Victoria Collins MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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]

• 3 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. This Government’s top-down housing targets, which are about to almost double in my constituency, mean that communities like Redbourn and Tring are about to see huge-scale development while infrastructure is bursting at the seams and a supposedly affordable new build in my patch costs more than £500,000. It is no wonder that Hannah, one of my sixth-formers, says that she can never dream of buying a new home and will have to leave the place where she grew up. Will the Prime Minister urgently review these targets, and come and speak to Hannah and other constituents to see how these top-down targets are not delivering the affordable homes and services we need, nor protecting our precious landscapes?

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  In the two years since the last King’s Speech, and my maiden speech, the world has changed dramatically. The global insecurity we face was always real, but now the insecurity has come to our shores. It is felt in our economy, our homes and our everyday lives, and we are living in a global tinderbox. The voters spoke in the local elections: they sent a clear message that they do not trust the current Government to defend their interests or to create resilience, stability and growth, which are key to our nation’s defence. In Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring and the villages, families feel the instability every day, with many struggling to pay their bills and wondering how they will pay their fluctuating mortgage or rent. They see the high costs of childcare and worry about their children getting the right education or staying safe online, all while costs continue to rise. Parents, such as Louisa from Wheathampstead, are worried about getting their kids into the right school. Her child, who has specific SEND needs, has already been through failed placements. She says: “It is only in a specialist school that they feel safe, settled and able to learn.” The younger generation look at the broken system, and it is no wonder they question whether they should pay into it. Hannah, a sixth-former from Harpenden, says: “I’ve never considered living in Harpenden in the future because it’d be far too expensive to buy a place to live.” Despite the official definition, new build homes are nowhere near being genuinely “affordable”, given that they cost half a million pounds. The older generation, who worked hard and paid into the system, have not got what they were promised. One of my constituents says: “I started work at 15, and the deal was that I would finish working at 60.” Another says: “I struggle with poverty and exhaustion, and I was told to carry on working until I was 66. I have been plagued with heath issues ever since.” In the middle, the young and middle-aged professionals are squeezed. The path laid out before them has shifted beneath their feet. They were told, “Buy a house, have kids if you want to, and work in a job that you love. You will have more wealth and freedom than your parents did.” However, each generation now faces less wealth, less freedom and fewer opportunities. No wonder politics is being turned on its head, all while people scroll through a picture-perfect world that falls apart with every news headline. The businesses in our communities—the backbone of our economy—are finding it harder, more expensive and more challenging. Darren, who runs Faire at 190 in Berkhamsted, is a serial entrepreneur who knows what he is doing. He is finding the costs and burdens unsustainable. He says that the continuing rise in staff costs is killing the hospitality sector, and goes on to say: “This Government is driving experienced entrepreneurs away, quietly draining the UK of the people most likely to build, hire and invest again.” Our communities feel again and again that they are done to, not worked with. There is no greater example than completely undemocratic top-down development plans that bypass local communities, who understand the need for housing but not on a scale that the local infrastructure cannot handle. Like many people, Lucy from Tring is genuinely concerned about the impact on our communities and landscapes. Liz from Redbourn says that the legacy of this Labour Government will see the death of our villages. She says: “The effect on wildlife and the chalk streams will be immense.” For our communities and our country, the time for action is now. This King’s Speech could have been an opportunity to reset the direction of this country. Although I welcome the action to tackle energy costs and sewage, and to end unfair residential leaseholds, such measures do not go far enough. Where is the urgent action to end the social care crisis? Where is the “good food” Bill to back British farmers? Where is the commitment to spend 3% of GDP on defence by 2030? That is vital to keep our borders safe. Where is the digital sovereign strategy? Where is the defence readiness Bill? And where is the ambitious EU reset Bill that we desperately need to grow our economy? That would empower our communities and make us richer and safer. This country is at a crossroads. Our current Government are not delivering. The two old parties are finished. The populists and extremists want to burn things down. Millions of people want change, which is about building things up. That is the kind of positive change that the Liberal Democrats are offering—change that brings people, communities and our country together, and which makes us ready to face the international insecurity that rocks our borders. We believe in a better, stronger trade and defence relationship with Europe, one that truly delivers for Britain. I believe in collaborative sovereignty that values our resilience through prosperity, production and partnership, backing British domestic strength while working with our allies to be stronger, whether through military sovereignty, digital sovereignty, energy sovereignty or food sovereignty, but being stronger as a nation and being stronger partners internationally. As politicians, we must turn up again and again. We have to turn up in the messiness but be honest about what needs to be done. And with that comes hope: hope for a better future, for growth and for prosperity. So the time is now. The moment for us to be radically reasonable is now. It is time that the system worked for local people. In my maiden speech, I shared that my mother came to this country in search of opportunity, and through everything that I do here, I want to ensure that same opportunity is available for all who seek it. That means a bolder vision for our Great Britain, and that needs to start now.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  After years of Conservative failures to do so, Liberal Democrat councils across Harpenden and Berkhamsted are working hard to secure a local plan for housing. However, the Government’s work on top-down planning, which gives Dacorum an increase of about 40% in housing numbers and St Albans an increase of almost 90%, and the Government’s grey belt proposals are literally giving developers a field day in Harpenden and Berkhamsted—including in Tring, where we see proposed increases of about 40% across the village. Now that the Government are seeing the impact of that policy, will the Leader of the House help us to secure a debate on grey belt—and a visit from the Minister to see those green belt areas, which are supposedly grey belt, right on the Chilterns national landscape?

• 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]

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

  More

  I agree with parts of the hon. Member’s intervention. The developers have armies of legal teams and, as I will come on to, the national legislation is open to interpretation when it comes to roads. Councils are essentially left powerless to enforce the legislation, because developers find the loopholes. They have the money and the power to push past.

• 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.

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

  More

  Quite frankly, I find it shameful. It is no wonder that communities are pushing back on development if they see that the infrastructure is not there, and if they cannot get around and cannot get a GP appointment, yet they see thousands of new homes being built. No wonder public trust has been lost. I could not cover every application across Harpenden and Berkhamsted, but the story is repeated across our corner of Hertfordshire and, indeed, up and down the country. I thank the thousands of constituents who have contacted me. Thousands have written to me about their concerns—94 alone with comments for this debate—and, as I said, several have joined us in the Public Gallery. Here is the nugget of the issue: if I could say, hand on heart, that top-down planning would, in 10 years’ time, truly deliver affordable, sustainable housing, and houses that local teenagers like Hannah could afford, if I could look her in the eyes and tell her she is wrong about not being able to afford a home, and if I could say that the infrastructure would be built, that developers would not squeeze out of their commitments and that trains and buses would catch up and be up to scratch, I would be making very different arguments. But I cannot.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Catherine from Redbourn has shared that she has to wait weeks for a GP appointment, yet her village faces an increase in residents of up to 70%, which means thousands of new patients. Some of that is through speculative developments. Does the Minister agree that councils should have the powers to ensure that planning approvals are dependent on first securing healthcare to serve those new residents? Will he commit to ensuring that NHS planning cycles are aligned with housing developments to ensure that communities do not have to wait for weeks, months or years?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Redbourn village faces a potential 70% housing increase after this Government reclassified swathes of open land as grey belt, leaving villagers powerless against unplanned development, with legitimate infrastructure and environmental concerns compounded by being next to the M1 and 7 miles from Luton airport, which is expanding. The ministerial answer to my recent question about grey belt impact assessments referred me to yet another update of the national planning policy framework, which is under consultation. As councils cannot pause their planning timelines, may we have a debate in Government time on how Members can address live planning issues during this consultation limbo, before it is too late for our villages?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. Beyond the legitimate environmental concerns about Luton airport expansion, can the Government explain how an already unreliable Thameslink and packed road network will cope with the 13 million extra passengers a year, as well as a new theme park and massive top-down housing development?