Waste Incinerators
Tuesday 25th November 2025
(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberWaste Incinerators Bill 2024-26 View all Waste Incinerators Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
Tuesday 25th November 2025
(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberEnglish Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 View all English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 25 November 2025 - large print - (25 Nov 2025)
PETITION
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Government’s housing targets are forcing a city template on to rural communities against the will of locals and with minimal consideration for infrastructure or environmental impact. That is why my “Save Our Greenbelt” petition has so far received 5,936 signatures. Bromsgrove and the villages, a 79% rural constituency composed of 89% green belt land, has been burdened by an 85% housing target increase, while our neighbouring city, Birmingham, has had its targets slashed by over 30%.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to justify the flawed formula used to calculate the local housing need for Bromsgrove District, reverse the planned reduction in Birmingham's housing target to ensure the burden is shared in a fair and proportionate way and only allow new houses to be built when the accompanying infrastructure is provided.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Bromsgrove District,
Declares that it is wrong for rural Bromsgrove District’s housing targets to be increased by 82% while neighbouring urban Birmingham's targets are reduced by 31%; while noting that Bromsgrove District is 89% green belt and 79% rural and that at least 140 hectares of brownfield land in the south of Birmingham are already available for development.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to justify the flawed formula used to calculate the local housing need for Bromsgrove District, reverse the planned reduction in Birmingham's housing target to ensure the burden is shared in a fair and proportionate way and only allow new houses to be built when the accompanying infrastructure is provided.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003130]
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents regarding pornography. On International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and day one of the United Nations’ 16 days of activism, the reach and influence of online pornography is bigger than ever. We know that sexual coercion is inherent to its production, and violence against women is mainstream within its content. Its use is fuelling misogyny and sexual violence, conditioning generations that abuse is a normal part of sexual encounters.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online”
and
“to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time”.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Gower,
Declares that pornography use is fuelling sexual violence; violence against women is prolific in mainstream pornography; and sexual coercion is inherent to the commercial production of pornography.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform – and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003135]
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to present a petition on the two-child benefit cap. Tomorrow we all trust will be a turning point for children living in poverty, as the third child and subsequent children in a family have been denied vital support since 2017 unless proved to be conceived by rape. To lift 540,000 children out of poverty with the removal of the two-child limit and a further 80,000 with the removal of the benefit cap is something 578 of my constituents have called for through a paper and digital petition against the hardship which they endure.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the impact of the two-child benefit cap in developing a strategy to end child poverty.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of York Central,
Declares that the Two Child Benefit Cap results in parents of families with three or more children born after April 2017 can only claim benefit for the first two children, unless they prove that further children have been conceived by rape; and further that this is a major reason for child poverty, causing larger families hardship, and that this has impacted on 1.6m children since its introduction.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the impact of the two-child benefit cap in developing a strategy to end child poverty.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003137]
Bromsgrove District housing targets
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Government’s housing targets are forcing a city template on to rural communities against the will of locals and with minimal consideration for infrastructure or environmental impact. That is why my “Save Our Greenbelt” petition has so far received 5,936 signatures. Bromsgrove and the villages, a 79% rural constituency composed of 89% green belt land, has been burdened by an 85% housing target increase, while our neighbouring city, Birmingham, has had its targets slashed by over 30%.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to justify the flawed formula used to calculate the local housing need for Bromsgrove District, reverse the planned reduction in Birmingham's housing target to ensure the burden is shared in a fair and proportionate way and only allow new houses to be built when the accompanying infrastructure is provided.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Bromsgrove District,
Declares that it is wrong for rural Bromsgrove District’s housing targets to be increased by 82% while neighbouring urban Birmingham's targets are reduced by 31%; while noting that Bromsgrove District is 89% green belt and 79% rural and that at least 140 hectares of brownfield land in the south of Birmingham are already available for development.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to justify the flawed formula used to calculate the local housing need for Bromsgrove District, reverse the planned reduction in Birmingham's housing target to ensure the burden is shared in a fair and proportionate way and only allow new houses to be built when the accompanying infrastructure is provided.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003130]
Pornography and violence against women
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents regarding pornography. On International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and day one of the United Nations’ 16 days of activism, the reach and influence of online pornography is bigger than ever. We know that sexual coercion is inherent to its production, and violence against women is mainstream within its content. Its use is fuelling misogyny and sexual violence, conditioning generations that abuse is a normal part of sexual encounters.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online”
and
“to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform—and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time”.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Gower,
Declares that pornography use is fuelling sexual violence; violence against women is prolific in mainstream pornography; and sexual coercion is inherent to the commercial production of pornography.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to extend safeguards applied to pornography offline to pornography distributed online; and to legally require all pornography websites accessed from the UK to verify the age and permission of every individual featured on their platform – and give performers the right to withdraw their consent at any time to the continued publication of pornography in which they appear.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003135]
Two-child benefit cap
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to present a petition on the two-child benefit cap. Tomorrow we all trust will be a turning point for children living in poverty, as the third child and subsequent children in a family have been denied vital support since 2017 unless proved to be conceived by rape. To lift 540,000 children out of poverty with the removal of the two-child limit and a further 80,000 with the removal of the benefit cap is something 578 of my constituents have called for through a paper and digital petition against the hardship which they endure.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the impact of the two-child benefit cap in developing a strategy to end child poverty.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of York Central,
Declares that the Two Child Benefit Cap results in parents of families with three or more children born after April 2017 can only claim benefit for the first two children, unless they prove that further children have been conceived by rape; and further that this is a major reason for child poverty, causing larger families hardship, and that this has impacted on 1.6m children since its introduction.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the impact of the two-child benefit cap in developing a strategy to end child poverty.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003137]
Draft Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2025
(3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The draft order, which was laid before the House on 27 October, will make changes to UK legislation that are necessary as a consequence of the Welsh Government’s Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024. That Act establishes a new consenting process for major devolved infrastructure projects in Wales, including significant energy, waste, water and transport projects. The Act unifies the decision-making process for devolved infrastructure projects, with a number of existing consents, authorisations and licences integrated into the new process. That means that devolved projects that were previously consented under various pieces of legislation, including the Electricity Act 1989 and the Transport and Works Act 1992, will now require infrastructure consent under the Welsh Government’s 2024 Act.
The Welsh Government will commence the 2024 Act and bring the new consenting process into force on 15 December. The amendments to UK legislation in the draft order fall outside the legislative competence of the Senedd and are necessary to ensure that the 2024 Act can take effect as intended; therefore, they need to be made in advance of the new process coming into force. As infrastructure consent under the Welsh Government’s new Act has not existed before now, it is not reflected in UK legislation in the same way that other consenting processes are. The draft order ensures that infrastructure consent is treated consistently with those existing consenting arrangements by updating relevant UK legislation.
Article 2 of the draft order amends the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, which provides that an applicant for a nuclear site licence may be directed to notify the relevant public authorities about their application. However, that power of direction does not apply to applications for nuclear generating stations that require consent under the Electricity Act 1989, which has its own requirements for consultation with public authorities. In line with that, article 2 of the draft order ensures that the power of direction in the 1965 Act does not apply to projects that require infrastructure consent under the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024, because the 2024 Act also places its own requirements on applicants to consult with public authorities.
When granting infrastructure consent under the new Welsh process in circumstances in which hazardous substances consent is also required, the Welsh Ministers will be able to deem hazardous substances consent to be granted, without the need for a separate application. Article 3 of the draft order amends the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 to create a requirement for the Health and Safety Executive to be consulted before hazardous substances consent can be deemed to be granted in that way. That replicates the process for other consenting regimes, including under the Electricity Act 1989, which require consultation with the Health and Safety Executive in such circumstances.
Article 4 of the draft order amends the Finance Act 2013. Section 130 of that Act, which relates to the annual tax on enveloped dwellings, makes provision about the conversion of a dwelling for non-residential use. It provides that buildings will be regarded as suitable for use as a dwelling until any planning permission, or development consent under the Planning Act 2008, required for the conversion is granted. Article 4 of the draft order ensures that buildings that require infrastructure consent under the new Welsh system will also still be regarded as suitable for use as a dwelling until the point at which consent is granted.
I welcome the Welsh Government’s Infrastructure (Wales) Act and I hope it will have a positive impact on the consenting process for devolved infrastructure projects. The draft order will make the necessary consequential amendments to reserved legislation, helping to ensure that the Welsh Government’s legislation can take effect as intended.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
As we have heard from the Secretary of State, the draft order will seemingly simplify the infrastructure consent processes in Wales for infrastructure projects, including those related to energy, electricity, transport, waste and water, by moving from the current multinational-level agencies process to an approvals process monitored and applied by the Welsh Government.
The explanatory notes to the Infrastructure (Wales) Bill published by the Welsh Government in June 2023 stated that it would ensure
“timely and effective delivery of major infrastructure and low carbon development in the right locations”.
Of course that is welcome, but it cannot and should not be at the expense of local and community voices and input. Any centralisation of planning processes and decisions must remain sympathetic to the needs and concerns of communities who will be most impacted by the new infrastructure, especially that of the scale and nature covered by the draft order. Any changes that are made —even those as relatively limited as those we are considering—must be to the benefit of the people, businesses and communities of Wales, and should not add a route to silence legitimate concerns.
Of course we want a simplified approach to infrastructure and planning that is business, community and, importantly, growth friendly and will help Wales catch up with the rest of the UK. However, given the scale of what needs to be achieved in Wales to make real, tangible change, we on the Opposition Benches are not convinced that these measures represent the change necessary to stimulate and truly accelerate Wales’s economy.
We will not oppose the draft order, but I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could address the following questions. Is there any scope for the Senedd or a future Welsh Government to propose changes to regulations that would make Wales unaligned with the rest of the UK, causing complications? Are the Government confident that the relevant agencies in Wales have the capacity to deal with applications under these licences? What projects does the Secretary of State feel will be most impacted, or benefit most, from these changes in the next five years? Does she see the draft order as a gateway for further devolution? Has she assessed whether the legislation might make consent easier to obtain in Wales than in other devolved nations, and the knock-on effect that could have on projects in other parts of the United Kingdom? What cross-Government work is being done on that?
Jo Stevens
I am pleased that the hon. Lady confirmed that there is no opposition to the draft order. On her main point, about local community input, the Welsh Government have undertaken extensive consultation on the 2024 Act. Both the Act and the regulations were subject to extensive engagement. Two consultations were undertaken, one by the Welsh Government and one by the Senedd. The Welsh Government have also disseminated information on the changes to industry through various events. The Act provides a process that enables local communities to engage in decisions that affect them, as well as flexibility to capture the consenting arrangements for developing technologies. The Welsh Government have attended and presented at events targeted at different key stakeholders involved in the process, including developers, local authorities and the community.
Several of the other matters that the hon. Lady raised relate to what the Welsh Government will do, and I suggest that she writes to the Welsh Ministers on those points. On which projects we expect to be most affected by the draft order, she referred in her own speech to water, transport and energy as examples.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Education (Scotland) Act 2025 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025
(3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Education (Scotland) Act 2025 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this order today. Like all the Scotland Act orders we have considered since the start of this Parliament, this is a result of collaborative working between the UK and Scottish Governments. The order before us will be made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 which, following an Act of the Scottish Parliament, provides the power for consequential provisions to be made to the law relating to reserved matters, or to the laws elsewhere in the UK.
Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action, and I am pleased to say that the Scotland Office has taken through 10 orders in the past 12 months. This order makes provisions in consequence of the Education (Scotland) Act, which received Royal Assent earlier this year. That Act of the Scottish Parliament provides for the establishment of a new qualifications body, Qualifications Scotland, to replace the existing Scottish Qualifications Authority. It also creates the office of His Majesty’s chief inspector of education in Scotland, removing the inspection function from Education Scotland, which is an Executive agency of the Scottish Government.
The UK Government have worked collaboratively with the Scottish Government on the draft order, which is needed to commence some of the provisions of the Act. The order is necessary to ensure that the functions currently exercised by the SQA can be fully transferred to the new body being set up, Qualifications Scotland. This will enable Qualifications Scotland to deliver all the services and products that are currently delivered by the SQA, maintaining the same functional and geographic scope.
The order also makes a number of consequential amendments in reserved areas and to UK, Welsh and Northern Ireland regulations to reflect replacement of the SQA with Qualifications Scotland. These are needed so that existing provisions across numerous regulations can continue to operate in the way they do now. Finally, the draft order is also needed to designate the newly created office of His Majesty’s chief inspector of education in Scotland as a non-ministerial office holder in the Scottish Administration for the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998. That change is needed to ensure that the person appointed to this role is a civil servant, which is required to support the delivery model for the inspectorate that is being set up by the Education (Scotland) Act.
The order changes the law in a very limited way and only so far as is necessary to give full effect to the provisions of the education Act of the Scottish Parliament. While the order’s provisions extend to the whole of the UK, its practical effect is limited to Scotland. Without the order, there is a risk of disrupting the education system in Scotland and the hard work of teachers and young people across Scotland. It is an example of devolution in action—the UK Government working with the Scottish Government to deliver for the people of Scotland.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. This instrument follows the Education (Scotland) Act 2025, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament in June this year and gained Royal Assent in August. As the Minister set out, that Act dissolved the Scottish Qualifications Authority, established Qualifications Scotland to replace it, and established the role of His Majesty’s chief inspector of education in Scotland. This statutory instrument enables that Act by amending references to the SQA in UK legislation, ensuring that the qualifications are recognised throughout the United Kingdom. Importantly, that allows the body to operate and be adequately recognised throughout the UK, which is outside the scope of the Scottish Parliament; hence we are here today.
I take this opportunity to thank my MSP colleagues in the Scottish Parliament for their work in challenging the Education (Scotland) Act and holding the Scottish Government to account on poor educational outcomes. I pay particular tribute to my friend Miles Briggs, the Scottish Conservative MSP for the Lothian region, for highlighting the limitations of the Scottish Parliament’s Bill. There are significant questions about whether the legislation makes progress on the wider educational reforms that are so desperately required. We believe that it is a missed opportunity to enact genuine and meaningful reform of Scottish education.
While the order we are considering today is unobjectionable, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to raise the state of the Scottish education system. Once the pride of the country, the Scottish education system has suffered poorer and poorer outcomes. The Conservative legacy in education saw students in England climb the international league tables from 27th to 11th in the world in maths in 2022, while Scottish students continued to slip down the programme for international student assessment rankings in maths and science under the Scottish National party Government—it is a shame that none of its Members could join us this afternoon. Earlier this year, the head of Scotland’s second-largest teaching union said that “education is broken” and that the school system
“has passed the tipping point leading to crisis”.
The “Curriculum for Excellence” is anything but.
At the core of this is the Scottish National party’s desperation to be different for difference’s sake. It is exceptionalism gone too far, and nowhere is that more evident than in the Scottish education system. For once, the SNP Government should take a look at what works south of the border, put their pride and politics aside and emulate best practice for the sake of Scottish students. The SNP has something—lots—to learn from the Conservative party’s legacy, especially in the English school system. However, that is a debate for another day and another place, so I will leave it at that. His Majesty’s Opposition will not stand in the way of this instrument.
Kirsty McNeill
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. While he might not be surprised to discover that I disagree with his assessment of the Conservative educational legacy south of the border, we can all agree as Scots that it is absolutely appalling that a full 42% of Scottish young people today are leaving Scottish education without a single higher or equivalent qualification to their name. For an education system that was once the envy of the world, that is a burning national shame.
This instrument demonstrates the UK Government’s continued commitment to work with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Level 7 Apprenticeships
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Violence against Women and Girls: London
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bike Theft: Loughborough
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pension Investment in UK Equities
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record