeted and entirely reasonable ask that vehicle manufacturing, food retail supply chains, local authorities, our elections and our political parties are brought within scope. In turning to online-generated fraud and scams, we can see the impact of a lack of action to secure online and cyber-spaces. Fraud makes up 44% of all UK crime, and online technologies—especially artificial intelligence—are supercharging that. According to reporting in The Times a few weeks ago, research by Lloyds bank found that Meta’s social media sites are a starting point for 76% of purchase scams in the UK, with the value of losses to UK customers estimated at around £66 million in the last year alone. Not only does the Government’s fraud strategy completely overlook the role of social media giants and big tech in the proliferation of online scams, but the Bill fails to address explicitly the risks that fraud and scams pose to critical infrastructure and organisations. That is especially striking when we consider that the Government’s official statistics on cyber-security breaches show that phishing attacks—scams—remain the most prevalent type of breach or attack by far in the UK. Amendment 1 would change that. It would amend clause 8 to add “risks arising from fraud” explicitly to the list of security threats facing relevant digital services so that those threats can be identified and managed. That is also why the Liberal Democrats are calling for social media giants to be financially liable for scams originating on their platforms and for an online crime agency to tackle these issues and standardise AI labelling. We must not forget that these threats do not fall solely on large institutions and critical infrastructure. Small and medium-sized enterprises are on the frontline of cyber-crime; they are disproportionately targeted and too often without the resources or expertise to defend themselves. Many of the businesses caught up in the supply chains of our critical industries and exposed to the fraud and cyber-risks that I have described are SMEs, yet there are no provisions in the Bill to help potentially under-resourced SMEs cope with the increasing threat of cyber-attacks. New clause 2 would require the establishment of dedicated cyber-security support services for those businesses. For the Liberal Democrats, backing British small businesses means ensuring that they are not left to face those threats alone. The Liberal Democrats have also tabled a series of further measures that would make the legislation fit for purpose over the long term. A law is only as good as its enforcement, which is why we are pressing for board-level accountability for cyber-resilience under new clause 10, regular proportionate testing of systems under new clause 11 and more frequent Government reporting every three years—rather than every five years—under amendment 2. Last week, at London Tech Week, as I was surrounded by experts across the industry, one thing became clear. We think that technology is moving quickly now, but with the growth and development of AI this is the slowest we will ever see change happen. That is why we need the framework to evolve, which means reviewing the security risks posed by foreign-linked critical suppliers, which new clause 3 would do, modernising the outdated Computer Misuse Act 1990, which new clause 6 would do, and assessing whether regulators have the resources they actually need to do their job, which new clause 7 would do. Those are not radical tasks; they are basic conditions for a cyber-security regime that works today and will continue to work in the future. If there is one matter that cuts to the heart of what the Bill should be about, and asks the fundamental question about Britain’s place in a contested digital world, it is digital sovereignty. All the protections we have discussed for our industries, our democracy and our small businesses will mean little if we do not first answer who controls the digital infrastructure on which all of them depend, and question whether, at every level of the stack, we have critical control over that. That is echoed loudly by the industry itself. A study by Civo, a UK sovereign cloud provider, found that 83% of IT decision makers in this country worry about the impact of geopolitical developments on their data sovereignty. When we look at the numbers, it is not hard to see why. About 55% of central Government organisations report that over 60% of their estate is on the cloud, and the vast majority of that is with just two providers, both of which are American. We have handed the keys to significant parts of our national digital infrastructure to foreign corporations, subject to foreign laws and exposed to foreign decisions entirely outside our control. That includes our public services. The Liberal Democrats are alarmed at the NHS’s growing reliance on complex, opaque digital systems set up by Palantir. With Palantir’s background in security and surveillance, that marks a divergence from the traditional relationship between the NHS and firms with specialised medical knowledge. The procurement process for the federated data platform, which was awarded to Palantir in 2023, is worryingly opaque.

• 16 Jun 2026 · National Planning Policy Framework and Tring · Hansard source

  More

  The people of Tring have spoken. This petition, signed by over 500 residents, rejects the top-down, developer-led approach to planning from this Government, which threatens to impose significant large-scale development on their community with little regard for its character, infrastructure or precious environment. That has been made even worse by the latest power grab from Whitehall, which will now take over large planning applications. Residents are not opposed to housing, but they are righty alarmed by the burden being placed on their town and deeply frustrated by the lack of a meaningful voice in shaping proposals that will define Tring for generations to come. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that Tring faces significant large-scale development proposals driven by top-down national planning policy, which is being imposed on local communities with insufficient regard for the views of residents or the detrimental impact on Tring ’ s character, infrastructure, and environment. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to schedule a debate in the House of Commons on the Government ’ s review of the National Planning Policy Framework and how communities like Tring can be better protected from inappropriate over-development, and how local residents can be given a genuine and effective voice in the planning decisions and infrastructure provision that shape their towns and affect their daily lives. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003209]

• 11 Jun 2026 · Legacy of Jo Cox · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I first put on the record my appreciation of the heartfelt contributions about Jo Cox today? Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to highlight the case of Rasika, who is a care worker serving our community, and his wife Chamila, who is a teaching assistant in Northchurch who helps children with special educational needs and volunteers at the local church. They have built a life in my constituency for four years. They have done everything right, yet the Home Office told them and their three young children that they must return to Sri Lanka within 14 days. The community has rallied around them and has been in absolute disbelief, with one person saying that the family are such kind, good, intelligent and hard-working people. They are frontline workers and pillars of our community, and I am horrified that this is the Britain they know and that they do not feel welcome. I have written to the Immigration Minister, but I would like advice on how I can secure urgent action from the Minister and the Home Office to reassure this family and find a resolution for their case and for the many others who may face the same situation.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Over the Easter weekend, a 6-acre site in the Chilterns national landscape saw a massive unauthorised development. Despite swift action from Dacorum borough council to issue a temporary stop notice and an injunction, the work continued, with the police powerless to stop it and the council without the resources. What will the Minister do through cross-departmental work to uphold the rule of law and protect our precious landscapes?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Government Review of the National Planning Policy Framework · Hansard source

  More

  The people of Redbourn have spoken loud and clear. This petition, which has been signed by 1,427 residents, rejects the top-down, developer-led planning approach by this Government, which could see the village of Redbourn increased by 70%. Residents are not opposed to housing, but they are rightly alarmed by the burden placed on their community, including on infrastructure, and they are deeply frustrated by the lack of meaningful voice in shaping the proposals that will define their village for generations to come. From top-down targets to grey-belt policy, community voices have been diminished. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to schedule a debate in the House of Commons on the Government review of the National Planning Policy Framework and how villages like Redbourn can be protected from over-development, and local communities given real power over planning decisions and infrastructure provision that affect the lives of village residents.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Redbourn and the surrounding area, Declares that Redbourn village faces large-scale development proposals driven by national planning law pushing development onto green and grey-belt land; further declares that government policy is having a detrimental impact on Redbourn village’s character and environment. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to schedule a debate in the House of Commons on the Government review of the National Planning Policy Framework and how villages like Redbourn can be protected from over-development , and local communities given real power over planning decisions and infrastructure provision that affect the lives of village residents. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003178]

• 12 Mar 2026 · Carnivals · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and it has been a real pleasure to hear about the different carnivals today; I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) for that. I am sure everyone here, and everyone listening, has taken note of all the carnivals that we have to visit this year—and, of course, that everyone will remember to clean up their litter afterwards. Carnivals are quite special to me, Mrs Harris, but not for the reason you might expect. In my last year at Durham University, the first house party that my flatmates and I had was carnival-themed, and henceforth we were known as “House Carnival”. The five other girls that I lived with got me through a dissertation, last-year exams and heartbreak, and we have been best friends for life. Almost 20 years later—that sounds far too long; I do not want to believe it!—we are still close friends who gather for the weekend, even from across the UK. But I digress—I may come back to that. Carnivals are also special to the people of Harpenden and Berkhamsted—and, as we have heard, to people all across the country. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, and from across the Chamber today, about the celebration of multiculturalism, the carnival clubs, and the volunteers who dedicate hours of their lives to them and that history that is so special. I loved what she said about not just the importance of a living heritage and the stories that it tells of our past, our present and our future, but the opportunities and challenges; there is the wonder of carnival, but also the practicality around it—the skills and what we learn. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare shared beautiful stories of those celebrated family memories—that light and joy. I loved hearing him talk about shaking off normality; I think we all need a little bit more of that. He also reminded us that carnivals bring people together not only locally but globally, and of that idea of a rite of passage—that, actually, it is not just being there, but being present, because either we have taken part or someone we know has—and how special that is. The hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) is not far away from my patch. Given the history and the fantastic multiculturalism that she mentioned, especially with the Caribbean and Ukrainian communities who are integral to that, means that I have noted down the 50th Luton International Carnival for this year. In Harpenden and Berkhamsted, we have our Tring summer carnival, organised by Tring Together, where people are sure to be offered some award-winning beers from Tring Brewery, or Puddingstone Distillery’s Campfire Gin—I have a little bit of that in my cupboard. They can hear from Tring Music Partnership, Tring school’s swing band and Tring’s glee club, see the Tring Youth Theatre Project and Tring Shotokan karate club, and have input from the youth town council in Tring. I thank Tring Together, the many dedicated volunteers across this country, and stalwarts such as Vivianne Child. Tring Together works with the Tring Team Parish and the Tring town council, but it is involved in much more than just the carnival—the Tring Business Mart, the Spring Fayre, Tring cinema, Group Action and the Christmas festival. In Tring, we also have the Apple Parade, led by Mr and Mrs Green and supported by Sustainable Tring. That is something to celebrate. This weekend—sadly, I cannot make it—we have the Tring Spring FEASTival. In Harpenden, we have the summer carnival, the Christmas carnival, and all the other joyous occasions that bring the town together. As has been mentioned today, these events also raise money for local charities and support so much of our community. In Berkhamsted, we may not have a carnival by name, but we have BerkoFest. BerkoFest was where I first met John from Herts Welcome Refugees, who was in Parliament just yesterday—it brings so many of us together. It is also where I heard the world-class violinist Nikita Vikhorova from Odessa in Ukraine, just a few months after we lamented Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the war that, sadly, still continues. We also have the festival of light with Berkhamsted town council, bringing joy and festivities and filling the 800-year-old St Peter’s church with candles for a magical evening. In Aldbury, we have the May fair, a wonderful summer day with beautiful colours and the “May Queen”. It is just so special. All those traditions represent, as I said and as has been mentioned, the history, the present and tomorrow. On behalf of other hon. Members, I will mention Somerset, where the carnival tradition stretches back hundreds of years and is one of the most distinctive and cherished cultural traditions in the south-west. It is important to note for the record that Somerset carnival, which runs across four circuits and draws around 150,000 people each year, is a carnival of carts, not floats—I believe that has been mentioned, and that it is a small but important distinction. The modern carnival raises vital funds, and the circuit passes through Shepton Mallet, Glastonbury, Bridgwater, Burnham-on-Sea and Midsomer Norton. My hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), who could not be here today, tells me that the year’s standout achievement went to the Huckyduck carnival club, which won the overall tableau category with its cart “Scarecrow Partea”, achieving maximum points at all seven carnivals on the circuit—a remarkable achievement and testament to the dedication and craft involved. This is a timely debate, however, because that tradition faces a real challenge. It is largely kept alive by the older generation, with their concerted effort and their knowledge, skill and passion, which are so vital but risk being lost. My question to the Minister, which I think has been asked already, is, “What more can be done through arts funding, heritage programmes and community support to help to pass this tradition to the next generation before it is too late?” Each of these town and regional carnivals reflects its own characteristics and community. Carnivals bring together people of all ages and backgrounds. Just like “House Carnival”, which brought me joy, comfort and community and helped to bring out the best in me, carnivals across this country do the same for communities, and we must do what we can to support them. I hope that today has inspired many more to get involved and to visit their carnival, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. On top of that, councils also warn that when they get section 106 money or funding from the community infrastructure levy, the funding available is not enough for the new roads needed for development. They also warn that if we expect section 106 contributions to deliver all new infrastructure, the burden will often be pushed on to new homeowners, as prices can be pushed up. What is more, there is no guarantee on the delivery or timing of infrastructure plans, often because major infrastructure depends on external bodies or funding cycles, such as for highways and regional transport, as well as on NHS capital planning cycles or educational funding cycles. The Government must adopt an infrastructure-first approach. How will they empower communities to take a cumulative view of the infrastructure impact of planning? What action are the Government taking to address the train capacity and service issues I have highlighted? Let us turn to the reality on the ground for transport services, starting with roads. Local people put it best. Fiona from Berkhamsted says: “The roads are completely overwhelmed by traffic through Berkhamsted.” Anne captures the absurdity of national planning guidance: “The biggest issue for Berkhamsted is a one-size-fits-all NPPF”— national planning policy framework— “for a valley town where the only place left to build is at the top of valley sides, and ancient narrow streets give little scope for cycle routes—certainly not a joined-up network.” Having once been a keen cyclist in Berkhamsted, I can confirm that the difficulty of getting around means that my poor bike has been left locked up. Sarah from Berkhamsted asks: “What’s the point of building new houses if there are no pavements for people to walk or safe roads for cars to use?” Gill from Harpenden is direct, saying: “The town has so many pinch points on already narrow roads that are already causing jams.” As I said, the towns and villages in my constituency are old, and many of the roads were built for horse-drawn traffic. Berkhamsted is a hilly place, but there is not a single mention of topography in the national planning framework. Yet the loose definition of “severe”, in terms of cumulative impact tests for roads and traffic, leaves another door wide open for developers. If someone cannot get around by car, perhaps they can use the bus. Well, that is a whole other story. Under the Conservatives in Hertfordshire, we saw a 56.5% reduction in bus mileage between 2017 and 2023—the biggest reduction in England. That has left us with inaccessible areas where people need a car to get around. The 307 bus in Redbourn runs to Harpenden station only from 9 am, with the last departure at 2 pm, and on Sundays there is no service at all. There is no direct bus connection to local secondary schools. Catherine from Redbourn says it plainly: “While you might have had to wait ten minutes in London for a bus, here we have three buses a day to Harpenden—you cannot rely on the buses.” In Berkhamsted, we worked with local campaigners to bring back the 500 bus every half hour, but the service stops at 7 pm. It is a similar story in Tring. I once tried to get a bus across my constituency, from Wheathampstead to Berkhamsted, but what should have been a 30-minute drive took four hours. The recommended route from Harpenden to Berkhamsted is actually via London and costs £35 one way. Hannah, a sixth-form student from Harpenden, makes the point well: “Public transport allows me as a young person to visit friends and do activities outside the House—it gives me independence.” She adds: “I have never considered living in Harpenden in the future, because it would be far too expensive to buy a place to live.” That is a double failure by this Government that needs to be heard. Young people say they cannot afford to stay and cannot get around even if they could. So what about the train? In the last four weeks, only seven out of 122 daily trains from Harpenden to London ran 100% on time. From Berkhamsted to London, only three out of 78 daily departures ran 100% on time, and from Tring there were also only three. From driver availability issues to Thameslink core infrastructure failures and a bottleneck around Croydon, it seems that things will only get worse as pressures grow around the Thameslink line from Bedford to Brighton. Beyond housing development, I have mentioned the other pressures from the expansion of Luton and Gatwick airports, and the Universal Studios development. There is a two-track bottleneck through central London, and when it fails, the whole line fails. Govia Thameslink Railway has asked the Government for funding for a back-up system; has that been agreed? What are the Government doing to work with rail operators to prepare for the pressures that are building up on the Thameslink line from Bedford to Brighton?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of planning developments on local transport. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Let me start by making something clear: the local people of Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring, Redbourn, Sandridge and the surrounding villages are no nimbys. They are not against housing. They are raising the alarm against top-down national planning that does not serve local housing needs; that leaves local services bursting at the seams without adequate investment, or with investment that is delivered far too late; that fails to deliver the transport infrastructure that communities actually need; and that is eroding precious landscapes, some of which are home to rare chalk streams found nowhere else in the world. Some of those people have joined us in the Public Gallery, and I thank them. This debate is about the impact of planning on transport infrastructure, and to understand that, we need to see the big picture. The towns and villages in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, including Tring, Redbourn, Wheathampstead, Sandridge and Markyate, are steeped in history. The beautiful Chilterns national landscape can be found around Tring, Berkhamsted and Aldbury. Four rare chalk streams thread through the constituency, alongside the Grand Union canal. Settlements that appear in the Domesday Book can be found, and the old Watling Street runs through the centre of Redbourn. There is also Berkhamsted castle, where the English throne was surrendered to William the Conqueror. But there are also towns in the constituency that were originally designed for horse-drawn traffic and are now gridlocked with commuter cars. The M1 cuts right through the middle of the constituency, and every time there is an accident, it causes further gridlock on country lanes. The capacity of Luton airport, which is just seven miles away, is nearly doubling, going from 19 million to 32 million passengers a year. That will add roughly a million passengers per month, many of whom will travel on the same routes as local people. On Thameslink and London Northwestern services, rammed trains are cancelled almost daily—indeed, a group from the Probus club in Harpenden arrived after their train was cancelled today—and bus services have been decimated. That is before we even talk about the impossibility of finding an NHS dentist, the pressures on GPs and the desperate need for additional school places, particularly for children with special educational needs. These old towns and villages are not built for growth of such scale. We must, then, look at the Government’s approach to planning. Labour has continued the top-down numbers legacy that the Conservatives left behind and, in some cases, made it significantly worse. From top-down targets to grey-belt land, developers are literally having a field day, using loopholes to get unplanned development through. This matters. Giving developers the green light leaves us with an unco-ordinated approach, and infrastructure and communities are coming last. The new methodology for calculating housing supply has hit St Albans council particularly hard. Its targets have almost doubled, from 855 to 1,660 homes per year, and the numbers in Dacorum have gone from 1,016 to 1,380 homes per year. Both those increased figures will have to be dealt with in further local plans, because they do not even include the massive housing development that we are seeing now. The changes have left us facing substantial housing sites, such as the 1,400 homes in the Marshcroft development east of Tring, the 850 homes at South Berkhamsted and the more than 700 proposed homes in north-east Harpenden. The Marshcroft development alone would increase the population of Tring by a potential 40%. As Lucy from Tring says: “It makes no sense…our roads can’t handle it.” The town got its market charter over 700 years ago, and it has the roads to match. It is also buttressed against the Chilterns national landscape. I warned the Government from the outset that their plans for development on grey-belt land would hand the advantage to developers rather than communities, which is exactly what has happened. The unclear definition of the grey belt creates a wide-open door for developers, not for communities. Crucially, by focusing protections on towns, the guidance leaves villages, which often have fewer services and weaker infrastructure, far more vulnerable to unplanned development. In Berkhamsted, developers have used the grey-belt back door to push applications adjacent to allocated sites. For example, the grey-belt back door was used in the Haresfoot farm application to get permission to build on green-belt land. The situation in Redbourn is even more alarming. The latest proposal is a 1,000-home development that is not in the local plan but claims grey-belt status. If that is combined with other sites, Redbourn faces a pipeline of development that could see its population grow by over 70%. As Jen from Redbourn says: “I am hugely concerned that there is no local democracy that allows villages to stop disproportionate housing development.” Catherine from Redbourn is equally clear: “When it comes to measuring green belt, brown belt and grey belt land, villages should not be measured in the same way as a town. This is green-belt land with rare chalk streams, water vole and flora that you don’t find in Europe—it should be protected.” Redbourn is precisely the kind of village with less infrastructure that has been left more exposed by grey-belt development. Will the Minister speak with colleagues from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address the top-down practices that take powers and critical infrastructure away from communities? Although the previous Conservative administrations left Dacorum and St Albans without adopted local plans, which left our area ripe for speculative development, Liberal Democrat councils in the area have worked hard to finally get local plans to the examination stage, but while the plans remain in inspectors’ hands, the Government give no protection from unplanned development. Despite continuous calls on the Government to help to protect us, we have been left exposed. All that is before we even consider the wider pressures bearing down on local councils, which leave the looming threat of Government takeover when too many appeals are overturned. Nor have we covered the lack of teeth for neighbourhood plans, or the proposals in the planning legislation to make it easier to build near train stations. All these rules put the power in developers’ hands and take it away from communities—so no wonder developers are popping up across the constituency. Does the Minister agree that tackling unplanned development and giving communities more power is vital when preparing transport infrastructure? Underlying all this is a structural failure in how infrastructure can be planned. The speculative and unplanned development I have outlined sits entirely outside of planned growth modelling. That means that unplanned sites are assessed site by site, in isolation, and with no cumulative way of seeing what they mean together for the roads, buses, rail, cycling, schools, GPs or dentists that communities need. It is wholly inadequate, fragmented and reactive. Local plans cannot account for national infrastructure decisions, either. The Luton airport expansion, the Universal Studios theme park, and even a rail freight development, approved by the Government, have taken the place of thousands of potential homes elsewhere, and cannot be accounted for. When councils do secure investment for infrastructure with section 106 money or the community infrastructure levy, the current viability criteria mean they can often get out of building more affordable homes, or limit that investment.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members who have spoken. I reiterate that the people of Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring, Redbourn, Sandridge and all our local villages are not nimbys. They understand the need for housing—and genuinely affordable housing. However, it is clear that they cannot understand a planning system that hands power to developers and takes it away from communities. This debate has shown that many Members and their local populations have the same frustrations. What the Minister talked about is a nice display of how, while local councils supposedly have these powers, in many ways the reality undermines their use of them, as I outlined, leaving communities still facing a developer-led system. That means doubling housing targets without doubling infrastructure. Nor can people understand a system that leaves villages such as Redbourn facing 70% growth through the grey belt. As the Minister mentioned the grey belt, I should clarify that it does not protect villages, it protects towns. That is a problem with the NPPF, and something that I will be putting forward in the consultation, and yet local people are also being expected to sacrifice precious landscapes for homes their own children still cannot afford. Trains cancelled daily; buses that stop at 2 pm; roads built for horse-drawn carts that are now gridlocked—that is the reality of planning without infrastructure. I welcome the current reviews of the NPPF, but what will happen to villages such as Redbourn and others under the current planning system, still outlined by Labour, if they turn out to have been dealt a really bad card? Will they be able to retrofit some of that planning infrastructure? It really is an issue for our local communities. I would also push gently on the Thameslink question. Some of the proposals are welcome, but it is going to be a massive issue for so many communities all along the Bedford-Brighton link. We really must look again at that infrastructure. There is a real issue at the core of Thameslink, whether around Croydon or elsewhere. I ask the Minister to take back one message to his team: communities like mine do not want to choose between housing and infrastructure; they both need to be planned together from the start. That infrastructure and community-led development are the least that our communities deserve. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the impact of planning developments on local transport.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; I agree completely. I come back to the promise that I would like to make to Hannah but cannot. Given that the average house price in Berkhamsted is over £650,000, and in Harpenden is more than £900,000, and given that last year the median new build price across the constituency was £747,500, so-called affordable homes—an average house—in expensive postcodes like ours, priced at 80% of market value, still cost more than half a million pounds. How on earth can we say to local people that they are sacrificing green belt so that their children or grandchildren can afford to buy? Local people know that is not the truth, which is why they are pushing back. Local people understand the need for housing, but they cannot understand why powers are being taken away from them, top-down targets are pushing expensive homes on to communities that need genuinely affordable housing, and precious landscapes are being sacrificed. They cannot understand why Labour have not learned the lessons from the last Government. Communities will again be left without the transport infrastructure they need, and local people will be forced to move away. I call on the Minister and the Government to hear our calls for infrastructure-first and community-led development. It is the least that our communities deserve.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to highlight one case from Flamstead, where David, who was a toolman and a tradesman, had his van broken into 10 times. On the 10th time, he called the police while the thieves were there, but it still took officers many days to arrive, and he has now decided to retire because it is too expensive to keep going. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why it is so important to have a frontline community service from the police?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I join her in expressing solidarity with the Jewish community following the horrific attack. Does the Home Secretary agree that we must urgently address online spaces where hatred is radicalised and amplified? Will she work with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to review Ofcom’s guidance, and the categorisation set out in the Online Safety Act, to ensure that small, high-harm platforms are properly regulated to prevent the radicalisation that leads to such devastating attacks?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I join the House in thanking you for your work as Chair. It is an honour to speak in this debate, held in memory of Sir David Amess. His legacy reminds us what it is to be an MP—to show up and champion the concerns of the people we represent. That is the spirit I have carried with me throughout my first year as the Member of Parliament for the brand new seat of Harpenden and Berkhamsted. Over this year, access to health and social care has remained one of the most pressing challenges. I have heard from a constituent in Berkhamsted who faces an eight-month delay for their NHS appointment; from Katie from Aldbury, an expectant mother who could not get an NHS dentist appointment within 50 miles; and Clare from Harpenden, who cared for her mother with dementia while juggling newborn twins and has been pushed to the brink with little support. It was an honour to welcome the family of Ed Holderness, who sadly took his life at the age of 24—they are campaigning on the importance of mental health care. Locally, I congratulate organisations such as Hector’s House and Youth Talk on their work. We have seen movement on the NHS, which I welcome, but we urgently need proper reform, including prioritisation of mental health and social care work. As I have done throughout this year, I again urge the Government to start cross-party talks on social care sooner rather than later. The environment demands equal attention. My constituency has four of the world’s rare chalk streams, which are beautiful places—the Ver, the Bulbourne, the Gade and the Lea—yet Markyate sewage treatment works has dumped sewage into the River Ver for almost 5,000 hours in the past 12 months, and around 3,000 of those hours were non-stop. It was an honour to secure my first Westminster Hall debate on tackling sewage in chalk streams. I have met Thames Water to push for action on upgrading Markyate’s sewage works, and I welcomed the Government’s proposals yesterday. I look forward to meeting the relevant Minister to see how those changes can be used to prioritise the upgrading of those sewage works. I thank organisations such as the Ver Valley Society, the Friends of the River Bulbourne, Sustainable St Albans, EcoBerko and Sustainable Tring, which will not let me stop campaigning on these important issues. Moving on to our high streets and families, small businesses are still struggling, and as someone who grew up helping my mum on the shop floor, this issue is close to home. Many businesses, such as Temptation in Berkhamsted, Threads of Harpenden and Almar in Tring, say that they are still struggling, and many are questioning how they can cope with the rise in employment costs, national insurance costs and rents, as well as other costs. They are struggling, and they are asking, “Will we stay open?” These businesses, as Members from all parts of the House have said, are the lifeblood of our local communities. I urge the Government to rethink some of those proposals and think about how we can support our high streets and small businesses. Transport is a growing concern in my constituency. We have seen continued cuts to vital services, including to the X5, which connects constituents across Tring and Berkhamsted. While I am pleased that the frequency of Red Eagle services has increased to every 30 minutes —we have worked hard with local campaigners—many communities remain isolated. I will continue that work, but we need more support from Government. Unfortunately, local authorities are struggling to deliver under the current financial constraints. Hertfordshire county council recently outlined grave concerns about the fair funding review, which sees the council face a reduction of £45 million to £55 million in its grant. That is not just a budget squeeze, but a direct threat to those social services and transport services that are delivered to our communities. On a positive note, I have been excited about the work we have done on science, innovation and technology, especially closer to home. A safer screens tour has allowed me to bring the voice of young people to that work nationally. It was a real proud MP moment when, after I had visited and spoken to two of my local schools—Ashlyns school and Berkhamsted school—they decided to get together and students themselves wanted to campaign on online safety. I urge the Government to listen to those calls for change. Throughout the past year, my team and I have handled more than 10,000 pieces of casework. It is some of the most enriching work that we do. I have held more than 300 local meetings and raised questions and issues more than 500 times with the Government. Every one of those has been on behalf of residents of Harpenden and Berkhamsted. I thank colleagues across the House for their support, and I especially thank my team, who have helped deliver for local residents as I have found my feet in my first year as an MP. I hope that my time as an MP reflects the principles I put forward in my maiden speech: to be guided by the values of community, tolerance and perseverance. Most importantly, I thank the community organisations that deliver for Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring and my beautiful villages, including the Harpenden Trust, the Swan Youth Project, Open Door, food banks, the Harpenden Money Advice Centre and many others. I wish everyone a fantastic recess as we go back to our constituencies to be refreshed for when we come back in September.