Commons Chamber

Tuesday 10th June 2025

(began 3 weeks, 3 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:34
11:35
None Portrait Q1. What progress his Department has made on advancing the Track-2 Acorn cluster. (904502)
-

11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:01
None Portrait Q5. What estimate he has made of the number of additional jobs in clean power industries since July 2024. (904507)
-

work continues. It is a top priority. We are building the clean power system to deliver energy
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:06
12:07
12:07
12:07
12:08
12:09
12:10
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:18
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:39
Ed Miliband Portrait Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Doncaster North, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Mr Speaker. With permission, I would like to make a statement about government plans for investment in new nuclear power. 16 years ago, in 2009, as Energy Secretary, I delivered a statement identifying the potential sites for new nuclear. Then I said we need to use all available low carbon sources. Energy security and climate change goes with nuclear and it will be good for job. That was true back then. It is even more true today. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, the cost-of-living crisis are followed, showed how vulnerable we are as a country dependent on fossil fuels.

At the whim of markets controlled by states and dictators. The imperative measures of security and the demand of the climate crisis means we must shift as fast as possible to clean homegrown power. The demand for that power as we shift away from gas is expected to at least double by the year 2050. We need all the low carbon sources we can get to meet the demands we face. The advice from experts including the Climate Change Committee is clear. We need new nuclear to meet climate obligations.

So Mr Speaker, this government supports new nuclear. Because of our belief in the climate crisis as the greatest long-term threat facing our country and the world. Not in spite of it. Because of the imperative of energy security and also because of the good skilled jobs nuclear provides. In Britain today there are too few industries offering the secure well-paid job with strong trade unions the British people desire and deserve. I have heard time and again from people up and down the country about the importance of nuclear jobs to their communities.

For all these reasons the government is taking decisive steps to usher in a new golden age of nuclear for Britain. First, back in the late 2000's, identification of Sizewell as a site for new nuclear when I was Energy Secretary, and it has taken 16 years, but I am proud we are today announcing 14.2 billion of public funding for this spending review period to build Sizewell C. The first government funded and owned nuclear power station in Britain since the 1980s. A strategic partnership with France and ED F investing with us.

I want to recognise the contribution my honourable friend for lowest ot and Ipswich made in advocating this project and also my honourable friend for Warrington North for her advocacy for nuclear. I acknowledge she is not here but the work of the honourable member for West the nuclear minister. Sizewell C will power the equivalent of 6 million homes with clean homegrown energy for 60 years. It will be a jobs and growth engine for Britain. Supporting 10,000 jobs at peak construction. Creating 1,500 apprenticeship.

Well-paid, skilled jobs in East Anglia and communities across the country. I thank GMP, Unite and Prospect trade unions. Sizewell has already signed £4.2 billion of contracts with 311 companies and will eventually work with 3,500 supplies in all four nations of the UK. I also say this project is good value for money for the taxpayer because they will be a clear economic return on investment. And for bill payers because all the due diligence we have done demonstrated the cost of the clean power supply will be cheaper than the alternative.

We expect a final investment decision on the project including through the capital race in the private sector to be completed in the summer and we will set out more detail. A new generation of nuclear power promised for years, delivered by this Labour government. Small Modular Reactors offer big industrial opportunities for the country. We are determined to Harnish nuclear expertise to win the global race to lead in the new Today Rolls-Royce SMR have been selected as the preferred bidder to develop the UK's first SMNRs subject to final approval and contract signature.

It could create up to 3,000 skilled jobs and power the equivalent of 3 million homes. In the Spending Review we are committed to the public investment needed to get the project started. With more than 2.5 ileum pounds of funding for the programs in the spending review period. It will be delivered by Great British Energy, headquartered in Warrington. And ally to Great British Energy headquartered in Aberdeen. Subject to government approval the contract will be signed this year. Our aim is to deliver one of your's first SMR fleet leading the world in nuclear technologies of the future.

More good jobs and energy security, funded and made possible by this Labour government. On the immediate horizon, nuclear A A nuclear A nuclear abundant A nuclear abundant energy A nuclear abundant energy future. A nuclear abundant energy future. We already lead thanks to the pioneering work of the agency but unlike in the past we are determined to make the investments to stay ahead as a country. Today we are pledging to invest 2.5 billion in fusion including the step programs. It will promise a new prototype in West Burton.

I congratulate the local authority for advocating this project and my honourable friend comedy members for Bassetlaw and Rushcliffe for their advocacy as well. It will be the first fusion project of its kind on the site of a former coal-fired power station. Britain leading the clean energy transition and trail blazing the technologies of the future under a Labour government. Nuclear ambitions do not end here. Moving ahead on these projects, see potential across the country. That is why we are looking to provide a route for private sector advanced nuclear projects.

To be deployed in the UK. We will task Great British Energy nuclear with a new role in assessing proposals with the national wealth and exploring investment opportunities. My message to the private sector is if you want to build new nuclear, we are open for business. Following the incredible campaigning work of my honourable friend for Whitehaven and Carlisle, Penrith and Furness, my department has asked the authority and Cumberland Council to consider the potential of privately led clean energy development in Moorside delivering jobs and growth in Cumbria.

We also know this is an industry that demand long-term thinking. Having announced this today we will build on our action plan and set out plans for the energy system into the next decade and beyond including ambitions and next steps on nuclear. The steps I have announced today will start the biggest nuclear building programs Britain has seen in 50 years. Doubling down on nuclear strength to take the latest steps forward in our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. When people ask what clean energy and net zero means for the country, this is what it is about.

For too long the country has not made the crucial energy or other infrastructure investment needed. A shortsighted failure to invest which the British people have paid the price for in lower living standards and declining public services. These announcements signal a change of approach. To invest in the future. The right choice for energy security. For jobs. For climate and for our children and grandchildren. The right choice for Britain. Invest not decline. We have made our choice and I commend the statement to the house.

house.
12:47
Nick Timothy Portrait Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
Conservative Party's approach nuclear party and we welcome any decisions backed by investment that increase Britain's nuclear capacity. We cannot deliver cheap reliable and secure energy without it. The investment announced by the Secretary of State today is significant, it is a fraction of the cost of his plan to decarbonise the grid which will ultimately be borne by consumers. Unlike the intermittent technology that is backed at such cost by the Secretary of State, nuclear provides reliable baseload power, and generates inertia to stabilise our grateful stop nuclear power plants require less infrastructure than dispersed generation by wind and solar.

It is the shape of successive governments over many years that relinquished its status over many years as a nuclear leader. In 1965 we had more nuclear reactors than the US, USSR, and the rest of the world put together. Between 1956 and 66, we built 10 nuclear power stations in a decade. We gave all of that up. The contribution of nuclear to our power generation peaked in 1944 and has fallen consistently since. Labour came to power in 1997 Saint it could see no economic case for the building of new nuclear power stations.

In 2010, the coalition agreement ruled out public investment in nuclear. It was the last Conservative government that planned the largest revival of nuclear power in 70 years. And it is thanks to this work that the Secretary of State has been able to make many of the announcements today. Can you reiterate that the final investment decision has not yet made? He said in his statement he would announce it in the summer but can you give a precise date when we will be told the total government investment and private capital raised? This statement is a downgrade of what the last government put in motion.

Today the energy secretary has announced only one small modular reactor. There is no clear target to increase nuclear power generation, and no news on this. The nuclear industry is expecting use of 1/3 GW reactor. The last government purchased the land and committed to build. But on this today, the energy secretary said nothing. Can he commit to the plan inherited for the 3rd Gb plan? Will he recommit to the policy from the Conservatives of 24 GW of power by 2050? While it is good news that Rolls-Royce will build the small nuclear reactors, this is a downgrade of what was previously planned.

Can you tell us why he has audited just one technology rather than two that will set out? Would he commit as other countries have to going faster? Canada has approved a plan of four SMRs. As things stand, Britain will not have SMRs connected to the grid until the 2030s. Contrast between this caution nuclear and the governments rush to decarbonise the entire grid in just five years while betting the house on I unreliable and intermittent technologies and shutting down oil and gas in the North Sea could not be clearer.

We need the energy sector to focus on the possible knots stake people's bills in the future on ideology.
12:50
Ed Miliband Portrait Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Doncaster North, Labour)
-
-
I feel sorry for the gentleman because it is hard on a day like this to be a member of the opposition. Nevertheless I will try and answer his questions such as they are. On the question about final investment decision, he will maybe be aware we are currently getting private sector capital raised. When it is complete we will make the investment decision which will take place this summer. It is obviously important. On the fundamental point he is asking, I do slightly scratch my head because he sort of says it is a downgrade.

We have announced the largest nuclear building program in 50 years. It might have looked good in the mirror this morning it does not bear much resemblance to reality. The question is this, it goes to the point of making the end my statement, why did they make all these promises nuclear but failed to deliver them? There is a simple answer, it was not because of a lack of diligence of his honourable Friend, it was for a simple reason which is they did not put the money up.

They did not make the investment. This is the point here, what is the thing that has bedevilled the nuclear program, a failure to invest public money. We are putting £14 billion for Sizewell C, 2.5 billion for SMR, £2.5 billion for fusion. That is significant sums of capital investment. That is what they did not do, that is why they made all these promises, that was I was the guy that identified Sizewell, and I'm glad to be the guy delivering it. Because we are willing to make the investment.

So we welcome support such as it is from him he needs to learn the lessons, public investment not the client is the answer for Britain.
12:52
12:53
12:54
Pippa Heylings Portrait Pippa Heylings MP (South Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrats Spokesperson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Mrs figure was not we welcome the government's renewed focus on energy security through nuclear power as part of the energy nuclear power as part of the energy mix. It is long overdue after years of dither and delay from of dither and delay from conservatives. It is 16 years since Sizewell C was first announced in 2009. And now, seven prime ministers later, we are finally seeing real later, we are finally seeing real movement. It is not a success story, it is a warning.

Short-term thinking, poor thinking, exorbitant thinking, poor thinking, exorbitant costs. I can't help but wonder, can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I continue? Can I continue? Sit down. I will decide whether

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sit down. I will decide whether it is out of order, I don't need any help because I wanted to finish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quickly. I can't help but wonder if the Secretary of State still at his Dispatch Box in 2009 and did he Dispatch Box in 2009 and did he imagine he would still be back in 2025 announcing the same project was the we support Tibetans in clean energy, small modular clear reactors have potential to reduce our dependence on gas from tyrants like Putin. We welcome the government backing this nascent technology and the choice of Rolls-Royce who are recognised as the first move across all of Europe.

That is where the focus should be rather than large- scale projects like Sizewell C that cost billions, take decades, goes over budget. We have to make sure this does not land consumers with higher energy bills. That risk is real. The government must be transparent about how it will pay for it because families cannot afford another hit to their household budgets. Liberal Democrats believe the best way to cut bills, create good jobs and boost energy security 's invest in homegrown renewables, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal.

Upgrade and National Grid to deliver that clean power. On that point we look forward to seeing more detail on the long overdue reform of the outdated first come first serve grid connection system holding back renewable energy projects, and can even delay the rollout of new SMRs. Today's rollout of new SMRs. Today's announcement is a step in the right direction was the test's delivery for the cheaper bills, stronger energy security, and a modern energy grid for the future.
12:57
12:58
12:59
13:00
13:00
13:01
13:02
13:03
13:03
13:04
13:04
13:05
13:05
13:06
13:06
13:07
13:08
13:08
13:08
13:08
13:09
13:09
13:10
13:11
13:11
13:12
13:12
13:13
13:14
13:14
13:15
13:15
13:16
13:16
13:17
13:17
13:18
13:19
13:19
13:20
13:20
13:20
13:21
13:21
13:22
13:22
13:23
13:23
13:24
13:25
13:25
13:26
13:26
13:27
13:28
13:28
13:29
13:29
13:29
13:30
13:31
13:31
13:32
13:32
13:33
13:34
13:34
13:35
13:36
13:36
13:37
13:37
13:38
13:38
13:39
13:39
13:40
13:40
13:41
13:41
Ed Miliband Portrait Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Doncaster North, Labour)
-
-
I congratulate my honourable friend the question and the new centre which is appropriately named and we should celebrate history on these issues and the way to order history is by building the future for nuclear and that is what today is all about, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is the end of the statement. I will give the front benches a few minutes to switch over. Point of order, Paul Holmes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

order, Paul Holmes. I have given advance notice of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have given advance notice of this point of order and I would like to raise an issue of process following proceedings last night in following proceedings last night in relation to the new clause 82 on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill which was not put for a separate which was not put for a separate decision last night. Can I firstly decision last night. Can I firstly say clearly that this is not a criticism nor a challenge of the decision by the deputy chair of the chair, who I have respect for.

It is qualification on the decision made last night and, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the following, the new clause was accepted for separate decision yesterday and signed by over 70 MPs. The member in charge had indicated he would not push this to avoid outside the chamber before the conclusion of the proceedings. Bass push this to a vote. The advice was given that the discretion, that
13:44
13:44
Paul Holmes Portrait Points of Order Paul Holmes MP (Hamble Valley, Conservative)
-
-
to a member who wished to do so. -- To a vote. Asking -- at the To a vote. Asking -- at the conclusion of proceedings, of the time for debate under the terms of the program have been exhausted, the program have been exhausted, standing order number 83 is engaged to bring proceedings to a close and the Speaker must put forth with the following question but no others, any question proposed by the chair, any question necessary to bring it to a question so propose, the question any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Speaker, are finally any other question necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded.

One other example comes in respect of any motion or any amendment to a any motion or any amendment to a bill, the speaker should have the ability to propose new clauses and schedules. The powers conferred on the Speaker should not be exercised by the deputy speaker, saved during consideration of the estimates. I have a concern that this has set precedent where members across the House who have signed, over 70 have signed, they did not have the chance to put it to a question last night at the member in charge spoke to the new clause and outlined the measures that the new clause would bring into the substantive legislation.

I am worried that members who have sent amendments from all parties across the House will not have the opportunity to put those new clauses and amendments to a vote because the chair to say they have the discretion to eradicate the question from being put in the proceedings of the House. I would be grateful for clarification and perhaps you could offer a meeting with the principal clerks so I can discuss my concerns.
13:45
Nusrat Ghani Portrait Ms Nusrat Ghani MP (Sussex Weald, Conservative)
-
-
I thank the honourable member for the question and I can assure him that nothing irregular or unusual to place last night. It is usual for the Speaker to give notice of amendments and new clauses for separate decision. It is not infrequent for the chair to make changes based on new information that comes to light during the course of the debate, particularly when dealing secretary of an amendment or new clause indicates they do not wish to move it.

On the amendment on a new clause which has been moved by a member needs to be withdrawn and they leave the House before it is put. This only applies to elite amendment or clause and any group. In this case, the member had not been called to move the amendments that there was nothing to with. It is appropriate and normal for the chair to decide not to call a new clause or amendment for a separate decision when the secretary has indicated to do not wish to move and ideally this should have been made in the course of the bed by the member in charge.

The honourable member knows very well how to touch base at the start in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now move on to Presentation of Bills, British Indian Ocean Territory.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Territory. British Indian Ocean Territory, -- British Indian Ocean Territory sovereignist and constitutional arrangements bill. Second Reading what day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading what day? Friday 13th of June, 2025.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friday 13th of June, 2025. We now move onto the Ten Minute Rule

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion. Freedom of Expression Bill. -- Freedom of expression. I beg to move that lead be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about freedom of expression in relation to religion or belief systems and for connected purposes. I do not believe that Muhammad was a prophet sent by God, I do not accept the instructions he said he received from the Archangel Gabriel. I do not accept that the sun or body of Islamic laws has any relevance to me.

I respect the religious beliefs of others but I do not mind if Mohammed is satirised, criticised or not. I'm not a Muslim and I choose not to live by the moral code set out by Islam. I am a Christian and I should make clear that I do not think anybody should be prosecuted for satirising, criticising or mocking Jesus either. England and Wales abolished blasphemy laws in 2008 and Scotland abolished them in 2021. But even then, those laws have not been used for decades.

The last blasphemy trial took place in 1977. And the state has not brought a public prosecution for blasphemy in more than a century. But now blasphemy laws are back. I have been advised not to refer to two high profile cases of people being arrested, charged or prosecuted for causing harassment, alarm or distress to Muslims or even nonsensical, to Islam itself. So while I will keep my speech to the conceptual, I invite the House to recall there are real examples of what I raise in the criminal justice system right now.

The issue is the way sections 4 and five of the Public Order Act 1986 are being used. Far beyond the intent of Parliament, to police what we can and cannot say about Islam. I will come to the details of sections 4 and five but first I want to say something about the intent of the Public Order Act stop the long title of the act makes clear its purpose was to abolish some common law and statutory offences to make way for new offences relating to public order.

Nowhere in the second reading debate from 1986 did anybody raise the need to protect religions or followers of religions from offence. The context of the act was football hooliganism and the riots in Brixton and Broadwater farm. It is true that part three of the act created new offences relating to racial hatred and this was amended to include religious hatred by the racial and religious hatred act 2006. But in part three, in section 20 9J, to which we will return, the Public Order Act says nothing in this part should be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents.

We can therefore be confident that the Public Order Act, even as amended, was never intended to become a blasphemy law. This obvious conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the controversies regarding blasphemy and Islamic this country began two years after its introduction, in 1988, with the publication of the say tannic verses. Since that year and the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, a public conversation about Islam has been limited to a mixture of self- censorship and more official restrictions, such as the definition of Islamophobia accepted by many public bodies.

These restriction are motivated not by a desire to avoid offence, consider the consideration -- considered the criticism and mockery of other religions, but the offence of others. Some say it is not the same as a blasphemy law and can be legitimate to prosecute somebody for saying something that Michael's wider disorder. Perhaps in some circumstances this may be so but we should interrogate this line of thinking. First, the Crown Prosecution Service gave the game away by charging one man with causing distress to the religious institution of Islam, which is pretty much the dictionary definition of blasphemy.

The second, twisting the law to make a protester responsible for the violent reaction of those who will not tolerate the opinions of others is wrong. It destroys our freedom of speech. Some argue that while this may be regrettable, it is now an unavoidable consequence of the multicultural society in which we live today. By this logic, the state
13:52
13:53
Nick Timothy Portrait Nick Timothy MP (West Suffolk, Conservative)
-
-
Muslim majority countries where the penalty for blasphemy or apostasy is death and we have significant diaspora populations many of them. With the number of people coming With the number of people coming here... With the number of people here who came from these countries here who came from these countries growing and the increasing assertiveness of organised political Islam in Britain, this is a problem that seems likely to only get more that seems likely to only get more severe. But the answer is not to surrender to the mob, it is to hold surrender to the mob, it is to hold the line and that is why today I bring forward this Bill.

I said earlier that section 20 9J of the Public Order Act protects criticism, insult and even abuse of religions insult and even abuse of religions and the beliefs or practices of their adherents. -- 29J. This only applies to part 3D legislation because part three relate -- because part three relate -- introduced amendments on hatred and religious hatred. No one thought sections 4 and five, which in part one of the act make it an offence to cause harassment, alarm or distress by using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour would be used to criminalise the expression of opinion about religious belief.

This Bill therefore extends the scope of 29J to the whole of the Public Order Act, preventing the use of sections 4 and five as a de facto blasphemy law. And apply section 29 also to section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the malicious Communications Act 1988. In doing so, this bill would restore free speech as it applies to religion in England and Wales. It will stop the police prosecutors and judges creating a blasphemy law for legislation that was never passed for that purpose.

It would send a stronger's powerful message from this place, where political power legitimately and democratically resides, that this country will not tolerate intimidation, violence or censorship. That there will be no special treatment here for Islam and there will be no surrender to the thugs who want to impose their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beliefs and culture on the rest of us. The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the honourable... The question is that the honourable member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many as are of bring in the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". The Ayes have it. Who will prepare and bring in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill? John Cooper, Luke Evans, Richard

**** Possible New Speaker ****

John Cooper, Luke Evans, Richard Holden, Robert Jenrick, Rupert Lowe, Rebecca Paul, Jack rancour, Alec Shelbrooke, Bradley Thomas, Tom

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Many Many boughs, Many boughs, many Many boughs, many boughs, Many boughs, many boughs, bonus

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one. Freedom of Expression (Religion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or Belief System) Bill. Second Reading what day?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

11 July.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

11 July. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. Data (Use and Access) Bill, Lord,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consideration of Lords message. I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords message engages comments Financial Privilege. I comments Financial Privilege. I called the Minister to move the motion to insist on this agreement with Lords Amendment for 9F and to propose amendments A to E. I caught the Minister. the Minister.
13:57
13:58
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
of the film Groundhog Day. That of course refers to the Pennsylvania course refers to the Pennsylvania Dutch superstition, the different groundhog emerges from its borough on the borough on 2 February, it on the borough on 2 February, it sees its shadow it will retreat sees its shadow it will retreat which then and winter will go on for six more weeks. I can see my shadow and I just hope that ping-pong is not going to continue for another not going to continue for another six weeks.

Last week, I covered some misconceptions about the contents of this Bill and what we are trying to achieve separately in relation to AI achieve separately in relation to AI and copyright. I fear that some of these misconceptions still persist. The Guardian, for instance, carried The Guardian, for instance, carried the following sentence this weekend, the following sentence this weekend, the AI Bill, which proposes allowing tech companies to use copyrighted material, has suffered 1/5 defeat in the Lords. This was repeated by one of the presenters on the today program, he stated, "The Data Bill allows AI companies to use copyright material" I am really glad the today program have apologised and corrected the record because let me reiterate, this is not an AI Bill and it does not propose changing copyright in any regard whatsoever.

If the Bill goes forward in the way that the government is proposing, there will be no diminution in the robustness of the UK copyright regime. And in the words of Richard the second, I think sometimes I want to say you have mistook us all this while.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way, he does understand that the industry wants a timeline and a industry wants a timeline and a vehicle. And I accept what he said at the start of this speech but really they are desperate, they are having their intellectual property stolen, day by day by day, and they want a timeline and a vehicle and I hope he is going to confirm that the Government is going to bring one forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward. He knows I'm not going to. And he also knows that the enforcement of also knows that the enforcement of copyright law is not a matter for the government, it is not a government that enforces it. I have government that enforces it. I have got the enforcement regulations here. And Chapter six of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 makes very clear how infringement is actionable by infringement is actionable by copyright owners. And in common with many bits of the law and statute law in the UK, enforcement is not normally by government, it is by either the prosecuting authorities or it is by people taking civil action.

And those other measures that existing copyright law today and we are not changing them in one regard... In a single regard. Having said all that, I want to acknowledge the strong feelings that have been expressed in both Houses about the need to protect the intellectual property rights of 2.4 million people who work in the creative industries in this country. Including the significant proportion of the creative industries which are represented by the tech industries, who calls are celebrating London tech week this week.

There lordships have, it has to be said, been persistent. So much so they remind me of a poem by Robert Browning... Which is about the 18th-century Venetian composer. It uses several musical terms such as the dominant and includes the line Hark the dominant persistence tell it must be answer to. The Lords have been persistent, which is why we have not just listen to them, we have heard them and we are answering them. That is why although this Bill is largely drafted by the previous government did not originally referred to the matter of copyright at all, we tabled specific requirements of the Government at a previous stage, firstly to produce an economic impact assessment of the options available to us and secondly to report on key issues, including transparency, technical solutions, access to data and copyright licensing within 12 months.

Today, in response to their lordships, we in response to their lordships, we are going several steps further. Firstly we are adding to further reporting requirements on approaches to models trade overseas and on how transparency and other requirements should be enforced. Second, in response to the call for us to work faster, meeting the point that honourable gentlemen has just made, right honourable gentlemen has just me, we will deliver the economic impact assessment report within nine rather than 12 months. And thirdly we are introducing a new requirement that will -- that the Secretary of State make progress statement within

**** Possible New Speaker ****

six months of this Bill is Royal I welcome the amendments and think that they are helpful and think that they are helpful and useful. We are missing transparency. It is what the Lords wants and what It is what the Lords wants and what artists want and that is the commitment the government will deal commitment the government will deal with issues of transparency. Why won't you sit down and compromise won't you sit down and compromise with the House of Lords to get a solution that works for everybody? Speak I think the most important compromise will be between the AI compromise will be between the AI sector and creative industries and that is what we must negotiate in the next few months.

I disagree with the next few months. I disagree with him about the idea of wanting to put simply one part of the jigsaw into the bill because the truth is that the bill because the truth is that if we are going to get you proper compromise and solution, it will require all the bits of the jigsaw to be put together into a comprehensive picture and that means that we must go through proper process. The last time we discussed all these things, you refer to the noble Lord Peter Mandelson and amendments he said were tabled which we thought were to do with Napster and the Digital Economy Act, 2010.

I sat through all the debates over that bill in 2010 and we went through a process to get to that bill and produced a white paper, then legislation, and it went through both houses and was introduced by Lord Mandelson in the House of Lords and by Ben Bradshaw in the House of Commons and most of it was so controversial that, in the end, it was never adopted by the government that took over in 2010 large chunks taken out where had colluded with the general election.

I'm not sure it is quite as he thought at the time but the key point is that we have got to go through proper process of conciliation in the area and that is introducing legislation once we have considered the responses, discussing bringing forward economic impact assessments, and considering all the different aspects that really matter to the creative industry and tech companies and considering legislation. I want to do that as fast as we can because I want to get to a solution for the problem now.

The government has tabled an amendment putting these commitments in the legislation on the face of the bill and they were initially tabled in the other place but not voted on by peers who instead insisted on the amendment we disagree to last Tuesday. In fact, as I understand, it has moved. These amendments shall commitment to ensuring considered and effective solutions, as I have a claim, and demonstrate we have unequivocally heard the concerns about accountability. There is one other piece of work that we must do.

The House knows will bring together a working group to consider transparency and solutions and these will have representatives from AI and the creative industry and there will be an extra parliamentary... Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for giving way and being so generous with his time. Could he outline on the point time. Could he outline on the point how the government will decide which how the government will decide which parliamentarians will go in the group and how they will be chosen?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

group and how they will be chosen? I go -- I was about to come to that. She has a faster timeline than that. She has a faster timeline than I have. There is expertise within Parliament and that is why I'm Parliament and that is why I'm committing that the government will convene a series of meetings to keep interested parliamentarians and from interested parliamentarians and from interested parliamentarians and from the with the progress on this. These working meetings will include a cross-party group made up of MPs and cross-party group made up of MPs and peers and we hope the group can act as an informal sounding board but is not intended to replicate or replace established body such as the select committees and the chair of the Culture, Sport Committee in her normal place and I would not dream of telling her committee what to do but we would nonetheless like to be able to draw upon the members and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their expertise. I thought that might happen, yes. Later on Friday night after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Later on Friday night after hours, if you like, emails were sent to the chairs of the two relevant select committees suggesting this approach and that was the first that approach and that was the first that we had a bit and then an email went we had a bit and then an email went This was rather horrid and breathless and not very courteous to the House and the honourable gentleman has written two respected books about Parliament and I'm sure books about Parliament and I'm sure he did not intended this is bad but we must be clear that scrutiny is scrutiny and policy making is a second thing and to combine the two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is not appropriate. On the last point, I completely agree. Scrutiny of government legislation either through proper processes in this House or any other is one thing, or, for that matter, select committees which do it differently and that is one thing and the business of developing policy is another. What we are trying to do, and I apologise for what was an inadvertent sending to the wrong email address and the rest and we are trying to engage as many members of Parliament in this House and the other as we can in this matter clearly matters to a number of MPs including my right honourable friend who has a large creative community in her own constituency.

We want to involve as many people as we can. We may be moving faster than we can. We may be moving faster than we want on some occasions and I apologise for the inadvertent discourtesy. We are simply trying to discourtesy. We are simply trying to engage as many people as we can and as she is the Chair of the Liaison Committee I wonder if it would be useful to meet with relevant committees to discuss what shape that should take and what would be useful and informative rather than anything that might undermine the process.

My honourable friend wanted to intervene.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's important to get creative voices in the room and have the conversation I will be part of the remit of that group to bring members and to discuss concerns. and to discuss concerns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I remained the Minister that we have got four backbenchers wishing to contribute. I feel that I have been told. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I feel that I have been told. I will try... I've been told off for being too long and two short, too being too long and two short, too fast and too slow. The point I was going to make was that we are already committed to creating two already committed to creating two working groups which will look at transparency and technical solutions transparency and technical solutions to the problems we are facing and both will have members of creative both will have members of creative industries and members of the pack and AI companies engaged and, in addition, we want to have a second thing, members of this House and the other house engaged to have an interest in the subject and helping us with these policy areas.

I think it is best to keep separate and that is the plan. The Secretary of State, as we know, has written to the chairs of the relevant committees. I see I am getting a slight nod from the chair about the prospect of sorting out a way forward on that. A few words about ping-pong. Some peers have suggested different rules apply because the bill started in the Lords. This is not true. Double insistence would kill the bill forever it started and I take people at their word when they say that they do not want to kill the bill.

It has important measures which will enable digital verification services and smite data schemes to grow the economy and save the NHS time, make vital amendments to policing laws, and support communication and adequacy reform. The provisions of the support of all parties in both houses which is why I urge the House to accept our points of view and I would urge the Lordships to agree with us. If they do persist, they are not just delaying and imperilling a bill which all parties agree is important and necessary but they are imperilling something else of much greater significance and importance economically which is data adequacy with the EU.

And with the successful renewal of the adequacy decisions, it is predicated on us having a settled law as soon as possible and we will not have that until B bill gains Royal assent. I cannot over emphasise how important this is and I'm mystified why members of all parties would want to imperil that and I'm mystified by the position of the Conservative Party who tabled amendments at the report stage which are almost exactly mirrored by what we have already added to the bill and are adding today.

I very much hope that they will agree the motion today. It is not as if they disagree with any of the measures in this bill. It is why I am grateful to Baroness Kidron who sat in the Lords, "I want to make it clear that whatever transpires I will accept the point." She later reiterated and added, "If we choose to vote on this and successfully pass it, I will accept anything the House of Commons does and will not stand in front of Your Lordships again to press our case." She is like.

Only one House is elected and only one House constitutes the government of the day and especially in terms of the general election, the unelected House treads carefully. This is also all the more important when the governing party has barely 1 fifth of the members of the other house. We have listened to them and taken action. We may disagree about the measures we have taken but it would be wrong to say we have not listened and it is time for them to agree it will go forward.

One final word about creativity. We live in an exceptional edge. When our parents were young, they were lucky if they had a television or record player. They might occasionally go to a gig or a concert. If he had a television, they only had a choice of 2-3. By contrast, we are surrounded by human content in a way no other generation was. Technology has brought us more content. We can watch more drama than ever and listen to our own choice of music on the train, bus, and the car, play games online with friends on the other side of the world.

More books are published and we can't listen to them, read them, and more than twice as many people went to the theatre last government to a Premier League match. There is also the interaction of AI with creativity which is part of humanity. It requires human to human connection and I don't think for a single instant that will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

change. I beg to move. The question is that this House insists on the disagreement with the insists on the disagreement with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insists on the disagreement with the Lords on Amendment 40 -- 49F. It feels like we are going from
14:14
Ben Spencer Portrait Dr Ben Spencer MP (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

It feels like we are going from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It feels like we are going from Groundhog Day to 'Lost in Translation'. Today, I will try something different until B House something different until B House story, the story of this debate. A story was read in the deep dark wood and AI saw the book and it looked good. There was an original part of it and it said it was awfully sweet but they were meeting the author. I like you, and they don't want to call straight, but they were was shipped by lay.

If we are to partner, please to us first. Do not, would be naughty. Perhaps I owe an apology while thanking her for the national treasure and I look forward national treasure and I look forward to the third book in the series of 'The Gruffalo'.. Transparency is fundamental to protect creative endeavour. No one can doubt that the Minister has done his best to demonstrate the nature of the creative spirit in the face of adversity and avoid committing to legislating and the pain people on transparency.

This week, it is a new Parliamentary working group. Last week, it was a feud. Next week, may even be citizens' assembly. The creative industries are not buying it. Our noble colleagues in the other place are not buying it. Members of opposition parties and some of his own benches are not Because the government has lost the confidence of its stakeholders that they will bring forward legislation to enact effective and proportionate transparency requirements for AI models in the use of their creative content, AI companies need to buy it.

It is this loss of confidence in the Government's will to take decisive action that nothing short of a commitment to bring forward legislation will be enough to allay the fears of creative industries.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fears that... Thank you. I would like to thank the honourable member for his the honourable member for his creativity in his speech. I think the heart of this debate is whether the heart of this debate is whether or not create tools asked before we or not create tools asked before we steal their material or still Dessau. -- Creators are asked. And also they are eliminated for that. That is the commitment we have heard That is the commitment we have heard from the Minister and from the Secretary of State in his media Secretary of State in his media performance at the weekend.

Usher remunerated for that. This is a problem that predates this year. It dates back to the starting stolen for a considerable number of years. Why didn't the last government take any initiative to ensure that creatives receive their just rewards

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for their creativity? I thank her for her intervention. What the last government did not do is release a consultation that had a ministerial forward to say the position of copyright was not certain will stop what it did not do certain will stop what it did not do was to say it had a preferred option in terms of opt out, which has the creative industry, caused all this problem in the first place. It is this government's ham-fisted approach that has caused so many approach that has caused so many problems which the Government is now trying to fix and unfortunately, failing.

The Government has played a large part in creating this problem. The Lords...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Lords... ... I'm not going to let honourable gentlemen get away with that. The last government did not do anything on this issue put up anything on this issue put up basically because it did not understand what was going on and it understand what was going on and it did not care for the little it did understand about some of the threats from AI. I think what the honourable gentlemen should do, as he asked the Labour benches yesterday, apologise for the inaction of the past few

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years. Because a lot of this is down to them. ... Allowed honourable gentlemen to respond to the first point...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I said, this is clearly a tricky area to legislate, I have said at the Dispatch Box many times and at the committee stage many and at the committee stage many times. But what is not helping is the uncertainty that has been created throughout these debates created throughout these debates about the positional copyright law, preferred dad options, the status of opt out, which is why we have got

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into this pickle in the first place. Thank you very much to my honourable friend for giving way. honourable friend for giving way. There does seem to be mass amnesia breaking out across the chamber. Because the last government did do something on this issue, they set up a working group between AI companies and the creative industries. The AI and the creative industries. The AI companies walked away. And we are almost at risk of recreating history by this government wanted to set up exactly the same working group and thinking that by doing the same

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thing again, that somehow the outcome will be different. I thank the chair of the Select Committee, who is also trying to Committee, who is also trying to break us out after Groundhog Day break us out after Groundhog Day that we seem to have found ourselves that we seem to have found ourselves into. The Lords Amendment does not... The government's policy options nor does it describe how proportionate transparency should be proportionate transparency should be achieved, it seemed he put a line in the sand for the government to act on this hugely important issue.

-- Simply puts I line in the sand. Simply puts I line in the sand. Reprising the AI and the Gruffalo. Reprising the AI and the Gruffalo. So on went the story... To be loved by its readers as a good should. Yet the AI pondered, as it wanted it the AI pondered, as it wanted it now, I'll simply just scrape it, the AI did a vow. When he was musing he stumbled across the offer reclining on a patch of green moss. Their glasses and notebooks and ideas galore, they printed five books but were working.

Their eyes came to me, they were in for a fight, both wanted the story, but who was right? The answer is both. If reason be sought. Content, not stolen, but licensed or bought. Be clear what you are taking, be transparent and true and recognise the content and its real value. Then there is no monster nor bad guy, just an allegorical rhyme and a plea to allegorical rhyme and a plea to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

listen and take action in time. Thank you. I really hope the shadow spokesperson sought permission to misappropriate Julia permission to misappropriate Julia Donaldson's wonderful work. It is hardly an example that any of us should follow. We are back here again. I would like just to put on again. I would like just to put on record my thanks to the Government Frontbench for their engagement on this. It was particularly welcome to this. It was particularly welcome to see the Secretary of State in his appearance on the Laura Coombs show, take such a human approach to recognising the concern that exists recognising the concern that exists in the creative industries and give that commitment to the nation as the seriousness of what comes from here..

I welcome the comments that the tech sectors will be involved in the next phase of this work because that is essential. But I would like to stress two further points. First that that involvement must reflect both the breadth of the creative industries music and publishing to games, films, beyond the necessary mix of expertise. And that means the creative sector rights holders and business affairs professionals, alongside the tech experts who understand the complexities of data flows, meta data structures and the practicalities of any opt out system or the tech solution to be developed from here, notwithstanding the Secretary of State's clarity or clarification that the government no longer has a preferred position.

And we look forward to the consultation and the findings of that consultation being open and transparent. Because whilst all the creative sector share in the value of copyright as a principle that is tech and sector neutral, the way that commercial licensing models developed in practice will differ and it is not for the Government to second-guess that. That is not a problem, in fact, it is a good thing. The emergence of bespoke commercial partnership is precisely how the government can achieve its objective of driving effective licensing.

But to get there we need sector specific insight and specialist input, not a one size fits all. And I welcome the commitment to include backbenchers, stakeholders and leaders of the industry. Crucially, the Gut must consult and liaise with all of us on the formation, including the terms of reference for this route. -- That Government must liaise. This cannot be presented again as a paper company. Too often we hear of officials mulling things over but not sharing what those thoughts are or indeed what the implications could be of their latest thought.

With the best will in the world, they cannot know the business that industry can tell us more clearly on. It is true to say I believe that the prospects for both industries have improved as a result of this ping-pong process, as a result of the arguments that we have been having in this House and the other place. But I want to...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving me and he mentions that the prospects of both industries are improved. However, I have spoken in improved. However, I have spoken in this place about my previous role as a screenwriter and referred members a screenwriter and referred members to my register of interests. This week the BFI reported that AI threatens the British film industry, threatens the British film industry, over 130,000 scripts are being plundered. Does my honourable friend agree with me that if we fail to agree with me that if we fail to take this opportunity to deal with transparency and legislate on the transparency and legislate on the face of the Bill, that we are leading screenwriters and other creators high and dry until we do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislate in the future? I thank my honourable friend for her intervention. It is, as ever, her intervention. It is, as ever, rooted in first-hand experience and rooted in first-hand experience and professional success that brought her to this place. And she should be listened to and the warnings he did listened to and the warnings he did as to the implications if we do not take transparency seriously on this. take transparency seriously on this. I would like to return to something I have raised before because I think it warrants more scrutiny.

The recurring suggestion that copyright recurring suggestion that copyright is out of date. On the one hand, we have had the government talk about copyright being clear and well established and of course we agree with that. Clarity only this weekend with that. Clarity only this weekend again that is in fact theft or privacy without any licence or permission being in place. That clarity is precisely what gives rights holders the confidence, the control and the legal basis to license their works. Which the Government also rightly wants to encourage.

But then in the same spirit, we learn or sense that the Government still feels copyright somehow needs to be reformed or ignored. So could I ask the government to take this... Could I ask the Minister, rather, to take what I hope is the last opportunity in this moment, to give an indication of what exactly the reform is that is being proposed in his mind? And what would it achieve that copyright does not already do? Because the creative industry believe it to be best in class as a respected and enforceable measure.

respected and enforceable measure. Because if the answer is transparency or personality rights or any issue that sits around copyright, rather than within it, then let's call that what it is. But please can we avoid vague or constructive ambiguity and language that sets hares running or undermined confidence in what is a frankly best in class system. If the Government is, finally... If the government is still entertaining the idea that the stability of UK copyright law could be weakened in pursuit of an idea of innovation, then many will feel that the shift in tone and the shift in position in recent weeks, which is deeply welcome, will feel counter- productive and leave them concerned still.

Thank you very much.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Thank you. I would like to start with disappointing or reassuring the House that sadly I do not have a story for you today but I will dive straight in to the amendments before straight in to the amendments before us. Just three months after all the discussions and the cries for fairness from the creative industries who ultimately seen the daylight robbery of their life's daylight robbery of their life's work, the Government are sending back an amendment which in essence changes the economic assessment from changes the economic assessment from 12 to nine months for the progress statement and some expansion.

I understand this is a Data Bill and that many important elements to this that many important elements to this legislation about the future of our data. But we must secure and absolutely to the point of the Minister, understand the importance Minister, understand the importance of securing that data adequacy with the European Union. But the creative industry is at a critical junction with AI. Many, they already feel it
14:28
Victoria Collins Portrait Victoria Collins MP (Harpenden and Berkhamsted, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
with AI. Many, they already feel it is too late and they are doing what they can, fighting for transparency and fairness for £126 billion UK industry. Three creators rights Alliance has already started to see the impact for creators. 58% of association of photographers members have lost commission work to generative AI services. And have seen an increase of 21% in the last five months alone. Totalling an average of £14,400 per professional photographer. And that means a total of approximately 43 million.

32% of illustrators report losing work to AI, with an average loss of 9262 per affected UK creator. There is an uncomfortable truth that economic gains from AI, of which I'm sure there will be many, will also be met with economic losses that must be addressed. Indeed, at a tube station there are signs everywhere at the moment saying stop hiring humans. 77% of authors do not know if their work has been used to train AI. And 71% are concerned by AI mimicking the cell without consent.

65% of fiction writers and 77% of non- fiction writers believe AI will negatively impact their future earnings. At this point, the creative industries feels betrayed and are asking for solutions. I also welcome the statement from the Secretary of State this weekend, who talked about looking come readily at the challenges of creatives have into the future and to bring legislation in at the right time but that time is now. Last week's amendment 49F highlighted the need for separate legislation and asked for a draft bill on copyright infringement, AI and transparency over input.

Something creatives have been clear about from the start. I have always highlighted the positive impact of technology and innovation and I have no doubt creatives will also use AI for their creativity. But from musicians to filmmakers, photographers, writers to painters, the works at this massive industry have in sold off and they are left wondering what that means for them. Especially as they are already starting to see the impact was not in my constituency, I see this creative spirit everywhere. There is open door, caring Oasis with walls covered with local artists, a photographic Society established over 80 years ago, where generations have learned to capture light and moment through their lens and the art society where painters and craftspeople gather to nurture each other's artistic journey and the work of the jazz group get up and dancing.

These creators other threads that weave a rich tapestry of British culture and the creative industries permeate our towns, including the filming of box office hits such as guardians of the Galaxy to Robin Hood, Prince of thieves. But who will be the guardians of this creative galaxy? And why does this theft feel a little less heroic this theft feel a little less heroic What's more, this is a business opportunity for those looking to adopt AI solutions and looking for transparency in due diligence.

BT has around 1 million small business customers and saw an opportunity to better serve them with AI solutions but hope transparency could do so with confidence and so I asked working groups and suggested bringing in the wider industry to unlock opportunities. From businesses to creators it should be seen as an opportunity for the economy. Creatives are asking for something reasonable, partnership and not appropriation. As we all vote, I would urge members to keep it alive.

It is bittersweet that there is a day celebrating the art of Parliament. There are over 10,000 pieces in the archive tells the story of democracy, culture, country. I was struck by one of the latest acquisitions called 'The Magic Hour' which is bewitching and a screen print and has the magic of Parliament. I hope now is the magic hour to find a way forward and set a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

new path for the future. I draw the attention of the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I draw the attention of the House to hide being the courtier of to hide being the courtier of fintech company. I have really welcomed the new approach to welcomed the new approach to innovate and expedite the process and leverage expertise and I thank
14:32
Samantha Niblett Portrait Samantha Niblett MP (South Derbyshire, Labour)
-
-
and leverage expertise and I thank them for their work on this. Under a month ago, the UK hosted Fintech Week at the Fintech Forum where people came from around the world to dissipate in conversations about the importance of the ecosystem for the digital world. The reason attendance was so senior and strong is that after the global financial crisis, the UK had to move to a new model and fintech was born and it was great work done in this space by the previous government, even if it could not get their act together over AI.

Government regulators, entrepreneurs and investors work together to create an ecosystem that led the world in fintech and created tens of thousands of new jobs, brought in tens of millions of investment, and created companies with over $20 billion. In the middle of London Tech Week, there is a technical challenge which needs addressing and so is great to hear the news today because this is an emergency and the emergency of AI in recent times has created opportunity and you threats for creatives who often rightly complain that their work is reappropriated by AI without credit to the original creator but we can be a pioneer with new solutions that will set the standards others will follow and with demonstrated this in the past with fintech and we now hold a 10% global market share in this area.

We have a blend of talent and regulation and common business language and soft power as well as common law which is used by other countries and other countries look to us to lead the way and this is a crisis at the door and an opportunity to be on the front foot. We are ahead of other countries experiencing the same challenges and watching us closely. This country always steps up in times of crisis in the UK can and must take a leading position regarding the fair use of AI in creative industries and help protect creatives and their work which are rightly celebrated across the world.

We should also be more focused on homegrown talent and the inventive mindset to solve the biggest puzzles. We can move quickly when we need to and my message is that we need to and have two. that we need to and have two.
14:35
Caroline Dinenage Portrait Dame Caroline Dinenage MP (Gosport, Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank the Secretary of State for sending the committee a letter on Friday evening setting out government intentions with AI and copyright. I have to say in reflection to what the courtier has said that the method in which the letter was received with almost symbolic of the way the process has been conducted from beginning to end and it was chaotic and not entirely clear what the Secretary of State or minister intends to happen next but minister intends to happen next but Minister for him to have a chat and talk us through.

They set out amendments to the bill and a plan to set up the Parliamentary working group and we would like to know more about that. I understand what the government is trying to do - it is trying to bring the Data Bill to conclusion. The problem is they are not engaging with the fundamental existential issue here. The concerns that have been raised by people across the creative industries and the government's amendment has expedited the economic impact and the And Science Innovation and Tech Committees jointly with about this This is something that should have happened from the start.

These are all welcome but the amendments missed the point of the concern of the creative industries and that is that without being exploited wholesale, without permission, payment, means of redress. I would note that on May 14, the minister told the House that they did not think what was on the amendment people deliver anything. The government giving itself nine months rather than 12 to look at what we already know, that the favoured consultation option is unworkable, it's less likely to deliver this quickly than the amendments that have been proposed in the other place.

The letter from the Secretary of State also mentions a Parliamentary working group to ensure Parliament has a voice directly into The -- DSIT through this process. They will report back on this with AI developers. The government needs to be listening to the concerns of Parliament and industry stakeholders instead and maybe then they will realise that this exercise between rights holders and developers has been tried before, as I said earlier, including in the last Parliament which was scrutinised at the time and each time they have got them nowhere and talks have collapsed because the status quo suits developers working in bad faith because they have nothing to lose.

If the government presses on with this working group, we will of course engage and do what we can to support and so let's call this what it is, a distraction technique to divert attention away from the fact that they have got themselves into a terrible pickle of the legislation, by starting the consultation on AI and copyright when they had stated preferred outcome and being cloth eared to the concerns of giving industries for months and they have been virtually dragged kicking and screaming to the position and are bringing forward tiny amendments and they have gas led members of both parties who have tried to draw attention to this.

They have pitted creative industries against AI and almost presented them as Luddites, allergic to technology, when they are some of the most groundbreaking and innovative sectors out there and they are using AI every single day to produce world bridging pieces of creative content but the very nature of this seems to put creative industries against AI and it is deeply unfair. It is all not good enough. It is a thinly veiled attempt to kick the can down the road and if that was Olympics sport, he should speak to the Minister he.

If he thinks anyone is fooled or they want to stand up for the world living creative industries and the existential threat that this faces, he has another thing coming.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have a hard stop at 2:56. Over to you, Minister. Several minutes have passed.
14:41
Pete Wishart Portrait Pete Wishart MP (Perth and Kinross-shire, Scottish National Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

have passed. I'm extremely dreadful. I have a few comments to make. It's a few comments to make. It's a pleasure to follow the honourable lady, the Chair of the Select Committee. She was somebody who understood issues and someone prepared to find a solution and where the last group were appalling at dealing with this issue, she made every effort to try and get to the heart of the debate. It has been quite extraordinary episode I cannot believe we are back here for the fifth time.

Usually in these situations, these things are resolved and dealt with in a meaningful way and compromises reached between the Lords at the House of Commons but that has failed to materialise and the whole episode is interesting that -- has an interesting dynamic. The Minister and I are celebrating 24 years of continuous membership of the House and I'm sure he will agree with never seen anything like how we have got to this. If he has an example, and I'm sure you will but is almost photographic memory, he will provide details.

What is disturbing is that the government has failed to try to reach some kind of meaningful compromise. And the inability to secure one is quite baffling. I tried to think of a few ways we might get around this and it might be an idea to get the Secretary of State and Elton John in the same room, locked the door, and see if they can come up with a solution. We are trying to find a way forward. Maybe that is one way we can achieve this.

The refusal of the Lords to listen to this view and respect the convention that ping-pong is a process and that at the end of that process, what usually happens is a workable compromise appears and they have risked undermining their own legislative process. Again, I looted the amendment and listen carefully to the debate and I cannot see anything wrong with it. It asks for anything wrong with it. It asks for a draft bill with provisions to provide transparency to copyright owners regarding the use of copyright works as data inputs for AI models and I think that is what we were all trying to achieve and I am surprised at the government resistant to this.

It is quite modest and I tend to try to find solutions. I welcome the amendments. I think the one that excites me most is involving this House and the Parliamentary resource and the ability to come forward and play a meaningful part and I hope it will be extended to all parties across the House. He says, "Steven May" -- "Even me." I think every single aspect has to be part of the work. What it does not in this key issue, it does not attempt to deal with issues around transparency at all and there are amendments that have been tabled and they have been rejected and once again, he is right, bringing this back to try and give us something.

Having listened and compromised with the House of Lords is nothing of that sort at all but the key issue around transparency that the House of Lords wants and the creative sector was an artist around the UK want to see in place and the existing law should be enforced to protect the wages of 2.4 million creative workers and the government must put forward a meaningful compromise amendment. It is possible for the government to take powers to introduce transparency via regulation and recognising the urgent need to prevent mass theft by AI.

I do not know why they are not exploring know why they are not exploring this. The wages are at stake and the creative industries are clear that inaction on the part of the government is giving big tech the freedom to break laws and destroy jobs. Copyright is not an abstract concept. It is what secures creative success. The government will win in the House today and probably the whole debate but it has lost the battle in all of this.

One good thing that has come of this is that people now understand that it is our copyright laws, our standard copyright regime, that underpins the success of the creative industries of the UK across the world with some of the greatest artists from the world from these islands and they have had success because of intellectual property rights and property laws and to muck about with them and they really have done recently and remains all of that and the ability to continue to lead in the sectors.

I hope that even at this very late stage, some sort of compromise can be found with transparency at the heart of the Sunday appeal to the Minister to Sunday appeal to the Minister to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I leave the House, just a few
14:46
Chris Bryant Portrait Chris Bryant MP, Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Rhondda and Ogmore, Labour)
-
-
comments because I thought it was Norton to respond to the sum of the question specifically asked. Two of my honourable friends referred to the BFI report that was published yesterday, I warmly commend this to all members of the House, not least because it sadly makes some of the points to me by others about AI but also makes another point about AI, which is a film and high-end television in the UK is to be successful in the future, it cannot have the critical shortfall in AI education, which is entirely piecemeal at the moment, and that needs to change.

We know that in the department and that is one of the things we want to change. Second, several members have asked the question about who is going to be involved in all these various different groups. I do want to draw on all the expertise that there is in this House and in the other house, to make sure that we can get the right answers. I do not want to undermine anything that the select committees might do, either jointly or separately or individually.

I am also very keen, as my honourable friends Arbery said earlier, that we need to have all the different parts of the creative industries engaged in this process. The difference is we might end up with a very large round table and people might have to bear with us about how we structure that will stop -- honourable friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for Bury. OK, because she wasn't here earlier but I think... I thank the Minister for giving way and I apologise for not being way and I apologise for not being here and I do want to commend the Government on engaging in a cross- Government on engaging in a cross- party discussion on AI, as the country indeed needs to. But I would country indeed needs to. But I would say to him that from the beginning of this, the key issue here is to ensure that the tech companies ensure that the tech companies understand that transparency in understand that transparency in copyright and transparency in AI is not a nice to have, it is not something that is in the gift, it is something that is in the gift, it is an absolute requirement.

And if they were not require it -- if they will not deliver it, then the Minister will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will. Transparency is absolutely key to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Transparency is absolutely key to be able to deliver the package that we would like to put together. Absolutely key. I do not result from that. That it is only one of the part of the jigsaw that we need to be able to put together. I might just referred to the comments of the chair the culture committee. I would point out that some of the things on the order paper today are things that the two select committees actually asked for us to do.

She is normally more generous to me and others then she has been today. I would just say to her that she clearly has forgotten that the previous government actually introduced plans which would have brought forward a tech and data mining -- text and data mining exemptions what exportation of copyrighted materials without any additional protections for creative industries at all. That seems to have slipped her mind. We have moved a considerable deal since this Bill started. The Secretary of State for culture media and the secretary of state the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee was sitting beside me, we have moved and we have listened to what they Lordships and more importantly, the creative industries have to say on this.

The Member for Perth and Kinross asked me whether I have ever known anything like this. There have been other bills have gone to 5 g of ping-pong. Always in the past, the row has been about what is in the Bill, not about what is not in the Bill. This is not an AI Bill stop it will not change the copyright regime in this country. I want the copyright regime to be as robust as it ever has been, so the creative industries can be remunerated and earn a living as they deserve to do.

That is precisely what we intend to achieve but we want to get the Data Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. That is why I need the House to vote with us this afternoon and I hope the Lordships will agree with us tomorrow.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment 49F and
14:50
15:05
None Portrait Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Day Two): Remaining Stages
-

the other clauses and amendments as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the other clauses and amendments as I beg to move that the clause be read a second time. I'm grateful for
15:05
Freddie van Mierlo Portrait Freddie van Mierlo MP (Henley and Thame, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
read a second time. I'm grateful for the opportunity to move the new clause 22. Active travel, cycling, walking, wheeling, it is hugely beneficial and I'm sure that sentiment is shared throughout the House. Even when there is within this and funding to progress a scheme, it can be hard to get a plan of the grant. This is because landowners refuse to cooperate and landowners refuse to cooperate and see -- CPOs are often used for road projects but with travel, there is often reluctance.

I'm grateful to the Minister for responding to my Parliamentary question on this matter. On 15 May, I was informed by the Minister no assessment has been made to the effectiveness of compulsory purchase orders in progressing active travel schemes. Somewhat surprising given the scope of the Bill which aims to speed up project delivery but he assured me that local authorities can use CPOs for active travel and there's a difference between what is theoretically possible and what is love. This was voiced by my honourable friend and constituency neighbour and powerful advocate for Informed that updated guidance was published in October of last year and it would be updated following the passing of the bill.

I have been through the guidance and I can tell be house nothing in the guidance refers to active travel. It only follows in terms of the umbrella term 'highway' was not the problem is it works for roads but are insufficiently adapted for an active travel project. The guidance is no statutory guidance but an interpretation of current law. The other guidance is upcoming guidance from England." This will support the local authorities but it does not include considerations for compulsory purchase orders. Again and again, there is already guidance but it is insufficient and does not cover compulsory purchase orders.

In response to one of my written questions, the government has shared future guidance on case studies on the use of CPOs. Active Travel and does enough work. That is why the new clause which specifically requires it to be published by ministers should be part of this bill. All other options have been exhausted. I want to make clear before going further that I do not believe CPOs should be like that. It is better to have constructive relationships with landowners.

They should be the last resort but that the threat of one, we are sending of local authorities with both hands behind their backs. My county is hugely ambitious and designed to rule out a county wide strategic travel network linking towns and villages together. In my own corner of the county, there is clear case that would link up the tone and allow the villagers to safely get to the next town. There is widespread cross-party support in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire and we are working closely together to progress the project.

I thank the honourable member from Buckinghamshire for his support. When I was the counsellor, the residents of the town would tell me how valuable a cycleway would be. The town sits just off junction six of the M 40 and has good bus connections to London and Oxford through the Oxford tube. An informal park-and-ride works well enough but wouldn't it be so much better if wouldn't it be so much better if there was a sign for the 2.5 miles.

I learned early on the landowner has no intention of cooperating, even though an old railway would be a perfect route. The project was stopped dead in its tracks. It may surprise members that the issue that the amendment seeks to address has been considered closely by colleagues in Wales. In 2019, the colleagues in Wales. In 2019, the Welsh assembly looked in detail at the issue and the economy, infrastructure and skills committee made some observations in terms of the Active Travel Act which I think are relevant.

The committee was cross-party and cheered by a member of the Welsh Conservatives. Evidence that that without effective support to ensure land is made available, key sections that could make everyday journeys viable could take years to be delivered or not be delivered at all. It was suggested that the process is a block on active travel routes and since the objection may be made on the grounds that there are one or more, albeit alternative, lower grid options, leaving local authorities vulnerable to challenge.

As a result, local authorities are prevented from beginning the CPO process and it was then stated that greater guidance and support was needed for local authorities and they concluded with recommendation the Welsh government should act with other stakeholders to find ways to unblock the process to find ways to unblock the process of using CPOs for cycle routes. Perhaps recognising the problem, in response to a written question yesterday, the Minister pointed me in the direction of public park construction under the highways act.

Again, I'm grateful for his response but it raises more questions than answers and the Minister will be pleased to hear I will submit more questions through the members hub. I've worked with local groups previously wanted to get registered and it is simply not possible for them to create public path where none exist. The application process provides statements from multiple people showing continuous use of at least 20 years and this does not work when it cannot be used due to private ownership.

Before I wrap up, I will showcase the work of the Welsh government. The Welsh government recognises that funding for active travel can be hard to find and is often assembled piecemeal, giving rise to a chicken-and-egg situation. Why get a CPO if there is no funding and why it funding if there is no viable route. The guidance therefore requires compelling public interest in acquisition but not in financial readiness and in England the guidance emphasises the importance of demonstrating financial readiness. Will be Mr consider following in the footsteps of Wales on that matter? I asked the government not to dismiss concerns around the inadequacy of the current guidance and the good work of colleagues in Wales.

If the government is serious, they would be engaging on these issues and I'm sure they will want to following this debate. Finally, if I may spend a few minutes to make remarks and other amendments in gringos tabled by my honourable friend, we hope that value has been removed to improve the use of CPOs for some projects. Amendments 88 and 89 would ensure the value is not added to the cost of facilities such as playing fields when an authority has purchased the land with that intention.

Removing the value of homes is particularly important in an area like Oxfordshire where any whiff of development massively increases cost. It is one of the reasons why so many small and medium-sized farms will be caught by government changes to agricultural property relief and if we accept the principle of disregarding the value in the House then it should be applied to the value of land for purchases for the purposes of inheritance tax for farms. I offer my support to the new clause 100 and which would create a duty for any public body to consider the public good when selling land or property.

I'm aware of local organisations with good causes in my constituency who are looking for space to support activities where land is disposed of by local authorities. It is right that local organisations benefit when local public bodies sell land properties. For example the men's shed movement which seeks to improve the mental health of men by offering practical activities in a shared space. Thank you for allowing me to speak to these amendments. I humbly ask the members across the House to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Use of Compulsory Purchase Powers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Use of Compulsory Purchase Powers for Active Travel Routes. Speak the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for Active Travel Routes. Speak the question is the new clause be read a second time. It is fantastic to be spitting on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is fantastic to be spitting on a subject that has been part of my career for the best part of 20 years career for the best part of 20 years working in construction, starting as a civil engineer and finishing working on major programs around the working on major programs around the working on major programs around the world and planning, and particularly in respect of national programs, has been a headache for me for a long time with the prolonged graceful time with the prolonged graceful consultation that we see happen on major programs stopping the urgency and the approach to delivering major infrastructure, particularly that we need, is almost deaf by 1000 cuts for many communities.

-- death. It is fatigue and drives a culture of NIMBYism rather than delivering the infrastructure that we need and that everyone calls out for within the constituency. I'm excited that this bill has drawn so much interest on
15:16
Mike Reader Portrait Mike Reader MP (Northampton South, Labour)
-
-
the subject of planning and I was amazed to read through all the fantastic amendments made, many fantastic amendments made, many about the full scope of this Bill, about speeding up delivery and about speeding up delivery and delivering on the... But fantastic delivering on the... But fantastic to see, whether on fifth -- swift bricks, travel, all essential to bricks, travel, all essential to making communities that last and can making communities that last and can immunities that people want to live in.

I look forward to more continued activism from people across the House and be blue spoke up and spoken so passionately about planning, I'm sure it was not just for social media and the clips. In for social media and the clips. In relation to clause 22, I recognise what honourable member has just said. My big concern is of course, and we have seen it before, that forcing change, compulsory change being one such example, does not change behaviour. As someone who had election leaflets run saying I was going to run ULEZ in Northampton by the party opposite, it is a topic that becomes weaponised when we try and force it through, rather than bringing communities along with us.

I do not think it is the right approach that has been laid with today but I look forward to hearing the debate on that further. I want to talk about about developer corporations. Having worked around the world in a variety of different scenarios, seeing how different -- different country set up different vehicles to set up them for structure we need, I'm really pleased to see the additional powers come forward to enable us to deliver quicker and urgency back into delivery. Whether new towns, the powers that are increased to this Bill are really critical to making sure we have flexibility in the way that we deliver those homes and they reflect on the local community.

We have sustainability at the heart of development, that local communities and local bodies can work together to make sure the places we deliver in the new towns program particularly our greed and the places that are sustainable and long-term. -- To C(E)TR green. I'm physically transport provisions in the Bill I am really happy to see, often I see too many smaller communities disconnected by the lack of transport and thinking about how people are going to get from place to place, so critical when we create these new towns, ultimately that is about creating places.

These are just new towns, need to create places that people want to live, want to work and want to stay in. We cannot do that without development cooperation. As in apparent good they create places like East London, I spent a small amount of time living in Newham and seeing the powers that LDC had post-Olympics. To transform a deprived area in London through the town and cooperation they had there was fantastic and what they could have done with the additional powers in this Bill.

Creating that ownership locally and that drive to deliver is absolutely critical and cannot just come from top down. So the change of developer cooperation arrangements I think one of the biggest under subpart of this Bill and will really enable us to drive and deliver the homes that the hundreds of thousands of people living in temporary accommodation in hotels right across our constituencies desperately need. I would just reflect on the day, I have had this conversation privately with the Minister, there's plenty more to do on top of this.

There is a whole host of things we could do around digital planning. I was really pleased to see, my surprise that we would be trialling AI in the planning process in the UK. That could radically improve the way we deliver projects across the UK. The communities are living in uncertainty for weeks and even months, as overstretched under resource planning authorities try to work through the backlog that has been left after austerity and after the many cuts the party opposite me to Local Government. There is also work to do Building Regulations, is great to hear swift bricks brought forward that there are better ways of delivering up.

Making sure the delivery of major programs, there is further work to do around consenting and how that is delivered through nationally significant infrastructure projects. This is a fantastic bill, the next stage is about delivery. The government has to move from policy focus into delivery focus. And how we make Natural England work and the nature development fund, how we make sure we work with partners from across the sector, from NGOs through to develop an organisation is going to be critical in making this Bill work and I look forward to working with the Minister and the Department to make sure that comes to fruition.
15:20
15:20
15:21
Paul Holmes Portrait Paul Holmes MP (Hamble Valley, Conservative)
-
-
congratulatory to many members on the amendments they have put forward in this legislation and I welcome in this legislation and I welcome his constructive tone in outlining his position on this piece of legislation. Can I firstly, because legislation. Can I firstly, because I know Members of the House across the chamber will be devastated to the chamber will be devastated to hear it will be my last contribution to the passage of this Bill before third reading, I know, I know. Before my right honourable friend, Before my right honourable friend, the shadow Secretary of State takes third reading.

Can I thank the third reading. Can I thank the Minister for his hard work on the Bill Committee. All members who contributed in the Bill Committee but also the clerks and staff who but also the clerks and staff who supported us amazingly through the passage of what was, I thought, quite a long, challenging and often frustrating Bill Committee. Part of frustrating Bill Committee. Part of that Bill Committee we all, the members of this Bill Committee, lived through the emotional journey of whether Charlton would be promoted.

The team that the Minister so pleasurably and so passionately supports. And all I would say to him, as I said in Bill Committee and I stand by it, he is welcomed out of the den for their next match against Millwall, I will let him sit on. I will even let him sit on our side of the stadium. I would like to thank all members of the Bill Committee but I would also like to congratulate all members who, like the honourable gentleman from Northampton himself, had tabled amendments to this piece of legislation.

We have had a weird, wonderful and varied number of new clauses and amendments. Some, as honourable gentlemen said, may have been challenging in finding them to be in the scope of the legislation but I trust the clients to make that decision and therefore they stood. And I look forward to, very briefly you will be pleased to hear, outline some of our positions on some of the new clauses and amendments that are before the House this afternoon. There is a very small part of the Bill that is being allocated time this afternoon, a majority of the mainstream clauses that we have opposition to were in yesterday's session.

In what I thought personally was quite a frustrating and emotive session last night. But I look forward to trying to challenge the Minister, though I might say is slightly less grumpy than he was last night, to plead on his good intentions on this Bill to maybe accept some of the amendments we put forward. But then again, I may be dreaming. I think it is clear, and I want to state this from the very beginning today, that it is clear that the Minister and the Government have had a driving mission in this legislation.

And we recognise that on this side of the House. But he knows that we have many disagreements about how we get to that driving mission that the Minister has outlined. And we have been very clear through the passage of this Bill, through Bill Committee, at second reading and as I will outline this afternoon, as well as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will outline later, that we do have many core fundamental and principal disagreements with some of the measures that the Minister has outlining to help this Bill go forward.

And although we agree with him that we do need to build more houses, we do need to see and infrastructure first approach and we do need to see some development unlocked, we have a fundamental disagreement with, as I said yesterday, the centralising zeal that the Minister and Deputy Prime Minister seem to want to put forward to be able to get there. Do believe that the Minister could have looked that the Minister could have looked more favourably on new clauses and amendments through the passage of this Bill, not just tabled by my party or by my honourable friend, but by other parties in the House, some of his own backbenchers.

Who have put down well-intentioned and well-meaning amendments and new clauses to this Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the shadow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the shadow minister for giving way and I think like others I sat in the chamber yesterday listening to so many amendments that the Government just amendments that the Government just voted down. It feels like actually we have had in front of us an we have had in front of us an opportunity to do something really good with this Bill and we have missed that opportunity. Does the shadow minister agree with me that shadow minister agree with me that if we're not careful, what we are going to end up faced with Isabel, a piece of legislation that is just going to drive Coach and horses to our communities, throughout green belt and does nothing for nature, for farmers, for communities and the for farmers, for communities and the people that want those?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people that want those? My right honourable friend, not uncharacteristically, has made a valuable point and I entirely agree with her. I said yesterday that the with her. I said yesterday that the Minister, and I am about to say today again, the Minister has a unique opportunity in this piece of legislation, a very detailed and what could be a groundbreaking piece of legislation, to fundamentally change the planning processes in this country for the better. And the Minister outline many times on the Bill Committee that he was reflecting on some of the really genuine point that members from across this House brought to him because of key concerns.

That reflections, I would say, amounted to nothing. He said consistently he would reflect on the genuine principles that we brought forward. We have seen no changes to this legislation. We have seen no acceptance or no working to try and change this legislation for many really genuine concerns that many people have brought to this piece of legislation. As I was saying, there are many amendments and many new clauses that were brought by the Liberal Democrats and the Minister will know I very rarely praise the Liberal Democrats on the Floor of the House and in my constituency of Hamble Valley.

And I'm not likely to do so going forward much more. But what I would say to the House is that actually, the honourable gentlemen, the member for Taunton and Wellington and his colleague, the honourable member for Wantage and Didcot I believe on the Bill Committee, but some really good and really principled amendments that would have improved this legislation. Particular on chalk schemes, particularly on some of the concerns that we share over...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. He will be aware that governments of all stripes tend not to accept stripes tend not to accept amendments in this House, enormously to the frustration of colleagues from across the chamber who put them forward. Would he join me in forward. Would he join me in encouraging the Minister and his encouraging the Minister and his ministerial colleagues, if they have to delay to the other place, that they take that opportunity? Because they take that opportunity? Because all of us want to see more houses built in a way that works with communities and there is an opportunity to do something, as my opportunity to do something, as my honourable friend says, of historic.

Let's make sure when the go to the House of Lords, that is what is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House of Lords, that is what is required and the government listens and acts. I have said on the Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have said on the Bill Committee, this is a matter of public record, I believe this minister is a principled minister who knows his stuff. Therefore he who knows his stuff. Therefore he should not be afraid to open up his arms and embrace collective responsibility across this House to make sure that this legislation is better and serves everybody that we serve in this country. To make sure that the key principles that he wants to achieve are actually achievable. Because I say strongly as I did yesterday, that the key delivery...

The key things he wants to achieve in this Bill, such as these housing numbers, the stuff in this legislation will not help that be achieved. And we say to him he still has the opportunity to make sure that he works with members from all parties to make sure that this is a really important piece of legislation. I will give way one more time and then I must make some progress.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to my honourable friend. Emeritus Professor Sarah Neil is the chairman of the New Forest Association. And of the New Forest Association. And she writes that the current planning and environmental frameworks have played a crucial role in protecting the New Forest special qualities, however, the proposed changes in the Bill, particularly those aimed at Bill, particularly those aimed at streamlining planning approvals, accelerating into structure projects and weakening environmental safeguards would seriously undermine safeguards would seriously undermine those protections.

This is not a political statement. This is a statement of concern for our most

**** Possible New Speaker ****

statement of concern for our most delicate and valuable rural areas. I thank my right honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right honourable friend for that intervention. The expert and the person that he has expert and the person that he has quoted is from Hampshire, so I'm bound to say, as a Hampshire MP, that she is spot on. Also my right honourable friend is spot on. Many members made contributions yesterday where, quite frankly, there was a concern that the Minister's response to some of those environmental concerns that were raised, particular by the honourable lady from the Green Party but also from the Liberal Democrats and my backbench colleagues, that there is a concern that environmental protections will be diminished under this legislation.

And the Minister, quite frankly I think, seem to not take those seriously. And that quite I think is a very good example as to why many people who are experts and have lived through their professions day-to-day, their ambitions to make sure the environment is improved. I note the PPS said when did I start caring about the environment. I think she said. OK, well she might want to intervene on the issue wants to. Or maybe just, if she wants to contribute to the debate I'm sure she might want to Bob.

Other members across this House, as I said to the Minister, have made very well- intentioned approaches to the Minister. I hope that we now and his winding up in the time that we have on this debate, he will open up his arms and make sure that he look seriously at some of the amendments, not just by my party but by all parties, to strengthen this piece of legislation. We turn to today onto part four and five of the Bill. The Minister will know that we have some long-standing concerns over CPO.

We on this side of the House have always stood against what seems to have been a sustained campaign against the rights and working practices of our agricultural and farming communities. They have done that, this government has as of Thursday and campaign against our farmers in the removal of their subsidies, a sustained campaign against our farmers on the raising of inheritance tax on our farming communities already don't make huge profits and struggle in their day- to-day lives. They have made their working practices harder and in this legislation, they voted against our amendment yesterday to improve protections on agricultural land I suspect the Minister today will talk again some of our very sensible amendments that make the lives of our citizens who work in the agricultural sector easier.

I have to say, from the record of this government, there has been a sustained attack on the community and we do see that that carries on in the legislation today. That is why, under this legislation, those rights are being removed and they are being harmed further. And I would say and do we have tried to put that right, through some of our amendments. I know the honourable gentleman for Keighley and Ilkley will talk to some of those amendments that we have mentioned in his role as a farming Minister.

I A admirable role in raising the point of a farming community across the whole of the UK, to some of what I would say very detrimental impacts of this bill and other areas of government have made against those communities. If I may... A give way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to my honourable friend. Am grateful to my honourable friend are giving way. We agree with me that where CPO powers already existed there is a massive lack of existed there is a massive lack of trust, between landowners and the trust, between landowners and the acquiring authority, where all too often, proposal is put on the table, an agreement will be reached and then the actual legal agreement that comes along is a totally different comes along is a totally different comes along is a totally different and that there actually needs to be a CPO code of practice that gives the landowners a much greater protection.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

protection. I thank my honourable friend that intervention I think he is absolutely right to stop a also say there needs to be a code of practice for tenant farmers too. Some of the for tenant farmers too. Some of the amendments, well, two of the amendments proposed to speak to very amendments proposed to speak to very shortly. We do try to meet some of the challenges that currently are farming community have an hour agricultural community have in terms of CPO.

I will elaborate on that later and I will be willing to take the intervention if he was to find that was satisfactory. With the honourable member for Basildon and Billericay...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Totally agree with what my honourable friend has just said. I think so many of our constituents at the moment, particularly those in the farming community already feeling totally let down by this government are now feeling about this is another further steamroll, on their assets. And so, would the, on their assets. And so, would the, with the opposition front bench, if with the opposition front bench, if the Government wanted to just show our farming community. They are already putting under immense pressure, for the first time in a very long time, they can actually show that they are a little bit on show that they are a little bit on , when there is just so much that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

, when there is just so much that has already been done to them. It feels like it has been done to them, rather than they are being listened to, as part of the process. I thank my right honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my right honourable friend from Basildon and Billericay for that point. He is absolutely right as I pleaded with the Minister, from the beginning of my remarks, I hope that he will be able to meet some of those concerns, not just members on this side of the house, the Green party, the Liberal Democrats, but some of those key people to have communicated through consultations on this legislation, but this will harm their livelihoods but this will harm their livelihoods and make their lives worse.

Very briefly I would like to touch on a few amendments that we aren't speaking to today and some of our positions on them and then you will be pleased to know, I will take my seat back on the front bench. I would like to turn to no clause 85, tabled under the name of my honourable friend, the shadow Secretary of State. Which it seeks to deliver a fairer and more just system of compensation for individuals who are forced to give up their homes or land through compulsory purchase.

The current framework, under the Land Compensation Act in 1973, says arbitrary Percentages on Home Loss and Occupies Loss Payment, Which Often Failed to Reflect the True Value of What Is Being Lost. By Aligning Compensation more closely with the full market value of a person's interest in the property, this clause acknowledges the deep emotional financial and practical disruption that compulsory purchase can cause. And ensures that those who are displaced by development are not left worse off are unfairly penalised. In doing so upholds the principle that the burden of public interest project should not fall disproportionately on individual homeowners or landowners and it helps to maintain trust, and fairness in the planning system.

I think that is something that the Minister can very easily get behind. I think it is something that other parties can get behind. If we are talking about some of the real challenges that CPO brings to people, then I think that the Minister should be slightly more open to making some amendments to the legislation, to make their lives easier. New clause 42, tabled under my honourable friend, my honourable friend's name, the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner pinup. More fairly and transparently, by amending the Lang conversation at the 1973, increases occupies loss payments agricultural and other land from two.

5% to 7. 5%, bringing the more in line with basic loss payments. Additionally it removes arbitrary caps and fix percentages and home loss payments and conversation on the full market value of the interest, in the dwelling. This change ensures that those displaced or impacted by compulsory purchase receive equitable and just compensation, that reflects the true value of their property and losses, by modernising and standardising compensation provisions, we would argue that this clause supports fairness to landowners and occupiers, making the compulsory purchase process a more balanced and respectful of individual rights.

Something on my honourable friend has a quote rightly mentioned in his intervention to me earlier. Just briefly, turning to some other new clauses, tabled by other members. In relation to new clause 1 one four, tabled by the honourable gentleman and the Member for Taunton and Wellington. Which seeks to require development corporations to provide or facilitate the position of green spaces within the development, including a variety of green areas, such as private gardens, balconies and community gardens. And furthermore imposes a duty on development corporations to ensure the ongoing care and maintenance of these green spaces.

I am doing him a favour by reading out his own clause, I apologise. I do recognise there is a well-intentioned motive, motivation behind trying to insert this new clause into the legislation. I would just say to the LibDem spokesman who yesterday made a big play, quite rightly, no criticism about a big play about the role of local authorities and of elected councillors and local plans. We believe that this is something that should be purely dealt with by our local government colleagues, by our councillors and by planning committees, so that we continue to give them the power to serve and react to our local constituents wishes and that is something that we are keen, that local authorities, such as my own across the whole of the country, they have the power to do that for the people that they serve.

A key disagreement between us and the government, the Liberal Democrats agreed with us and we agree with them, in that revision of this legislation. We believe 144 is not required within this legislation because local authorities can do that themselves. Very briefly to what I think is a well-intentioned new cross from the honourable gentleman, from Henry in Thame. While it is a well-intentioned in promoting active travel in the structure, it does a risk weakening the careful balance of that compulsory purchase powers must maintain, between public benefit and individual property rights.

By pre- emptively deeming such projects to be in the public interest and a lowering of the evidential threshold of a route justification, the clause could enable the use of compulsory purchase order's, without sufficient scrutiny, or community consent. That raises legitimate concerns about fairness, proportionality and transparency. Particularly in cases where landowners may lose property without rigorous demonstration, that the chosen route is necessary and the best option available. I think other gentlemen would expect our long held position in this party on CPO and some of the overreaching powers for the Secretary of State and the Minister to award themselves, in terms of CPO, it would not be right for us to give those same powers, to make sure that local authorities, or some of the new authorities that will be outlined within this legislation have that power to do what he requires to.

I will very briefly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When he answered then if he is in favour of the use of CPOs for road projects? This amendment simply projects? This amendment simply seems to equalise at the opportunity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seems to equalise at the opportunity for delivering active travel, as we already use the CPOs for road projects. I understand and I say this with respect to the honourable gentleman. I think the new clause is a well- I think the new clause is a well- intentioned. Roads are absolutely intentioned. Roads are absolutely necessary, sometimes within those CPO powers that are currently allocated, within existing legislation, we disagree with some of the overreach that the Minister of the overreach that the Minister was to put forward.

We believe fundamentally the rights and responsibilities of local government responsibilities of local government to decide how they want to allocate these routes, in a local localities. We agree that in some cases, as with in my constituency which covers half a theremin half of easily, it is the designation between local authorities. We disagree with approved extension of provisional powers that we do not believe should be allocated under the honourable gentleman is a new clause of 22. I will very briefly and then I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

finish. Will the Shadow Minister explain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will the Shadow Minister explain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will the Shadow Minister explain in that case why dragging up the regeneration act created a vast new powers for the development corporations? If you believe that all such powers should be discharged by local authorities?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by local authorities? I knew that was coming from the honourable gentleman. What I would say to the honourable gentleman is that there are many things that that of the last government, put forward, of the last government, put forward, in a legislation. We are looking at, again, we have been very aware about again, we have been very aware about that. I have been a very clear about what this new Conservative party standing. That is something through standing. That is something through the whole of this Bill committee that we have said we do not support that we have said we do not support and that is the extension of powers, within CPO.

I am aware that you are looking at me to move on. I will looking at me to move on. I will move on and I will restrict the number of interventions I take. I am about to wind up. I knew a bring universal acclaim once again, by my deputy chief whip. But I will say is that we have had a robust debate in this House on the groundbreaking piece of legislation. Repeatedly, much of the Minister's embarrassment, I hope you take this in genuine spirit.

We have fundamental, fundamental disagreements are not what the measures, the measures that he is taking to get what he wants, later down the line. But we do know, as I have said, that there is a well intentioned and principled approach, from the Minister and they won the election, we know that. They will not stop us having principled and robust arguments as to how we disagree with the methods, as to how he wants to get there. I will say again, as my right honourable friend for Brownhill has indicated in her intervention.

The Minister did have a chance was that he has a chance still to listen to some of the well-intentioned, some of the educated, some of the very intellectual members and new clauses of the living put forward by all parties in this House, to strengthen this legislation, to make this legislation better and fundamentally I will briefly, but let me finish this point. All parties, to make sure that this legislation is it better, more efficient, but fundamentally serves the people who sent us here, who want to see differences in the ways in which the country is run.

We would argue that this legislation doesn't do that. We would argue that this is a massive centralising overreach, that is being advocated by this Minister and this Deputy Prime Minister and we stand fundamentally against it. I will give way to the honourable gentleman for Basingstoke first, because he is a sparring partner from the Bill committee. I hope doesn't have another quote and then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. I do have another quote, which is from yesterday. I did want to ask from yesterday. I did want to ask him. With regard to the amendments that the opposition brought forward. Can you point to a single one, could the honourable member point to a single measure, that would actually single measure, that would actually increase the number of homes? Or the changes directed that the bill seems changes directed that the bill seems to be designed to impede development? I wanted to ask the Shadow Minister what he meant by the quote that he said yesterday in his opening remarks, when he said the last government the largest number last government the largest number of houses, and history.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

of houses, and history. Might be helpful if I were to
15:44
15:44
Paul Holmes Portrait Paul Holmes MP (Hamble Valley, Conservative)
-
-
I have to say to the honourable gentleman for Basingstoke, is expecting so much, in the way in which he intervened on me consistently in the Bill committee. What was an encyclopaedic knowledge of my previous quotes. I did not know that he took such an interest in my career, up until this point. What I will say to him as I know personally he is a dedicated and assiduous member of Parliament who genuinely stands up his constituents. I will say to him is my comments yesterday were absolutely accurate.

Over one million homes were approved, under the last government. Many, many more people who are first-time buyers were given their chance of owning a home, under the last government. That is despite the fact that for the first time in history in our housing system there is now no incentivise ocean for first-time buyers, because the measures were scrapped, by this government, including a stamp duty relief and some of the help to buy measures that were put forward. That is the first time that we have had that situation.

I am a very proud, we could have done more but I am very proud of the last government's record on housing. I think that the Minister and the government need to look at the record of that we did have a first-time buyers and for private buyers, because in the emulated some of our into violation methods, we would have a better success rate than just over half of their one. Five alien homes at the independent experts are now claiming that they will be able to deliver.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- 1.5 million homes. I thank him for the entertainment that he provided throughout the Bill that he provided throughout the Bill committee and his generosity in the tearoom. However, would he agree tearoom. However, would he agree with me that when you talk about with me that when you talk about reflection, when one looks in the mirror, you do not always like what mirror, you do not always like what Quite clearly, he has decided those Quite clearly, he has decided those things would be better left in National Planning Policy framework as opposed to in the legislation, would he also agree that we do not have more young people buying and have more young people buying and owning then own homes now than we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

did in 2010. The reason for that... She will have the opportunity to contribute later, interventions need to be shorter than that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable lady... When she says about... I know that many members were concerned about members were concerned about generosity in the Tea Room, we were very tired and I thought a Minister very tired and I thought a Minister for -- bought a coffee for the Minister once. I did offer one to Minister once. I did offer one to the LibDem spokesperson. I do expect to see an inner focus leaflet or to see an inner focus leaflet or whatever they put out in Harbour Valley say that is a Tory broken promise.

Where did we ever take notice of the LibDem literature? In notice of the LibDem literature? In regards of looking into the mirror, I look at that sometimes after my I look at that sometimes after my weight gain in this House, but what I will say, the Minister, I will say, the Minister, consistently said he would reflect and she has accepted the premise of my argument, not once, not once in this legislation has the Minister decided to make any attempt to take some of our serious concerns into account and he has not changed this peaceful solution.

This is a parliamentary democracy, there is not a monopoly on brilliant ideas, despite the fact that the Minister thinks he has one, if he wanted to make this Bill better, he could look at some of the amendments put forward, my simple point, and accept them. When he stands up he will not accept them and this piece of legislation will not be able to be supported by all parties in this House, despite the fact that if he had made some changes that could have delivered to the people of this country, we would have been able to support it.

I think that is a shame, some of the genuine and well- intentioned attempt to change the market will not be achievable because of the Labour government's because of the Labour government's intransigence. As I have said, the Minister could have made decent changes, he could have made changes from the fact that the Green Party had serious... Serious concerns on environmental standards. I would say, the PPS, I thought the PPS's were supposed to sit in the notes for the Minister and not meant to contribute to the debate.

The consistent heckling, they are aspiring to high office, I do not think they should carry on in this way. I never did, but I was never interested. I would just say, let me finish on this point, the Greens, the Lib Dems and Conservative Party had a real disagreement on environment standards and it is our contention that environment standards will not be improved under this legislation, the honourable lady from Herefordshire had a number of amendments where experts clearly stated they had a concern that environment standards would reduced.

The Minister did not make any concession. On the centralisation and erosion of local powers for planning committees, we tabled a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

number of sensible... Today we are debating the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Today we are debating the amendments that have been selected today, that is development corporations and compulsory purchase corporations and compulsory purchase order. Perhaps his final minute could be restricted to that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

could be restricted to that. I heed your guidance, I would say, development corporations are say, development corporations are and over centralisation on measures that this Minister is putting forward, aligned with the fact that planning committees will lose powers to these corporations. The Minister has not moved on that. This Bill has not moved on that. This Bill will do more harm than good in the powers of local councils, the power that local constituents have, it that local constituents have, it will diminish environment standards and we stand against this legislation because of the legislation because of the intransigence the government has shown.

We will stand up for those informative standards, and for our local authorities, it is a shame this Minister has not and that is why we cannot support this legislation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise... Delighted to speak to this monumental legislation today. Which is so necessary and important. I can't help but notice that at many I can't help but notice that at many times has been a. Dichotomy, sometimes raised, that we have to choose between nature and by choose between nature and by adversity net gain -- biodiversity net gain. I would like to stress, as net gain. I would like to stress, as someone who comes from the most beautiful constituency in England, Northumberland, North Northumberland, you'll know it is true, I would like to stress the
15:51
David Smith Portrait David Smith MP (North Northumberland, Labour)
-
-
true, I would like to stress the natural beauty is vitally important but also that the people of North Northumberland want more development. Too often, it has been about nature versus development. I know that, for example, amendment 151 assumes that corporations will come into conflict with the need to tackle climate change. I believe this Bill will be good for a natural world, insofar as it unlocks a little development that will help Northumbrians revitalise their communities and protect natural landscapes.

As an MP for a constituency with a natural landscape, a site of scientific interest, I cannot help but be awed by the beauty. As amendment 151 acknowledges, a natural world faces an uncertain future. Organisations like Northumberland National Park, the Wildlife Trust, do excellent work in stewarding the unique technological inheritance and encourages the government to continue to have a genuine dialogue with environmental groups as the Bill progresses. Our language and approach do need to honour the commitment to environmental stewardship and we need to thread the Leader -- thread the needle.

I would like to suggest that the greatest threat to the ecological trajectories in my constituency -- treasure trove in my constituency is dwindling revoke's and the challenges the next-generation face in building a future for themselves. North Northumberland is ageing, only 16% of constituents are children whilst 30% are over 65, 10% more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than the national average. I thank him for giving way, just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way, just to bring it back to part five of the bill, which we are discussing, I know that along the A1, there are residents severely impacted by the government decision not to continue government decision not to continue development. I wonder if he would support our amendment on this side, support our amendment on this side, which is new. The 22, to increase the occupies lost payment from 2.4%, the occupies lost payment from 2.4%, up to 7.5%, which would help many of his constituents along the A1 his constituents along the A1 corridor, teacher that had this been put in place, they would have got a bigger payment to help with the pair bigger payment to help with the pair compulsory purchase order is.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

All I can say is, I have been working with constituents who have been affected by the compulsory purchase order's, and will continue to come we might have a disagreement about whether that project was to go ahead or not and the last government... In terms of rural development, where are the future ranges, and gamekeepers? Where is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the next generation of farmhands? I am going to keep reiterating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am going to keep reiterating the point this afternoon, we are not going to relitigate yesterday, we going to relitigate yesterday, we should be discussing the amendments that have been tabled around compulsory purchase order's... compulsory purchase order's... Development corporations and extraterritorial environment concerns. The on of a gentleman concerns. The on of a gentleman might like to think of some way he could weave his remarks around them could weave his remarks around them rather than rehashing yesterday's debate or a second reading speech.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate or a second reading speech. Simply trying to make the point that many of the amendments that have been proposed seem to set up a have been proposed seem to set up a false dichotomy between the ability false dichotomy between the ability to develop our country, and include housing, but protect the natural environment. Just one example, in one parish council, they are trying to open up a plot of land. Department because they see the value of young families moving into the village and the future will secure the future of the first school in the community at large.

What is not helpful for them to be caught in red tape and diminish the opportunity of the development happening. A recent report said almost 1 12 businesses in Northumberland cited the lack of housing as a barrier to business...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, I thank my honourable friend for giving way, on the point about development corporations, the about development corporations, the value that they brought to new towns like Harlow, the fact that new towns are a great example of where you can are a great example of where you can have affordable housing and green wedges so the environmental aspect as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as well. It is true, they need not be this false dichotomy between what organisations do and protecting the organisations do and protecting the environment. As I draw my remarks to environment. As I draw my remarks to conclusion, rural Great Britain is calling out for development, we can calling out for development, we can get this right, and this Bill is trying to deliver that by cutting through the planning rules so they can be more infrastructure and more homes.

There is no one left in rural communities, then the natural world will be without a steward to protect it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,
15:57
Gideon Amos Portrait Gideon Amos MP (Taunton and Wellington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will add my thanks and reiterate to members of the Bill Committee, and the clerks and the officials who have plenty to be getting on with. I am grateful for the support of members on my side of the House, for the amendments put forward. New clauses 22, and 114, open spacious in new towns and other element... Corporation developments. They form key proposals put forward by a number of Liberal Democrat members. All of them urge the government to go further when it comes to releasing land value for infrastructure that meets needs.

First, on the part five, today, generally, the compulsory purchase process would have included major permissions of over 100 homes, greater powers to acquire the land would be given to councils, use it or lose it. I was delighted to hear that the government is taking this idea, even though I gained a different impression in committee, even if the promise of more conditionally improved orders will not give them the same power that are would on that front.

In a similar vein, wary of your strictures to stay on topic, I hope you will briefly allow me to add my welcome to that of my honourable friend, the member for Cheltenham, after following his Private Member's Bill, the government has agreed all new homes will be fitted with solar panels as standard, the sunshine bill is winning here. And bringing Zero Emissions a step closer. Moving back to our amendments, our community led approach is about the essential infrastructure that people want to see put in place ahead of the building of new homes, the Bill's clause 104 would support that by supporting the building of social homes, it would reward landowners with a fair value rather than inflated prices are from an imaginary planning permission that no one has ever applied for, as set out in subsection 2 a.

Our manifesto supports that, to that extent, and the extent of the delivery of council houses, we are supportive to ensure that specific types of schemes, in those cases, landowners are awarded fair compensation rather than inflated prices. At my meeting with farmers on Friday, there is a concern, possibly rumours of an idea that farmers would lose land to natural England for their delivery plans and would do so in return for only a reduced payment. I am not convinced this is what this does, family farms have, of course, had a very tough time.

They provide food for tables and they have been hit hard. Whiskey trade deals and the last government, failed with the new inheritance tax, then the underspend, and the closing of the farming initiative. Given all of this background, I hope the Minister will confirm, in this debate, that the proposals in clause 104 will extend no more widely than for the public interest categories, which search social housing... Inserted by the last government, in 2023 and inserted by them in two a, I would be happy to meet the Minister but in light of the rumours, I hope you would give reassurance that the would give reassurance that the small farms.

I should say, I expect the Secretary of state... On reading the Secretary of state... On reading it, our reading is that it states not the amount paid which under not the amount paid which under Homeless payments are made in addition, quite rightly too. The new clause will remove, for how much would have to be paid by taxpayers. Basic pay is there a tackling convenience that would be an increase to the market value of the property.

With the result, under that new clause proposed, landowners will be paid the market value twice over for their property, under provisions only intended to recompense. Because of that reduction, because of the reduction, by paying over the odds, so much money in these kind of compulsory purchases and money that will be paid by town and parish councils. Because it would effectively cause attacks pose to make sky high payments to landed interest, this is The landowner as an inconvenience.

I say having a home taken or a farm taken, or a business is absolute devastation, not inconvenience.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Those are not the words I said at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Those are not the words I said at all. What they said is that the occupiers lost payment is to reflect inconvenience. He misheard. I did inconvenience. He misheard. I did not say that the farmers were... I not say that the farmers were... I will refute that. Because of those payments under the new clause would clobber the taxpayer by paying clobber the taxpayer by paying double the amount of the land that we cannot support it. On the contrary, we say people are fed up contrary, we say people are fed up with money going to private developers, leaving them with little to show for their sacrifices and making the new construction crisis.

There are further areas with a maximum commercial value of land maximum commercial value of land should not have to be paid by public and community bodies. The Member for Twickenham cinemas 88, 89 mean that value would not have to be paid, in the cases were that has been applied to sport a recreation. To dispose of these would ensure that top dollar does not have to be paid with the Secretary of State satisfies that the proposal is for public good. In which case a discounted price can be paid.

I honourable friend the Member for Henley on Thames, clause 22, a compelling case justification, as heard to compulsory purchase of land paths and cycle paths. Knowing the location of Cayman parkway stations I do congratulate him on his proposal which would help his constituents. -- Thames Parkway station.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The business of compulsory purchase for cycling and paths is something that local authorities could really do with. The Devon local cycling infrastructure plan local cycling infrastructure plan that came out last December said that "Certain private sector development may come forward sooner, development may come forward sooner, or later than anticipated. " Local authorities do not have any control over when they are able to put in these cycling paths. Would his amendment correct that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment correct that? My honourable friend, the Member for Henley-on-Thames amendment would for Henley-on-Thames amendment would provide a much stronger justification to enable footpath and a cycle paths to be put in. It would create more of A-level playing field, compulsory purchase already field, compulsory purchase already in use for, already in use for... Agreed my honourable friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A very logical amendment, no logical reason why it should be rejected, that does not stop them so rejected, that does not stop them so far. I hope they make and break the habit of a lifetime. In our amendments, we are clear that communities should lead and should be in the driving seat, when it be in the driving seat, when it be in the driving seat, when it comes to the development. When people see the infrastructure they have been calling out for come forward, that drives more community forward, that drives more community consent for the homes we need and the committees we want to build.

The infrastructure needs to be infastructure for nature as well. Gardens, parks, meadows, our new clause 114 would charge develop and corporations and development corporations and development corporations are discharge powers, money powers, under Conservative money powers, under Conservative governments, just as they have under Labour governments and coalition governments. It is not always the local authorities. Therefore it is right for us to make sure that corporations discharge those duties as effectively as possible. If and when they build a new town is and major developments, as the government wants to see, these must be with open spaces for nature.

They work with people and for our environment. I remembered 151 require them to reform on the environmental and climate duties on a regular basis. When they were first created, supported by local government, without filling a single tree, as was confirmed yesterday by the honourable member for Letchworth Garden City yesterday, their successes were emulated. They are still emulated by the best governments, right up until today. Their vision was a radical one. Bringing people and environments, Town & Country, nature and community closer together.

Those pioneers do so to ensure healthy places to live in an objective in our new clause 6, promoted by the Town and Country Planning's Association, would have been inserted in our own objectives. Today we face a greater challenge. Save nature and community cohesion and consent. Before it is too late. These amendments may not past today, but make no mistake, there are no greater threats to our way of life than the breakdown of trust risks destroying communities and the breakdown of our environment that is destroying nature.

These are the challenges our amendments will tackle head-on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Once more, unto the breach. Today

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Once more, unto the breach. Today I rise to speak in amendment 68 in my name. I hope to find as much my name. I hope to find as much common ground with Ministers as possible. I fully agree with the government that we need bold reform government that we need bold reform of the planning system to tackle the housing crisis and that is what I believe even stronger reform of CPO would deliver. Given that we now have a substantially more homes per
16:09
Chris Hinchliff Portrait Chris Hinchliff MP (North East Hertfordshire, Labour)
-
-
have a substantially more homes per capita than we did 50 years ago and yet at the same time house prices in the UK rose by 3878%. The housing Minister was right when he previously argued that housing supply is not a panacea for affordability. And with England sink 724,000 net traditional dwellings and new households in 2015. The Deputy Prime Minister also arrived when she argued there was plenty of housing already but there is not enough of the people who desperately need it.

The fundamental planning reform we need is an end to the development led model which they estimate is on track to deliver 5190 social rent homes, per year, despite these being the very properties we need to reduce waiting lists and get families out of temporary accommodation. The Madam Deputy Speaker, the housing crisis is one of inequality. We must move away from the reliance on the vested interest of private developers, whose priorities will never align with the public good. Amendment 68 is intended as a proposal for beginning to do just that.

Half of England is currently owned by less than 1% of its population and between 1995 and 2022, land values have risen by more than 600% to £7.2 trillion, amounting to more than 60% of the U.K.'s net worth. Amendment 68 builds upon existing government proposals, to give councils of the land assembly powers are necessary to acquire sites to meet local housing needs in current use value, so do away with the speculative home value prices which put taxpayers money into wealthy landowners pockets.

This would finally make it affordable for local authorities to deliver the new generation of council homes that is the true solution to this nation's housing Purchase powers with a more strategic approach to site identification and acquisition, we could not only increase the amount of affordable housing built, but also achieve genuinely sustainable development, no longer holding whatever ill suited proposals developers choose to bring forward. The failings of our current development led planning system are large across my constituency. In the 10 years, from 2014 to 2024.

North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire delivered a significant expansion in housing supply, for 3973 and 7948 net additional dwellings, respectively. And what happened at a local authority housing waiting list, in the same period, they rose. 1612, to 2449 in Hertfordshire and from 2005 to 2201 and East Hertfordshire. There have been more than enough for new homes in my local area to clear housing waiting lists, but the affordable homes we need are simply not delivered, by a profit driven model.

Over that same decade, in which housing supply and waiting list grew simultaneously, in northern East Hertfordshire, of all the facts stands out. Not a single council house was built in either authority. It is a time for a genuine alternative to this farce. I urge the government to look closely at the proposals of this amendment and to push onwards to creating a planning system that once again put people before profit. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm going to speak to the amendments today, particularly around those relating to compulsory purchase hours. Amendment a new purchase hours. Amendment a new purchase hours. Amendment a new purchase hours. Amendment a new clause 1 228. -- 128. Usually of a planning bill, there are proponents that do affect Scotland. Before I go into the detail of my concerns about the compulsory protocols. Honestly a the compulsory protocols. Honestly a little bit of the context why this issue, compulsory purchase powers is issue, compulsory purchase powers is exercising so many of my constituents.

I'm privileged to
16:13
John Lamont Portrait John Lamont MP (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Conservative)
-
-
represent the Scottish borders, the place that I call home. The Scottish borders is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful parts of the UK. But it is under attack. The net zero agenda of this UK Labour government, backed by the SNP in Edinburgh is causing huge concern to my constituents. Massive pylons, solar farms, wind farms, battery storage units are ruining the Scottish borders, as we know it was that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

compulsory purchase powers are a key part to the delivery of many of these projects. I will happily give way. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will happily give way. The particular point, when it comes to battery storage systems, it is not battery storage systems, it is not just the Scottish borders it is areas such as mine, the West areas such as mine, the West Midlands. I also support what he's saying, particularly around this. What feels like an encroachment and What feels like an encroachment and an increasing amount of compulsory purchase powers, where is this going to end?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I share my noble friend concerns about this. Ultimately it is about choices, the choice is this choices, the choice is this government is making the choice that the Scottish Government are making about whether we protect our about whether we protect our national environment, the rural communities that sustain food production and small communities, production and small communities, for many, many years are turning into an industrial wasteland. The use of these powers, in Scotland, affecting my constituency, in terms of what this bill, what these courses will do.

The impact of many on similar communities in England. My view is the Scottish borders, my constituents have got their fair share of these new developments. The Scottish borders, we, the countryside is where we live. It is not some distant remote community, there is occasionally visited by tourist from Edinburgh or London. It is a place we call home. Exercising of compulsory purchase powers, whether in Scotland or in other parts of the UK must be exercised by those powers, with appropriate checks and balances.

To protect our communities. I want to turn specifically to the amendment in my name around compulsory purchase and community benefits, related to that. When compulsory purchase takes place, we all know it is a difficult and often devastating for those who are directly affected. Too often we fail to recognise the impact, the wider community, especially when it comes to new energy infrastructure. We have got to improve the relationship between those, between those affected and those acquiring the land. It can be complex and it can be an intimidating premise.

The amendment I have placed this bill, new clause 128 will require the Secretary of State to establish a community benefits scheme, in relation to compulsory purchase, so the equivalent of 20% of that sum of which compulsory purchases made is paid into a community benefit fund. I'm very conscious that I so I shall not detain the House for much longer. This new clause tonight. If there is any way of the Government could approve the support, three community benefits, to those communities affected by these sorts of development, this bill would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

significantly improved. Honourable friends make an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Honourable friends make an excellent speech about the choices, also this is about fairness. The reality is through the compulsory powers that instigated within part five is disregarding any value over five is disregarding any value over and above agricultural value. This isn't an issue of fairness, at all, isn't an issue of fairness, at all, for those landowners who are having their land compulsory acquired. If the amendment was to be accepted by my honourable friends name, that 20% my honourable friends name, that 20% is of course of the agricultural value, stimulated by what the government is intending to do, rather than the market value and therefore what is going into that therefore what is going into that benefit scheme is actually a less than would it not be better if the government are advocating market value for compulsory purchase, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

value for compulsory purchase, not I agree with him, I'm sure that he will speak to these points later. We should be protecting the market value, and not doing anything to interfere with the market, not least because... To improve the community benefit fund, which would benefit local residents. By improving this Bill, it would be better for people and local communities that live in revoke's, like those in the Scottish borders. The Labour government has you turned a lot over the last few months, I hope they will use this opportunity to listen to members across the House to protect our beautiful environment, protect nature and to better for rural communities.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, it is an honour to raise to speak in this debate moved
16:18
Munira Wilson Portrait Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
raise to speak in this debate moved three amendments in my name. Amendments 88 and 89, relating to hopefully, which go together, and new clause 107, relating to the disposal of public land. 88 and 89 are linked and represent a simple but important change. They extend the circumstances under which value might be disregarded in the event of a compulsory purchase order and I welcome the important changes in this Bill to ensure that, for the purpose of building more affordable homes, ministers have brought forward measures to reform the CPO process so that hope value no longer overinflated land prices.

However, I believe that a prime opportunity has been missed. Amendments 88 and 89 seek to include recreational facilities in these provisions when an acquiring authority, for example in Local Authority, is using a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for use as exports recreational facility by ensuring hope value will not be applied, making the cost more affordable and helping to boost additional grassroots sports provisions in communities up and down the country. We are incredibly fortunate in Twickenham, the Hamptons, St Margaret's and Luton, that we have a thriving grassroots sports scene, from football to cricket, rugby, to hockey, tennis and much more.

Girls and women's football is one example of continued growth in the grassroots sport. My own daughter plays for the growing number of girls teams. Twickenham boasts over 300 girls and have 40 women. They are at the point of turning more away because they simply cannot get the picture space to train and play matches. This affects many clubs across the country and across the London Borough. At the same time, we have the scandal of the playing fields in Teddington lying derelict for over a decade.

With successive developers paying over the odds for the site, only to be prevented from developing the site which has numerous protections attached. The brilliant community, a community group in my constituency, who has been a tireless campaigner for grassroots sports, has bid for the site to bring it back into communities. The current owner has given notice that he wants to sell, but has not engaged with the foundation. Trying to recoup a high purchase price for this precious and well protected site does not look feasible.

Extending the provisions in this Bill to playing fields come to allow hopefully to be disregarded would potentially allow sites such as this to be acquired by the Local Authority or another public body. Richmond Council, like many others, is hardly awash with cash. But simply having the provision in law would provide the average for community groups when they have to negotiate. As we have seen. I am certain that this park is not the only example where this is happening, I was disappointed by the response to these amendments at committee, which, with all due respect, was contradictory.

He rejected this amendment that on the basis that whilst affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector led development when the public benefits facilitated through hopefully can be facilitated through hopefully can be done with trouble, -- hope value can be demonstrable, they can be less compelling for sporting facilities. I say, sport and physical activity are critical to physical and mental health. He said that health is an important public benefit for the purposes of disregarding hope value.

Just yesterday, ministers stated, we are committed to supporting the growth of grassroots sport. The Secretary of State made a brilliant speech last night at an event that many members attended to launch the lionesses campaign to defend the European crown. She was passionate about the importance of grassroots sport and extending opportunity to everyone. She announced £100 million investment, which is welcome. My amendments help ministers to achieve this important objective of expanding sports and recreation grounds without costing them a penny.

The amendment does not encroach on the principle that the use of the CPO powers must be proportionate and justified, given that ministers have strongly and correctly championed the growth of a grassroots support across the UK as being in the public interest. The amendment would apply solely to land which is already sports field or recreational, where there is local need for the sports and recreational facility. And which is at risk of loss to speculative department. It is entirely proportionate and justified in the public interest that the CPO powers and the removal of hope value should apply.

It defies all logic that ministers have not embraced the change and continue to oppose it, I look forward to hearing further explanation, I hope he will commit to engaging further on this issue, as this Bill moves into the other place, and meet me to discuss rather than dismissing it. Now, turning to new clause 107, in my name. There is cross-party consensus on the need for more housing across our country. On these benches, we have a strong commitment to delivering desperately needed social housing, it was disappointing to see Labour amendments -- members vote against it last night.

1 Important Way to secure the sites for the housing is when public bodies dispose of land and buildings. In constituencies like mine, with a Royal Park, a River and other important protected parks and spaces, site very few and far between, yet I see cases in my inbox of families on the social housing waiting list with little hope of getting out of overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation. I am proud that Richmond Council has consistently sought to re-purpose cell below market value sites that it owns but does not need to provide more social homes.

The council has done this, despite the immense pressures on local government funding, but sadly, other public bodies do not feel they are able to, whether it is the Ministry of Defense, a key public service like Metropolitan Police, or an arm's- length body like NHS England. They all want to achieve as high a price they can when selling assets they do not need, in order to invest into frontline public services. That is a laudable and important aim but it does price social housing providers and other public service providers out of the market whilst losing assets from the public sector balance sheet.

Clause 107 fills in the gaps in the existing patchwork of legislation and regulation that is somewhat piecemeal and nor is it properly used to allow all Public Sector Bodies to sell assets below market value for public benefit. Whether that is for social housing or much-needed infrastructure like health facilities. Not only would it extend the provision to all public bodies, it would go further still and imposing a duty on public bodies to at least consider disposing of assets for public good.

This is a wide-ranging clause that builds on my successful campaign in the last Parliament when I worked with a succession of Conservative housing ministers to secure change in the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill. That included police authorities and the existing provisions to sell public assets below market value for public good. My campaign was born out of frustration that Teddington police station lies derelict in my constituency. Local housing association and a GP surgery are desperate to obtain the site to expand and provide state-of-the-art GP facilities on the ground floor and social housing on the floors above.

This government thinks that all members of the public are blockers, I can tell the Minister that the Teddington community are right behind my campaign and we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that when the Met puts the site on the market, we can get the housing and GP surgery that our community needs at a reasonable price, which will not be as high as what private developers can offer. I secured the herself has recently said that surplus land is a huge, untapped resource that could create opportunities for the next generation.

I welcome the news in March that Network Rail would set up a property company to use surplus land for House building. There is so much more than just Network Rail land but we need the legislative basis for public sector disposals and we need the incentive to achieve the sales. I do not blame the Met Commissioner for wanting to get the top dollar. Especially when we read about the cuts he is having to make to frontline policing and the intransigence of the Treasury to fund the policing.

So, I say, this is robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need a duty on all public bodies and incentives for them to re-purpose or sell assets for community good. We can achieve the homes and public services our country needs without ripping up our Green Belt and precious open spaces but by thinking creatively about how we re-purpose existing sites, including those already owned by the taxpayer. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, I rise to speak to new clause 127 and amendment 153, both of which are in my name. Compulsory Purchase Order is highly emotive and Purchase Order is highly emotive and highly controversial. Indeed, much of yesterday's debate was taken up discussing precisely those CPO
16:29
Robbie Moore Portrait Robbie Moore MP (Keighley and Ilkley, Conservative)
-
-
discussing precisely those CPO powers that have been granted to natural England and local authorities in this Bill. The fact that, under this Bill can a farmer in Keighley, in my constituency, can be told how to use his land as a result of a development in Kent is utter madness. This is exactly what the intent of this Bill is, because no matter where you might own land, you might be at the detriment of a scheme that is taking place elsewhere.

That is exactly what the government's intent is, through these additional powers. Give Natural England, an organisation which I huge deaf have huge frustration with, which there I say, is not accountable in the most robust of circumstances by a Minister. Yet the government wants to give Natural England more power to give Natural England more power

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure frustrations with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure frustrations with natural England. This is a bit strange. We have a government that strange. We have a government that says it wants to reduce the amount of quangos, it has reduced them by one, introduced to 27. Until we have them giving more powers at an unelected quango, actually risks unelected quango, actually risks doing a further untold damage to our green fields, open spaces and farmland.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

farmland. That is exactly why I'm so frustrated by the intent of this frustrated by the intent of this government's bill. That is exactly what is doing by giving natural England are more powers, comport compulsory purchase powers, more funds for the environment to deliver a and the ability to be able to a and the ability to be able to scrutinise and set the path for using a management to dictate to landowners and how their land, their farm may be utilised.

That is wrong, especially when, as they say, a farmer, farming in my constituency of Keighley could be subject to a CPO, as a result of the development elsewhere in the country. However, whilst the government and I absolutely disagree on the right and the use of CPO. I really do struggle with the expansion of section 40 K orders on CPOs. To discount hope a orders on CPOs. To discount hope a value of AEC's property. 40 A. If the state chooses to use its powers to confiscate property of a law- abiding person and then they must stipulate how that land must be used and then tell the land owner how much they are entitled to receive much they are entitled to receive from the state.

It is in my view are absolute theft. It is not a racket, it is not unfair. It is simply the true market value of the property. That is why it fundamentally I disagree with the purpose of this bill that is the government stipulating that hopefully must be up and above the valley paid. It should not be the Lord that decides the value. It should be down to negotiation and it should be down to the market that decides. Comes onto the market that decides.

Comes onto Because whilst I admire the Government's aspirations are to increase development, this bill is fundamentally flawed, on the issue of fairness, because it is taking away the property rights of landowners. Those are very landowners that would have been encouraged by their local authorities to be zoned as part of a local plan and encourage through a process for the land to be zoned for employment use, whatever it may be be. As a result as a result of this legislation the local authority or the natural England will have the ability to compulsorily require their land, not at market value, but I will give way to the Minister.

The powers that he is referring to and this amendment seeks to remove. I will speak on that in more detail. Settled in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. Does the honourable member realise he voted for that bill, he voted for those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

powers. The Government is absolutely going away beyond that, in giving more power to local authorities, more power to local authorities, indeed natural England and a Natural England. If the Minister has gone and spoken to anyone in the and spoken to anyone in the agriculture world will realise that the level of trust, with natural England is shocked and yet, the England is shocked and yet, the government is giving natural England a more powers to compulsorily a more powers to compulsorily require and then dictate to our farmers, tell owners and how their land, if they choose to use these land, if they choose to use these compulsory powers is to be managed.

That is something I'm not favourable That is something I'm not favourable for, which is why my new clause 127 for, which is why my new clause 127 153 is something I would urge them to consider. Despite having been put to consider. Despite having been put forward, through the committee stage, it wasn't something that the government give due consideration to. Therefore I would urge the government to rethink its position on this. Instead of what section 14 A orders represent. What section 14 A orders represent is an intent to run roughshod over our landowners.

We can debate this approach, but we must start by calling it out for what it is. This act extends the 14 A powers and parish councils, to natural England and applies the cut valuation of occupies loss, a separate payment limit to disrupt the occupier, not the loss of an asset. That is exactly why I wholeheartedly support new clause 42, in the name of the official opposition. That increases at the occupies loss payment, from two. 5% to 5., from two.

5 to 7. 5% of losses paid for that land. I have a frustration, because the valuation would be assessed on the agricultural value, not a market value.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful he is making an excellent speech was that Dessie excellent speech was that Dessie agree that one of the flaws with this bill which his amendment tends to address is over reaches. To to address is over reaches. To attack property rights. Not only does it interfere with the market, but it takes away key aspects and but it takes away key aspects and democratic accountability. That is why so many of our constituents across the UK are so concerned about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what this bill attempts to do. I thank my noble friend for that intervention and that is exactly why I urge the government, as I have I urge the government, as I have done, throughout the course of this bill and I know has been raised at committee stage, they must realise the huge level of disenfranchisement the huge level of disenfranchisement and landowners are having with this intent of this bill. This is not introducing fairness into the system. It is not introducing an system.

It is not introducing an ability for the state to pay what the market value should be attributed to anything that is compulsory required. That is absolutely why I do not support this bill. And will be proud to vote against it, when it comes to third reading. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable gentleman giving way one of the things he voted for way one of the things he voted for in his previous government. Is there no limit on the amount of taxpayers no limit on the amount of taxpayers money the gifted landowners so that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

money the gifted landowners so that they can build social housing and the other inks we need? We have the Liberal Democrats setting up the position. It is a setting up the position. It is a good they are doing that. I fundamentally believe that if you fundamentally believe that if you own land and the state is then a seizing control of it, through compulsory purchase powers and that it is absolutely right that that it is absolutely right that that farmer should be rewarded with a market value, not disregarded it to agricultural value.

I know the Lib Dems have set out the position that they fully support the ability of they fully support the ability of just agricultural value being paid, not really when the land is worth market value. I hope farmers absolutely understand the Liberal Democrats position to disregard that value. I also want to understand whether or not the government has undertaken any impact assessment on the valuation office. I fear that as we go forward, through the compulsory purchase process. There will be many a challenge, quite rightly by landowners agents, valuers acting on behalf of those landowners to understand the true value of their land.

I fear that the valuation office will not be able to cope with the level of scrutiny that quite rightly will be brought forward, to the government's position and I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to my honourable friend. , honourable friend has really set out some of the challenges that we out some of the challenges that we face, when it comes to this piece of legislation and the farming legislation and the farming community. As it stands, part five proposes a significant compulsory purchase powers to authorities, with no definition or limits whatsoever. no definition or limits whatsoever. All of this communities comes on top of APR, BPR, inheritance tax, increased National Insurance, for increased National Insurance, for employers.

What is it about the farming community that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government does not like. That adjusted bills onto the very point that so much uncertainty has been put in our farming community, not as a result of adjusted this bill, but all of the additional pressures that have been brought forward. The family farm tax, increases in overheads, that are increases in overheads, that are hitting cash flow this year. That is why new clause 127 and I amendment of the 153 and indeed, new clause 42, that has been put forward by the official Frontbench are so important to be considered.

It is frustrating that the government are just Out, not willing to consider them, because these amendments have been put forward in the best interests of our farming community, our landowners. So that the state does not have the control that this government is willing to give it. And I urge the government to consider these very practical, sensible amendments, to this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I am happy to speak in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I am happy to speak in support of the numbered 151, tabled from Taunton and Wellington. Our planning system needs reform. Sadly the approach of the government is the approach of the government is seeking to take on this bill is all wrong and it desperately needs amending. This amendment compels the Secretary of State to produce a Secretary of State to produce a report that addresses a key principle of my concern, the current housebuilding regime, that is good housebuilding regime, that is good design.

I am pleased that in drafting the initial cause, the government have recognised that design goes hand-in-hand with design goes hand-in-hand with sustainable development. We need to see evidence that the houses be getting actually been described and
16:41
Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone MP (North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
getting actually been described and built better if we are to be confident, we are not just getting more the same from the big developers. No one has ever told me that they want more energy inefficient, chocolate box homes, deep in a rabbit warren Estates, built to maximise developer profit. What we have seen in North Norfolk is homeowners telling us they do not like, they cannot afford, they queue up to buy because there is no other option. I was horrified recently to find that covenants of input on a whole estate banning branded vehicles from parking on private driveways.

They might as well have marketed them as for Richard second home owners only. This is how we design the future. Accepting the provisions of the sunshine bill brought forward by my honourable friend friend Joe Cheltenham by dating solar panels on bills. dating solar panels on bills. Sometimes it can see that politicians come from this position. I'm particularly pleased the government has come to share the Lib Dems view that solar panels on new- Dems view that solar panels on new- It is not just about It is not just about the It is not just about the homes themselves, good design is also about how and where we build new houses.

People are growing tired, rightly of estates that are designed around car use, rather than public transport or walking and cycling at the heart of the design. We can encourage more people to walk or use public transport, if we design developments in a way that makes it easy and attractive to do just that. When we use scheme designed to encourage walking and cycling rather than car use, assess the public transport rather than car parts, recent take people to town centres rather than bypasses, we see the benefit right across society.

Due to pressure on health services, better natural environment and in a more cohesive, resilient communities. That will also support the other key aims of the amendment will have, which is tackling the climate emergency. More development means fewer fossil powered cars are on the road, it will be better for the I do not think the people in North Norfolk are unreasonable to ask the developments to be affordable to buy or rent, sustainable and low cost to heat and power and to feel connected to communities and not a burden of them.

My constituents want to end the housing crisis but they do not want it done by unaccountable top- down targets. They want a real design led approach to planning structure and development and I hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government sees our proposals to achieve that and supports them today. Thank you. In Stratford-upon-Avon we have seen the consequences without infrastructure to match. It without infrastructure to match. It is such a missed opportunity. The government is repeating the same top-down developer ledge approach, sidelining communities, undermining
16:44
Manuela Perteghella Portrait Manuela Perteghella MP (Stratford-on-Avon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
sidelining communities, undermining local plans and tackling local councillors out of key decisions. I rise to talk in some of these amendments. The current system often sees a vital infrastructure lagging not been delivered fully after the houses have been occupied. That is because the infrastructure is left to develop and feasibility studies and variations of conditions. We need a planning system that puts people in places first. This includes high quality, active down infrastructure. We are lacking Stratford-upon-Avon much cherished in a way, a five-mile second in a way, a five-mile second bridleway.

We need cycling and pedestrian routes in our towns, for children and young people to travel to school safely. For families to access services, reducing car journeys and keeping fit and healthy. In rural areas, a group is campaigning towards ambitious cycling roads, a long disused railway. These will link villages to the towns of Stratford and also my constituency and further afield to Evesham. After, beyond the feasibility studies, the fragmentation of land ownership is an issue. That's what I support new clause 22, proposed by honourable friend the Henley and Thame.

Strengthening powers for active

**** Possible New Speaker ****

travel routes. Grateful it sounds like quite a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful it sounds like quite a similar example to the otter trim which would link Fenton to the King School at Ottery St Mary. Does she agree that these new active travel pass will label people to get school

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pass will label people to get school We need to ensure that the new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We need to ensure that the new generation of young people, are able generation of young people, are able to cycle, reducing carbon emissions in towns, we need high quality in towns, we need high quality cycling infrastructure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cycling infrastructure. I thank the honourable lady for her speech, she is making a principled speech, I wonder if she could explain to the House why she does not think the current local plan regime is inadequate -- adequate enough to ensure we have travel routes, rather than taking the attitude to bring CPO into areas

**** Possible New Speaker ****

such as this, which would be seen as regressive to people's rights. I think the shadow Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the shadow Minister for the question. The problem we have, I take the case of the disused take the case of the disused railway, which is now... It is not in public ownership any more, and it in public ownership any more, and it is fragmented, and incidental green space, this is not used by space, this is not used by landowners at all, if we could landowners at all, if we could compulsory scum obviously reward and compensate, we could have high compensate, we could have high quality infrastructure that would quality infrastructure that would link up villages so that people can use it for services, GP appointments, schools and so on, and it is all fruit away -- off road, away from the gridlocked roads.

The development must come and that is why I support the new clause 114, tabled by my colleague, which would ensure that development... The development corporations include green space provision in all new developments, green spaces are not in luxury, they are essential for mental health, biodiversity, wildlife, flood prevention and community cohesion. Lack of green spaces and recreational facilities are fundamental for the developments in sports and youth opportunities. Therefore, I support amendments 88 and 89 by my honourable friend.

We also need measurable action on climate. Corporations have been underpowered, yet these bills guarantee they deliver in line with the climate targets. That is why amendment one one -- 151 so important. It will ensure a report is published on whether corporations are meeting their legal duties on sustainable development and climate change. We need transparency and accountability built into the system. Finally, we need new wants that our affordable and built to high standards, many families and young people are priced out of the community.

It is not enough to build houses, we need the right tools in the right places. A reconnection of facilities, sports facilities that create community. I urge the government to take this opportunity to deliver a planning system which is fair, sustainable and community led. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, it is a pleasure to rise to respond to what has been a rise to respond to what has been a thoughtful and well informed debate. thoughtful and well informed debate. I quote shadow Minister, it is groundbreaking, I thank members who groundbreaking, I thank members who have participated this afternoon for their contributions and can I take the opportunity to thank the shadow the opportunity to thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their robust but civil and fair approach to the civil and fair approach to the engagement and scrutiny of the Bill.

In the time I have available, I want In the time I have available, I want to respond to the key amendments and to respond to the key amendments and arguments made this afternoon. The government is clear that significantly boosting housing significantly boosting housing supply requires renewed focus on communities across England. And corporations are important vehicles for delivering these projects. The Bill create a clearer, more flexible and robust framework to ensure they can operate. Whilst there is clearly widespread support across the House for the use of corporations where appropriate, members have been proposed and I want to trust -- touch briefly to include provision.

The government agrees that this must include provision for green space
16:52
Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
-
-
which includes provisions for supporting climate mitigation and supporting climate mitigation and adaptation and by diversity. We do not believe this amendment is necessary to deliver on these objectives, corporations have a strong track record, providing suitable green space, each corporation has provided almost 15 corporation has provided almost 15 They are already subject to National Planning Policy's including green instructor, this means that where they take on local powers, planning they take on local powers, planning decisions might be informed by the framework which on the members are aware is a material consideration.

As the House will know, the NPPF sets out policies to encourage the provision of green infrastructure. An overall strategy for the scale, quality and design places. Making sufficient provision for the enhancement of the environment. It also sets out any policies should be based on robust assessment of a need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. It is the government view that the duty proposed in this amendment might constrain some corporations, for example, where they designated specifically for the redevelopment of small spaces.

When it comes to the stewardship, each corporation has a designated oversight authority, either the sector to come all males or local authorities, whilst I commend the honourable and for highlighting, I hope you will withdraw. Turning to the reforms to compulsory purchase order, designed to improve the CPO process and allow compensation rules to allow effective London Assembly. Let me respond to new clause 127, amendment 153, which seeks to repeal section 14 of the competition act 1961.

Let us be clear what these members propose, to repeal the power introduced by the last government, in which he voted for, the specific piece of legislation, which allows acquiring authorities to take forward certain types of scheme, and pay a reduced value for land where it will deliver significant benefits. His amendment does not seek to limit the extension of the power, as proposed in the Bill, to parish and county councils the use of powers as they apply to natural England, it seeks to repeal the power...

The piece of legislation that he voted for, frankly embarrassing to listen to him try to explain that U-turn. To support the delivery of housing and infrastructure that this country needs, we must make better use of underutilised land in the country. We know local authorities share the objective but their plans are frustrated by unrealistic compensation expectations. This can result in significant amounts of... I will give way in a second. This can result in significant amounts of land remaining unused and overpriced with a result that building homes, transport links and schools becomes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

roughly high. In the debate today, the opposition benches defended the opposition benches defended the principle of paying landowners an uplift from a current news value to the value compared to that land the value compared to that land would have if it had planning permission. Given Winston Churchill said such increments land are said such increments land are positively detrimental to the general public, are they not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

attacking their own best traditions? I would agree with the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would agree with the honourable gentleman, I think it is a shame that the party opposite has she that the party opposite has she merely -- have seemingly changed their view, I think that many of the their view, I think that many of the provisions in the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill were some of the best introduced by the previous best introduced by the previous government. There is not in the record of the previous government that members should feel embarrassed about.

These powers are not one of them. Far from removing the power, we want acquiring authorities to use this power and we cannot possibly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accept the amendment. The Conservative members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Conservative members suggested that market value will not be paid for such land. With the be paid for such land. With the Minister not confirm that the amount paid is the market value for existing use of the land?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

existing use of the land? He tempts me to stray beyond the specific measures in this Bill and specific measures in this Bill and how the power can be used. And I think that power... We are clear, we should guidance about the power. That leaves me -- leads me onto amendments 89 which seeks to expand amendments 89 which seeks to expand the power. Sympathetic as I am the more frequent removal of value, the use of the relevant power must be proportionate and justified in the public interest so it does not fall foul of article 1 of the European Convention on human rights.

Seeking to expand the use of that power and applied more widely is problematic for that reason and I cannot accept either amendment on that basis. I want to make it clear, use of the direction power can be sought on mixed use schemes that include sports or recreational uses but they must be within those schemes, education provision, health provision or affordable housing, to justify the use of the power within public interest. On that specific point, and to respond to the spokesperson, I can confirm that clause 104 does not extend the power to other uses or social objectives, merely it enables parish town councils to make use of the existing power.

I will not give way any more. I want to bring the remarks to a close. There is a statement follow after the proceedings in this bill have completed. I want to clause 2 turn to new clause 85. To be clear, lost payment of an amount of compensation paid to eligible claimants to reflect and recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused by CPOs, they are an additional payment to compensation claim above and the land, for the market value of land.

The amendment would allow claimants to claim compensation for the market value twice and, as a result, they would have over conversation. This would be disproportionate. This would run counter to the established principle of equivalence in conversation where a person subject to compulsory purchase order should be left no better or worse off in financial terms after an acquisition as they were before. On that basis, cannot accept the amendment. I want to accept the amendment. I want to touch briefly on a new clause 42, in the name of the shadow Minister, his amendment seeks to introduce a change to the regime under the land.

It would increase the occupiers of buildings subject to ACPO would be entitled to and placed them on 14. As we discussed in committee, the Bill ready achieves, in part, what the honourable gentleman is seeking through this amendment, it increases the lost payment conversation due to occupiers of buildings and land that this amendment seeks to. The purpose is to reflect the inconvenience caused by panel -- compulsory purchase order. Rather than invest owners who bear the greater burden. They are the ones who have to close or relocate businesses.

Lost payment of eight separate claim for compensation make loss payments are a separate claim. To claim a higher amount and landowners to claim a lower amount. This rebalancing of compensation, in favour of occupiers, is the right approach and will benefit, for example, groups such as tenant farmers. On that basis, we cannot accept the amendment and I request that it is amendment and I request that it is withdrawn. Lastly, the member made a case for greater support for active travel schemes to be considered.

We are keen to support local authorities to use CPO powers in the public interest and have published guidance on the CPO prices. Including advice on how they can demonstrate a compelling case in the public interest. We will also publish updated guidance to reflect the reforms. In addition, CPO powers can already be used for active travel orders and can be executed by local authorities as part of the functions, to assist authorities in deploying these powers more effectively, Active Travel England, which is an executive agency sponsored by the Department for Transport, are developing guidance to support Local Authority's in the delivery.

These will be published in consultation with local authorities in due course, I think... Let's examine the details when it is published. Given the guidance that already exists, further guidance set to be published, I believe the To conclude the amendments are either unnecessary or detrimental to the objectives of the bill. More widely in other parts of the bill and areas of this bill, where we have received reports that continue to reflect on whether the legislation can be strengthened and improved further.

When it comes to corporations and compulsory purchase order reforms, we think the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee members are robust and on this basis the whole House and get behind the bill this afternoon. The question is that new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause 22. A second time? As As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". Division, clear the The The question The question is The question is that The question is that new The question is that new clause The question is that new clause 20 to be read a second time? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No".

The tellers for the contrary, "No". The tellers for
17:04
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. Isa to the right 73. Nose to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Isa to the right 73. Nose to the The Ayes have it to the right 73, The Ayes have it to the right 73, the Noes have it to the left 312. The Noes have it have it, the Noes The Noes have it have it, the Noes have it have it. On lock. New clause 85 has been selected for separate 85 has been selected for separate decision. I called Kevin Hollinrake decision. I called Kevin Hollinrake to move the new clause formally.

The question is that the new clause 85 be read a second time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". Of the contrary, "No". Division. Clear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question The question is The question is new The question is new clause The question is new clause 85 period a second time. As many are of period a second time. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The Tellers for the Ayes, James Wild and Richard Holden, Ayes, James Wild and Richard Holden,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lock Lock the Lock the doors!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The Ayes to the right, 107, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right, 107, the Noes to the left, 314.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left, 314. The Ayes to the right, 107, the Noes to the left, 314. The Noes have Noes to the left, 314. The Noes have New clause 114 has been selected for New clause 114 has been selected for separate decision, I call Gideon Amos to move new clause 114 formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Formally. Corporations to provide green

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spaces. The question is that new clause 114 be read a second time. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". Division,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is as The question is as on The question is as on the The question is as on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the Ayes, Testament, Tellers for the Noes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lock Lock the Lock the door.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Investigate Investigate the Investigate the calls Investigate the calls for Investigate the calls for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The ayes to the right 78, nose

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 78, nose left 309. -- The noes to the left 309. 309.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

309. The noes have it. Unlock. With

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noes have it. Unlock. With the leave of the House I should put a single question on government amendments 120 and 121. I call the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments 120 and 121. I call the Minister to move amendment 120 and 121 formally. Moved formally. The question is that government amendments 120 and 121 be made. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the contrary, "No". The Consideration completed. Third Kings Consent. Prince of Wales cap SEN. Minister to move, third reading. -- Consent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the bill be read as 1/3 time. It has been a privilege to take this crucial piece of legislation through the House. of legislation through the House. The Minister. I thank The Minister. I thank the The Minister. I thank the record ready for the passage of the bill and the bill team for the litigious and the bill team for the litigious efforts over many months. My consistently excellent private offers including my brilliant offers including my brilliant private sector.

The clerks, chairs and counsel for facilitating the progress and the witnesses forgive evidence and the honourable members from across the House who provided valuable input today and that previous stages. This landmark bill
17:48
Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
-
-
will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. It is critical in helping the It is critical in helping the government to achieve the ambitious milestone of building 1.5 million milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament, making planning decisions on at least 115 major infrastructure projects and supporting the Clean Power 2030 supporting the Clean Power 2030 target and transporting Britain into a clean energy superpower. There will be five key objectives with a faster and more certain consenting faster and more certain consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects which is a infrastructure projects which is a crucial part of the bill.

Upgrading the economic infrastructure from electricity networks, clean energy electricity networks, clean energy sources, public transport links is essential to basic services and the growing economy. The bill makes a number of changes, ensuring national policy statements are kept up-to- date and providing for a reflective amendment process for the government can make fast changes on minor policy changes are legal impacts that must be factored into national policy statements. Second, a more strategic approach that will unlock a win-win for nature and the environment.

As we debated at length yesterday, the status quo is not working. It is not working for development and, let's be clear, that is because constraints like nutrient issues are disincentivising planning applications across the country and that's impacting house builders, particularly small- and medium size. The status quo is not working for the environment because, all too often, the state-by-state process of assessment and meeting obligations is not driving recovery. Instead of that status quo, we want to take forward a new strategic approach across wider geographies ensuring Natural England bring forward plans that go beyond offsetting harm to driving nature recovery.

We want to improve certainty and decision making in the planning system. There has been mandatory training for local councillors and the localisation of fees to make sure local planning authorities which have been hard- pressed, we know, in recent years can set their own fees now and make sure the burden they face and the applications can be covered, get again welcome by the host. We've taken the decision to introduce a national scheme and I appreciate it is controversial but we think it's a necessary means of introducing more certainty and clarity into the decision-making process and we have lots of technical consultation on the measure and I would urge honourable members from across the House to engage with the detail of the technical consultation.

I think when they do so, they would understand that the category of planning applications should be taken and delegated to expert local planning officers but on all major controversial development, with the agreement of the relevant chair of the committee Andy Lee planning officer in the authority, the most serious and controversial applications will always come from elected members, as should be the case when they take their place. We debated this today and there are changes to development corporations which are going to play an essential role in driving the delivery of large-scale communities across the country and we have discussed CPO powers because we want them to include an important CPO reform passed by the previous government which I'm sad to hear today that opposition benches regret passing.

The shadow secretary of state said it was a mistake. We think those powers are useful and want to see the application taken forward. The bill makes targeted changes to those powers to be sure they can be used by parish and county councils and when it comes to nature recovery and the delivery and reduction of environmental delivery plans by Natural England in certain circumstances. The bill introduces new mechanisms to cross boundaries. We must be planning on a larger than local scale to get the best outcomes.

The bill introduces new special development strategies which are not big local plans but high- level strategies for different subregions of the country to come together and decide that in cooperation the most appropriate places for housing growth are the best way for infrastructure to be delivered across those areas and, in response to the feedback, which may targeted changes throughout the bill committee, removing statutory pre- consultation requirements in relation to the resume, and we know this is driving the outcomes.

There are targeted improvements to the restoration fund and there is a new funding mechanism for statutory consultees. When it comes to delivering new homes and critical The country and the British people. We can and must do things differently and this build will enable us to do so. It is transformative and will fundamentally change how we build things in this country and will help us to tackle the housing crisis and living standards in every part of the country. This government was elected on the promise of change and we are determined to deliver it and through these measures we will do just that.

I wish the Baroness Andy noble Lord all the best in the other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

place and I commend this bill to the House. The question is that the bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be read as 1/3 time. -- At third time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

read as 1/3 time. -- At third time. I thank the Minister for all of his hard work and the incredibly his hard work and the incredibly decent and polite manner. I thank him and his team for the work and my shadow team, who are doing a
17:53
Kevin Hollinrake Portrait Kevin Hollinrake MP (Thirsk and Malton, Conservative)
-
-
shadow team, who are doing a fantastic job on the detail and the line by line scrutiny and the other Frontbench teams and the committees, the clerks, honourable and right honourable members across the House for their contributions. We are told the bill is about accelerating housebuilding and unleashing growth and meeting a national target of 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, in England alone. Those aims on the face of it are worthy but what price are we prepared to pay for Deputy Prime Minister's ambition? She is ambitious.

Make no mistake, what is being proposed could fundamentally and irrevocably alter the character of towns and villages and the green and pleasant land that makes Britain what it is. This is not an attack on new homes. I'm unashamedly pro- business and pro-development, unlike the right honourable lady and gentleman and half the Cabinet, and they have never objected to this in my constituency but, let me be clear, we need homes and we need homes for first-time buyers, for our young families, for key workers, for the next generation.

We need the right homes in the right places, shaped by the rate principles. Instead we are being offered a top- down model driven by arbitrary targets. The result is identikit developments and solar settlements. Rules of uninspiring concrete boxes that have no relation to the history and heritage or the hopes of the communities. Crucially, in the centralising zeal, as my colleague, the Minister, the shadow minister, and the honourable member calls it, local voices are being sidelined.

Local councils, those who love and understand to be at his best, are being overlooked. The individual has become a target in the machine. This bill in its current form is not just flawed but it is dangerous and it risks eroding trust in the planning system and wiping the gulf between government. This bill must be considered in conjunction with the changes to the national applying policy framework. The government approach to shift targets from urban areas to rural areas is cynical and economically illiterate.

I welcome the restoration of mandatory targets in principle but raising targets by up to 400% in rural areas file simultaneously reducing them by over 11% in London, 30% in Birmingham and Newcastle, and over 50% in Coventry, is unfair and a mistake. The policy is unfair and a mistake. The policy is presented as a few misused garage forecourts and wasteland in green belts and it is a can. What I have seen done as important protections that prevent villages from merging into nearby villages and towns and of course there is the matter of the environment.

Anyone who cares about the natural world knows this. Once the habitat is destroyed, once would land as up or a bio diverse landscape doors, nothing can bring it back. There is zero confidence on this side of the House that Natural England can successfully mitigate the significant environmental harms that will ensure you through the environmental delivery plans and that is why we propose these are delivered locally through local strategic plans. The truth is that we cannot concrete the way to community and we cannot meet housing needs by overwriting the people we are building for.

We cannot call it progress if it leaves the countryside agreed and communities disempowered. I am happy to give way. For I thank the shadow minister for giving way. Residents in my constituency are particularly concerned about the erosion of the green areas around the village. Does he share my concern that in the London assembly last week when the issue was discussed about the green belt in outer London, uniform actually backed the Mayor in terms

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of building over the green belt. -- Reform actually backed. I thank him for the intervention

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for the intervention and the failures of the London Mayor to build more houses are well to build more houses are well documented. What is perhaps not the surprise is Reform would take the further step of supporting the further step of supporting the Pursuit of Labour votes. We have concerns about the enhanced compulsory purchase orders for councils and mirrors and natural councils and mirrors and natural England. Without hope or market value. This undermines one of the most important principles of the most important principles of the economy property rights.

This is not only unfair but there will be legal only unfair but there will be legal challenges in the courts. During the course of the passage of this bill, we attempted to work with the government to make sensible changes and make the bill fit for purpose, to no avail. Let us not be seduced by forced choices. We don't have to choose between development and democracy, between Homs and heritage, ambition and accountability. We can build and we must build and we must do so in a way that listens, respects safeguards.

I would urge the government, yes, be ambitious but think again. Rethink the bill and restore the local voice and reinstate environmental protections. Let us chart the path to progress that honours the need for homes, the obligation to communities and the environment, the duty to future generations. In its current form, generations. In its current form,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It has been an honour and a privilege to represent the Liberal
18:00
Gideon Amos Portrait Gideon Amos MP (Taunton and Wellington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Democrats at the pleasure of the right honourable member for Kingston on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill in committee and all stages of the bill. I would add my thanks to my staff team and to my colleagues on the liberal Democrat benches for all of their spirited amendments from across all topics. We put forward 78 amendments at the Committee stage of the bill, which I can only imagine was a joy for the Ministers officials to respond to and the Minister himself of course.

I would also pay tribute to the members across the whole house, which has been a bill which is stimulated amendments from all corners of the House and great debate, including the Member for St Ives working with the Member for Bury St Edmunds on an amendment in relation to exclusion sites for housing. Just as an example of the kind of cross party approach that was made in different corners of the House towards improving this bill. We set out at second reading where we were the only party that applied to vote against this bill because of our principled concerns about it.

We set out to address concerns about people and their rights and communities and fairness and nature and the effects this bill will have on nature. We sought to address all of those topics within minutes we put forward, including initially on rights for people and individuals, what greater right can there be as the chairman of the Select Committee pointed out yesterday in a right to a decent home which can be afforded in which to bring up your family. Therefore we champion our proposal for 150,000 social homes per year to be built as a key target of this government.

We continue to encourage them through all means, including votes in this place to move towards a target for social homes to be built rather than simply a target for millions of homes which we know without that target will be led by private market housing which is no solution to the problems we face. We sought to address communities and fairness by seeking to remove the power that this government will grant to itself and all future governments to interfere in the running of councils and give to employees and planning consultants decisions over and above the heads of the councillors who employ them and who are meant to be accountable for those decisions.

Decisions for the first time could be made by council officers and by consultants, which Labour disagreed with every single name of the local authorities, yet will stand with those councillors and they won't be able to do anything to change that decision. That can't be right. The undermined trust of communities in our political system. A system in which at local level people engage more with planning than perhaps any other aspect of local government. The more they see the centralisation of planning powers, the more they see the standard method written by Whitehall, the guidance is written by Whitehall, the more they see the appeals process is dominated by Whitehall, now they see even their own councillors not allowed to make decisions, the more we will be damaging trust in politics and in community belief in the planning system and the system of local democracy which is so important to our country.

That is a principled reason why we so strongly object to the removal of powers from councillors in this bill. For nature we support a number of the measures in this bill, many are good measures and III, in passing, would want to pay tribute to the Minister for his work on bringing back strategic planning which I know he has worked on for a number of years. On nature we are gravely concerned that national trust has called this bill a licence to kill nature. It is right to bring in a system, for example, for phosphates, which could be mitigated at a strategic level, but to completely remove that process the principle of first do no harm on the site on which you are developing is the wrong thing to do.

We should be ensuring the mitigation hierarchy is there, enshrined in the bill in this new system, so that first we look at avoiding harm to the site and then mitigating it and only finally offsetting it where that is absolutely necessary. We should only offset where absolutely necessary and when that can be done. I remember a new clause 1 were to put back that protection of nature into this new system. I will give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. I thank him. I'm sure he knows

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him. I'm sure he knows his legislation very well, but in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 three, it stated Ministers Act 2023 three, it stated Ministers have a duty to further the purposes of protected landscapes like of protected landscapes like national landscapes. Do you think it's a missed opportunity that this bill did not take the opportunity to give national landscapes a seat at give national landscapes a seat at the table by making them statutory consult these like one in my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituency? I am grateful to my honourable friend who has done so much work to friend who has done so much work to champion that national landscape and champion that national landscape and the need for them to have a seat at the planning table. My own national landscape, the black down hills, landscape, the black down hills, which also deserve a seat at the planning table. We don't believe cutting out consul tees in consultation and cutting out voices from the planning process is the way to deliver more homes or better communities.

We need to bring invoices like the national landscapes and we would like to do that and put forward amendments to achieve that. On the rights of people to homes and genuinely affordable homes, on the rights of communities and fairness in the process, on the rights to nature, we don't believe the government has gone far enough and we cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support this bill as it currently stands. Fear not, I will keep my comments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fear not, I will keep my comments very very brief. I cannot let this
18:07
18:07
Richard Foord Portrait Richard Foord MP (Honiton and Sidmouth, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
short, but I want to put it on record that Devon, which is rightly celebrated across Britain for its rugged coastline, rolling farmland, spectacular more lands, ancient woodlands, is subject to the diggers of the developers encouraged by this government. While we all need houses and we all need the protection they afford, this act, if it is enacted, will only damage nature. Nature and Devon is part of who we are and we face in nature crossroads. The Devon nature partnership tells us the loss and decline of Devon's wildlife has accelerated rapidly over the last 50 years.

The wooded valleys of the black down hills, the wildflower Meadows of East Devon are priceless, once they are gone they can't be brought back. We were discussing in the tea room yesterday the darkening clouds of the international system and how grave the matters of state are that this government has to deal with. Somebody pointed out that nevermind grappling with wars and conflict, we can't even create a system where we can put a 44 pound swift brick on a new house to encourage nature in our rural areas.

Healthy natural systems underpin our economy, they underpin our communities, but unless we restore nature, we will not have anything left. Building homes does not need to come at the cost of nature and we must build in the right places with nature embedded at the heart of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

planning. Thank you. The question is that the bill be now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of are of that opinion, say, "Aye", of the contrary, "No". Division, clear
18:09
18:23
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
Occupied Palestinian Territories. I called the Minister to make the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With With permission, With permission, I With permission, I will With permission, I will make With permission, I will make a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With permission, I will make a statement on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The two- Palestinian Territories. The two- state solution is in peril. Catastrophic conflict in Gaza and a Catastrophic conflict in Gaza and a shocking deterioration in the West Bank. This is an affront to the rights of Palestinians and also against the interests of Israeli and the long-term security and democracy the long-term security and democracy their. Today, I will update the House on the new actions that we are House on the new actions that we are taking to uphold human rights and uphold the vision and viability of uphold the vision and viability of the two states living side-by-side.

the two states living side-by-side. 2024 saw the worst settler violence against Abyssinians in the West Bank in the last two decades. 2025 is on track to be just as violent. Between 1996 and 2023, an average of seven illegal settler outposts were established illegally. In 2024, settlers erected 59. These outposts are illegal under both Israeli and international law. Two weeks ago, international law. Two weeks ago, the Israeli government itself announced 22 new settlements. Every outpost, every building erected is a flagrant breach of international law.

It disregards the views of international partners for Israel and there are no in excess of 500,000 settlers living in the West Bank. There are over 100,000 in the Jewish territory, what they call the territory that must fall and the heart of a sovereign Palestine. The sharp growth in settlements alone is dangerous enough but it has been accompanied by a steep rise in settler violence and extremist rhetoric. Itamar Ben-Gvir has led seven provocative intrusions since 2022.

In 2023, the settlers rampaged through the village in what the West Bank military commander described as the act of outlaws. Last month, villages fled from their homes in fear after the construction of an illegal outpost 100m away. This month, the settlers attacked the local town and they attacked people. As an assault on Palestinian communities and on the fundamentals of the two-state solution. This is an attempt to entrench a reality of one state, where there are no equal rights.

The two-state solution remains the only viable framework for a just and lasting peace. I know that it is supported by every side of this House. Israelis living in secure borders recognised and at peace with their neighbours, free from the threat of terrorism, with Palestinians living in their own state with dignity and security, and free from occupation. We are steadfastly committed to defending that a vision, not just with words but with action. That is why we have pledged £101 million in additional support to the Palestinian people this year and why we are working to strengthen and reform the Palestinian Authority.

Which is why my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary signed a long-term agreement with Prime Minister Mustafa and by the Prime Minister welcomed him to Downing Street. It is why we are clear that Hamas must immediately and unconditionally release the hostages and that Hamas can have no role in Palestinian governance. It is why we are committed to working with civil society, Israelis and Palestinians, to support those who believe in to support those who believe in peace and coexistence.

However, the gravity of the situation demands further action and the reality is the human rights abuses, the incitement to violence, the extremist rhetoric, it comes not just from the uncontrolled fringe but from individuals who are ministers in this Israeli government. We must hold them to account. We must protect the viability of the two-state solution. Today we are sanctioning Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir. We are acting alongside Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway, who have also announced their own measures today.

These two men are responsible for inciting settler violence against Palestinian communities in the West, violence which has led to the deaths of Palestinian civilians and the displacement of whole towns and villages. This violence constitutes an abuse of Palestinians' human rights. It is cruel, degrading, completely unacceptable. We have told the Israeli government repeatedly that we would take proper action if this did not stop. It still did not. The pollen rhetoric has continued -- the pollen rhetoric has continued unchecked with violent perpetrators continuing to act with impunity and continuing to act with impunity and When we say something, we mean it.

Today we have shown with our partners to extremes we will not sit by while they wrecked the prospects of future peace. Our actions today do not diminish our support for the security of Israel and the Israeli people. The agendas of these two men are not even supported by the majority of Israelis. Israelis recognise that these individuals are not working in their interest. As the Foreign Secretary said last month, we want a strong friendship with Israel based on shared values and our many close ties.

Our condemnation of Hamas, and the appalling attacks of October 7 is unequivocal. Our commitment to the security of Israelis and the future of Israel is unwavering. We will continue to press for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, the release of the hostages still held so cruelly the hostages still held so cruelly by Hamas. The repeated threats by Hamas to the lives of the hostages are grotesque and it prolongs the agony of their family and loved ones.

Hamas should release all the hostages immediately and unconditionally. Mr Speaker, the situation in the West Bank cannot be seen in isolation from events in Gaza. Extremist rhetoric advocating forced displacement of Palestinians, denial of central aid, the creation of new Israeli settlements in the strip is equally appalling and dangerous. This government will never accept the unlawful transfer of Gazans from or within Gaza. Nor any reduction in the territory of the Gaza Strip. The humanitarian situation remains catastrophic in Gaza, while Israel's ground and air operations expand, Gazans have now been pushed into less than 20% of the territory.

Hospitals have been destroyed and damaged. The entire population of Gaza is now at risk of famine. Meanwhile, Israel's newly introduced measures for aid in danger civilians and foster desperation. They are inhumane. The Red Cross field hospital in Rafah reported last week that it has responded to an unprecedented five mass casualty incidents in the two weeks prior. In each case, Palestinians have been killed or injured trying to access aid in Gaza. Desperate civilians who have endured 20 months of war should never face the risk of death or injury simply to feed themselves and their families.

We need further action from the Israeli governments now. To lift all restrictions on aid, to enable the UN and aid partners to do their work, to ensure food and other critical supplies can reach people safely wherever they are. We will continue to support the UN and other trusted NGOs as the most affected and principal partners for aid delivery. Our support has meant over 465,000 people have received essential healthcare. 640,000 have received food. 275,000 have improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene services.

We of course support the efforts led by the United States, Qatar and Egypt to secure an immediate cease-fire in Gaza. We welcome France and Saudi Arabia's initiative to chair an international conference next week to advance a two-state solution. It is a two-state solution, that is the only way to bring the long-lasting peace that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve. But it cannot remain an empty slogan. Repeated by generations of diplomats and politicians by increasingly divorced from the reality on the ground.

Smotrich said there is no such thing as a Palestinian nation. Mr Ben-Gvir has spoken of his rights in the West Bank, territory his government is occupying as being more important than the rights of millions of Palestinians. Their own words condemn them. To defend those Palestinians rights, to protect the two-state solution, to see Israelis and Palestinians living side-by-side in safety and security, this government is taking action. I commend this statement to the House.
18:35
Priti Patel Portrait Rt Hon Priti Patel MP (Witham, Conservative)
-
-
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement and for the advanced side of it. The situation as he has said in the Middle East and the suffering we are seeing is serious and completely intolerable. I would reiterate my remarks in response to the statement last week on the levels of desperation and suffering being completely unacceptable. We continue to see violence, deaths and casualties and is a Minister said, near aid distribution centres which is simply incomprehensible and that should simply never happened.

Britain has continued to leverage its influence at every opportunity with Israel and with our international allies to change the course of events that the world is witnessing, to ensure the remaining hostages are released, that aid reaches those who need it and that is sustainable till the end of this conflict is achieved. We all want to see a better future for the Israeli and Palestinian people and the UK must continue to play a leading role in achieving this. To do this the UK needs to have a constructive set of channels of communication with all our partners in the region and working towards peace and ending this conflict, including dialogue with Israel.

The Minister will be aware that the sanctioning of individuals is always under review, that is the right policy. And in the case of Israel, this has been previously considered even by Lord Cameron who has spoken of that in the last government. With the Minister just explain the timings of this decision being taken today. Can he give an assessment on what the impact will be? He has mentioned already and I have read the Foreign Office statement on access visas, travel vans, disqualifications, they will only have an effect in the right way by working with allies, in particular and the statement also refers to action also being taken with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway.

Can the Minister tell us what discussions he has had on this issue with other partners including the United States of America and their response. With this decision and others taken, can the Minister give his honest assessment of the UK's governments relationship with Israel. Can he let us know what direct communication he and the Foreign Secretary of had with Israel on securing the delivery of vital lifesaving humanitarian aid to people in desperate need of help. On the side of the House, as he heard last week, we have been clear that settlement violence is not helpful at all, it is going backwards when it comes to delivering the two-state solution.

We would urge Israel for its part not to take steps that would make the two-state solution even more difficult. We have consistently been committed to supporting a two-state solution, delivered in the right way and at the right time and will work constructively to support every effort to achieve this. While discussing the West Bank, can the Minister provide an update on the progress being made with the reforms as he has touched on already with the Palestinian Authority following the MOU that was signed in April.

The House will understand that credible government -- governance is needed for long-term stability in the West Bank and in Gaza too. Of course that means with no future role for Hamas. More widely on the conflict, the reports of the latest rounds of negotiations of hostage releases aren't bringing an end to the conflict are frustrating for us all. And if not made the progress we all desperately need to see. Can the Minister provide an update on the direct discussions he is involved in, including with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Qatar and other allies in the region.

The remaining hostages as he has said, held in captivity of the Iranian backed terrorist, they face over 600 days of suffering and horrific conditions and securing their release continues to be critical to seeking to end this conflict. We all want to see aid to get into Gaza, to the innocent Palestinians that are suffering, the need for vital food, medicines and shelter. We have discussed this in previous statements and I completely recognise and understand the difficulties associated in light of the challenging situation in getting aid in.

Can the Minister provide an update on the amount of aid, type of aid, the UK continues to support and fund directly through partners, where that aid is currently located and the efforts to get it in. The House will know, I said this last week in the statement as well, my noble friend Lord Cameron previously working with the Israeli government secured aid by working with allies and the Israeli government, including the opening up of crossings and port, increasing the number of trucks and volumes of aid entering Gaza.

Can the Minister confirm that he has spoken to or presented a clear plan to Israel, working with our partners on supporting more aid going in. Increases in volume of aid, making use of our long-standing experience, because we lead the world when it comes to getting aid and that expertise with a strong track record. Finally, can the Minister give any update on the actions taken to restart the dialogue and discussions on the viability of the Abraham Accords and on making progress when it comes to delivering the Cairo plan, which the House knows is so important, it is backed by local and regional allies and sees a really pivotal role when it comes to the Egyptian government playing that vital role for securing peace in the region.

Because these are essential conditions we need for creating peace and stability and a better future for Israel and. -- And Palestine. Palestine.
18:41
Hamish Falconer Portrait Mr Hamish Falconer MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Lincoln, Labour)
-
-
I think the right honourable lady for her questions. She raises important points about work with allies and let me address the points on Egypt, which is vital, the Egyptians have conducted important work and I will be pleased to be with them next week as part of the two-state solution conference to discuss the reconstruction of Gaza. She is absolutely right that we need to be focused on how we can work with partners in the region and beyond to try to ensure that vital building blocks can be put in place, both the reformed Palestinian Authority, but also a rebuilt Gaza, we can all see how acute those needs are.

We have sought to work with partners and I am very grateful to the Speaker and colleagues for their flexibility this evening for doing a statement in a slightly unusual way for top we have sought to coordinate closely with the partners who are start of the -- part of the statement full top we have coordinated with others, we have with a range of other partners including the US. We have spoken with other governments directly today. O She invites me to comment on the state of the relationship between the UK and Israel, the state of disagreement I think it's clear.

I regret the tone of some of our exchanges. We do not wish to have such profound disagreements with the Israeli government. As a Minister for the Middle East, when we disagree as profoundly as we do, I'm afraid I have to say so both publicly and privately and that is what I have done. I'm afraid I have to say so both publicly and privately and that is what I have done.
18:43
18:44
18:44
Calum Miller Portrait Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I want to begin by welcoming the step taken by the government today to sanction the extremist ministers. It is only right they face consequences for their relentless call for the forced dispossession of Palestinians which have so egregiously undermined prospects for securing a just and sustainable peace in the region. My party leader was the first to call for the sanctions last February when their extremist views were already clear. My only disappointment therefore is My only disappointment therefore is that the conservatives refused to act when they were could have done so and it is taken as government nearly a year to take this important step.

It is essential that the government steps towards a just resolution of the conflict, which must include getting aid in, getting hostages out and agreeing and enduring cease-fire. In the last week we have seen the product of extremism advanced by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. The deaths of more Palestinians, who were queuing in desperation for food from the so- called Gaza humanitarian foundation. Calls for Palestinian displacement can no longer be tolerated. Will the government build on today's progress by urgently considering sections on other extremist ministers who continue to call for the blockade of Gaza and expanded military action in the strip, starting with Israel The time has come to officially recognise the independent state of Palestine.

Will the government commit to taking this vital step at the summit next week in New York? Recognition will demonstrate commitment to self-determination and make clear that, building on the announcement today, the UK will do all it can to take control away from extremists and give the Palestinians hope of lasting peace. hope of lasting peace.
18:46
18:47
18:48
18:48
18:49
18:50
18:51
18:51
18:52
18:52
18:53
18:53
18:54
18:55
18:55
18:56
18:56
18:57
18:57
18:58
18:59
19:01
19:01
19:02
19:02
19:03
19:04
19:04
19:05
19:06
19:06
19:07
19:08
19:08
19:09
19:09
19:10
19:10
19:11
19:12
19:13
19:14
19:15
19:16
19:16
19:17
19:17
19:18
19:18
19:19
19:20
19:20
19:21
19:21
19:22
19:23
19:24
19:24
19:25
19:25
19:26
19:27
19:27
19:28
19:29
19:29
19:29
19:30
19:32
19:33
19:34
19:34
19:35
19:35
19:36
19:36
19:37
19:38
19:39
19:39
19:40
19:41
19:42
19:42
19:43
19:44
19:44
19:45
19:46
19:47
19:47
19:48
19:49
19:50
19:50
19:51
19:51
19:51
19:52
19:53
19:53
19:53
19:54
19:55
19:55
19:55
19:56
19:56
19:57
19:58
19:59
19:59
20:00
20:01
20:01
20:02
20:03
20:04
20:05
20:05
20:05
20:06
20:07
20:07
20:07
20:08
20:09
20:09
20:09
20:10
20:10
20:11
20:12
20:12
20:13
20:13
20:14
20:15
20:15
20:16
20:16
20:17
20:17
20:18
20:19
20:19
20:20
20:21
20:21
20:22
20:22
20:23
20:24
20:24
20:25
20:25
20:26
20:28
20:28
20:29
20:30
20:31
None Portrait Adjournment: Eighth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourn. The question is this House do now adjourn.
20:31
Joe Powell Portrait Joe Powell MP (Kensington and Bayswater, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. On Saturday, we mark eight years since 72 people lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire. Eight years of fighting for truth, eight years without justice. And eight years of two often glacial change. This will be the last anniversary before the tower starts to come down. It will no longer stand as that painful symbol of injustice, greed and impunity, on the London skyline. And as the tower begins to be deconstructed, it is even more important that in this House, we remember the 72 people who lost their lives.

And I'm sure this House will continue to stand united with their families, with the survivors, and with the community, until justice is served, and systematic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

changes implemented. I thank my honourable friend for making a powerful open on this really important and tragic anniversary that is coming before anniversary that is coming before us, eight years. Of the 72 people, 18 children lost their lives. Of the 18 children lost their lives. Of the 72 people, 37 were disabled and 15 of them died. Does my honourable of them died. Does my honourable friend agree that even though the tower will come down in a few years, tower will come down in a few years, the trauma, the suffering, the pain and anguish, will live with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and anguish, will live with the people of Grenfell for many years to come. I thank the Chair of the Select

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her intervention. I completely agree. The legacy must be completely agree. The legacy must be the systemic change that I talked about. Many of the people who lost their lives in Grenfell were disabled. I welcome the government's commitment to lame regulations that mandate personal emergency mandate personal emergency I know the Minister has taken fire safety in his brief and will look closely in terms of resources to make sure those are actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

implemented and available for disabled people. First of all, can I commend the honourable gentleman for bringing honourable gentleman for bringing this forward. It is appropriate and right this House should recall those right this House should recall those tragic times on June 14, 2017, and tragic times on June 14, 2017, and pay tribute to those 72 innocent lives that were lost. I think the lives that were lost. I think the House is united in stating that. And House is united in stating that.

And thinking of those families. Although it might be 2017, those memories linger, linger long, for the linger, linger long, for the families who lost loved ones. The families who lost loved ones. The CPS have implicated that the potential charges will not be expected until late 2026, which will be almost a decade from when it first happened. Does the honourable member not agree that more efforts must be made to expedite the process? To ensure that family and friends have the justice and closure they need to grieve and move on with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their lives. I thank the honourable member for expressing his solidarity and indeed he is right, the public inquiry reported in December, the simple truth is the deaths that occurred truth is the deaths that occurred were all avoidable. I know we must respect the criminal investigation and must avoid saying anything that jeopardises that process. But on jeopardises that process. But on behalf of our community, I simply say to our government, but until say to our government, but until there is criminal accountability for those responsible, there will be no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

justice. I thank my honourable friend for giving way and I would like to send giving way and I would like to send my condolences to the family, friends and loved ones to all of those who lost their lives eight those who lost their lives eight years ago, but does my honourable friend agree with me that if justice is to be delivered, then the government needs to think very carefully about delivering on Hillsborough law and duty of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

candour. I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for that intervention. I absolutely agree. I applaud the Prime Minister's Questions commitment to Minister's Questions commitment to bring in at the Hillsborough law. It was a party conference at September last year, when he said the law was for the subpostmasters, the rising scandal, -- The horizon scandal, infected blood, Windrush, Grenfell Tower, all the countless injustices over the years, suffered by the over the years, suffered by the working people at the hands of those working people at the hands of those who are supposed to serve them.

Those were the prime ministers words, and I agree we should see words, and I agree we should see words, and I agree we should see that law, beside a mechanism, so that victims can be independently issued that inquiry recommendations actually deliver that meaningful change. It is the sad truth is, we change. It is the sad truth is, we know that -- If we know that the lessons, it is likely the Grenfell tragedy could have been prevented, so we cannot allow that to happen again.

Madame Deputy Speaker, from the community of North Grenfell, Grenfell will be in our hearts, and to select a fitting tribute to the memory of the 72, but our continuing support today. I thank the Minister, the Minister for safety, and many other elected officials for their visit to North Kensington, their engagement with the community. They will know that as the towers pulled down, it is vital that community health services, as well as mental health services, are maintained and I hope our NHS leadership working with the government, can make sure those services remain at least for the period of deconstruction.

It is also essential that survivors have the monitoring they need to spot and address long-term health conditions that may arise. But for the residents around the tower, change has also been too long in coming. I meet regularly with the residents of the Lancaster West estate, the shortest estate, and many others, on the Lancaster West estate, there is now the prospect of an £85 million gap in the budget, to complete the major works that were promised by local and central government, after the fire.

Clearly, no project of this scale should be overrunning so dramatically. But that promise to residents must be kept. So I call on the Minister to do all he can, working with RB KC, to work on a But it is much wider than Lancaster West, I have dealt with thousands of housing cases since being elected, relating to poor quality repairs, damp and mould and a culture of disrespect. Especially for social housing tenants.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to firstly thank you for, thank the honourable member for bringing this debate, it years later bringing this debate, it years later we remember the deep sorrow and stand with the survivors and families, and Grenfell really did families, and Grenfell really did expose failures in Building Safety Act massive social inequality. At the time, I was a teacher at the -- the time, I was a teacher at the -- At the deaths of those children were At the deaths of those children were tragic.

But we need to find those people social justice they deserve, but also make sure it doesn't happen again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again. I thank my honourable friend for that intervention and I do applaud the many steps the government is taking on this issue, for example, on professionalising the housing on professionalising the housing sector, and implementing the law on damp and mould, because the truth is, she states, all of us in this House know that a case like this House know that a case like this could easily happen again. And in my constituency, that means RBKC, Genesis, Peabody, and others, whose purpose should be to serve the residents, but you often their lives is -- But too often make their lives a misery.

And we are trying to address the systemic failure in the community around Grenfell. Madame Deputy Speaker, there will also be no justice until the painfully slow process of mediating unsafe buildings across the country is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

complete. Thank you for giving way and for securing this debate. Last week, the securing this debate. Last week, the residents of over 40 flats in residents of over 40 flats in Worcester were severely affected after inspection of unmediated cladding found such severe firing hazards, and immediate probation hazards, and immediate probation notice was issued. How this was able to happen is a question that must be answered, but in the meantime, does my honourable friend agree with me that the building managers in this case, First Port, must put the residents first and not allow legal disputes or allocation of blame slow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

down the urgent work of making the building safe and allowing residents to return home? I thank my honourable friend for that intervention, and I agree, it is staggering to me that hundreds of thousands of people are still living in buildings like the one he describes, with major fire defects. Members from across this House, up and down the country, will have constituents affected, people trapped in unsellable properties, trapped in unsellable properties, leaseholders on the hook for none cladding defects, and social housing providers sinking funds into remediation, that could be spent on building the desperately needed new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

social homes our country needs. Abbott like to thank my honourable friend and maybe for securing this debate, and for realising, from the first day he was realising, from the first day he was elected, he is not only the number for Kensington and Bayswater, but the Member for Grenfell. It is good that the government is implemented that the government is implemented in all 58 recommendations of phase 2 of the inquiry. Does he agree with me that the four-year timetable is a long time to wait, including the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

long time to wait, including the eight years that have already passed? I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for that very valid point. It is good news that the government had accepted all of the recommendations. And I applaud them for taking time And I applaud them for taking time to come back in detail, rather than rushing a response. But it is absolutely vital that we see timelines kept to, and I think the example of the slow pace of change on remediation is a warning to us on remediation is a warning to us all, that this has to be gripped from the centre if we want to see that systemic change happening.

And to give another example, in my constituency, shared ownership leaseholders, at Shaftesbury Place, a property managed by Notting Hill Genesis, saw their building insurance saw by Reddit over 2000%, that was £5000 a year, increased, in individual service charges. Those residents can test the report, and I hope Notting Hill Genesis will work out a reasonable solution. But that is an example of what has to be fixed, in the building insurance market, as we had to do with flooding, may require government intervention, but I know the Minister agrees that we have to quicken the pace of remediation.

And I would urge him to consider what more the government can do to underwrite the major works now, so that people do not have to wait, and I think the best example of that would be to widen access to the building safety fund, to Social Housing Act does, so they can put more capital into maintaining their current homes and building new homes. I know the government is also very focused on giving the building safety regulator the resources it needs, so that we rightly enforce higher standards post Grenfell, but we also accelerate housebuilding and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

avoid unnecessary delays. Thank you for giving way and I thank him for securing time for this thank him for securing time for this debate, and I do hope we continue to debate this in years to come and we start to talk about what has come start to talk about what has come out of this in terms of recommendations, the lives it saves and the changes. Eight years on, in and the changes. Eight years on, in Scotland, there 5,500 properties Scotland, there 5,500 properties My honourable friend sense of My honourable friend sense of frustration about the pace of remediation in England, particularly in his own constituency.

In Scotland, after eight years, just one building has been mediated.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one building has been mediated. Hopefully England is faster than that. I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for sharing those statistics for and I think the reality is, the money is there, what we need to do was go building by building and solve the problems. And I think that is where I welcome the government's emphasis on devolving civil decision-making, for example, to a London remediation board and that might be something to look at for other parts of the country. I am sure the House would also appreciate an update on the Prime Minister's welcome commitment on September 4, for all the companies found by the inquiry, to have been part of these failings, will stop being awarded government contracts.

As the inquiry said, the companies that made the cladding and insulation products are Conic, seller text, and behaved with systematic dishonesty and engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies, misrepresented data, and misleading the market.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of the other things I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of the other things I remember about the inquiry was the mention of the corporate growth from mention of the corporate growth from some developers, and is right that the government will be looking at banning those contracts. Another thing many other survivors have asked for is around prosecutions to come forward. Does my honourable friend agree that in addition to the friend agree that in addition to the government banning those companies from receiving additional contracts, there should be additional funding to the Met police to swiftly bring justice to those that were

**** Possible New Speaker ****

responsible for this? I thank my honourable friend for that intervention and I know it is that intervention and I know it is one of the biggest teams that the Met police have under operation and of course, it's right that they keep the funding in place, until it comes the funding in place, until it comes to fruition. And I agree with her that we must make sure the taxpayer money is no longer going to those companies, and I hope the Minister can give a reassuring summer timeline, and I also think the Minister can give those reassurances that under the new system of product regulation, the same mistakes will not be made again.

Real change is not be made again. Real change is I've always believed that while the Ark of the modern universe is long, it bends towards justice, and for that, we need to act now in a way that will protect people in the future, so as I mentioned earlier, the introduction of the Hillsborough award, a national oversight mechanism, and the government's own reporting on recommendations and how they will be implemented will absolutely give reassurance to people that this cannot happen again.

Grenfell was the most devastating fire since World War II, and the pain can never be erased, and I want to give words to who gave us hope. There is a new youth mayor for Kensington and Chelsea. I attended an oversight with her and other young leaders at take Britain last night, and these were part of her words. They trim the budget not the risk. Then signed it safely with the flick of a rest. But it was fine. They saved a few grand.

Who needs an alarm when profit was the main plan? We are supposed to give our trust to people who don't care about our well-being. No matter how many complaints they will fail soon, exactly what the residents were foreseeing. And they sit in a meeting for love complaints but they are disagreeing. Ending in disaster with many fleeing. 72 couldn't make it out alive. A life lost is a light lost. But that doesn't mean the fights lost.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I am grateful to my honourable friend from Kensington honourable friend from Kensington and Bayswater for securing this opportunity to mark this weekend's eighth anniversary of the tragedy of grain felt our and the loss of 72 grain felt our and the loss of 72 innocent lives, 18 of them as we have heard children. Time has not diminished the horror, the pain of diminished the horror, the pain of the impact of that day, the lives of families and the community changed families and the community changed forever, and the honourable gentleman has raised an awful lot of gentleman has raised an awful lot of important points and I hope I can cover all of them, but they are in keeping with his outstanding advocacy for his community.

There is advocacy for his community. There is no member I speak to more than him and we will be together again tomorrow, and he pushes and presses tomorrow, and he pushes and presses me quite rightly in the interest of his community day in day out, and I want to recognise that on the record want to recognise that on the record today. It is the community as well because it has been eight long years, and we have campaigned and fought for truth, for justice and for change, and the deputy minister and I are resolute in listening to them, ensuring that the next-of-kin and voices are heard at the heart of government, and we will continue to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tragedy. I thank him for this update on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for this update on this, but one thing we had the Select Committee was for far too Select Committee was for far too long, social housing tenants were long, social housing tenants were being ignored and dismissed. There isn't any recommendation looking at isn't any recommendation looking at race discrimination, but does he agree with me that that was a agree with me that that was a contributing factor in terms of the discrimination act that BME residents faced?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

residents faced? With families and next-of-kin, the demographics both in terms of race speak their own story, similarly, with the turnaround this ability as well, that is informed policy which I will talk to shortly, but our around residents in social housing which I will turn to in a couple of minutes. I just wanted to say, because I was here in the very early stages as a Member of Parliament in 2017, and as I have said in every debate of this kind, if we have said, I know exactly if we have said, I know exactly where I was sat, but 10 m from here, if we said to ourselves then that in eight years, we would have achieved as little as we had, I think we would have thought that was a significant failure, and I want those watching the debate to know that we understand that my honourable friend said progress is glacial, and that is exactly right.

It behoves us to change that with intent, and that is my commitment. Last September, as we have heard, the enquiry will be published, and this is a driver for action, and those findings were clear. The system failed at every point. Families were failed, resident voices were ignored, dishonest practices were propagated. The prime minister has apologised on behalf of the British state as part of the failures that led to avoidable deaths, and I want to repeat the prime ministers words that it should never have happened.

In terms of our response to that enquiry, we publish that in February. As colleagues of said, we accepted that we deliver on 58 recommendations and go further through a order approach to reform, including with regards to construction products. We published our progress report on delivery and we will continue to report on a quarterly basis. The next report in September, we will also publish our full implantation plan, setting out how we will deliver the recommendations, and I agree that there must be a system change.

I agree with my friend from Hammersmith that it is a wrong time, and I know having spoken to bereaved survivors that they are frustrated that some of these recommendations will take time, and the commitment I will make this despatch boxes is that nothing will take a day longer than it has to take and working with agency and intent, we will be transparent as we do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am thankful to the Minister and I appreciate that he is working I appreciate that he is working around the clock on this and this is very important to him in terms of the big challenges in the portfolio. Does the Minister agree though that because there are so many competing because there are so many competing demands including licking at demands including licking at building safety, including fire safety, one of the clear ways to make sure that the government make sure that the government continues to keep focus on this is with a national mechanism which will help the government in terms of help the government in terms of making sure that there are clear deadlines and timeframes for these recommendations which the government have rightly accepted.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am really grateful that the honourable lady pre-empts my next point. The point for Edinburgh South West, when he says we will have these opportunities to debate it, we have committed to an annual debate about this progress, and we will do so until we have delivered. But turning to oversight because we are committed to transparency, accountability and inscrutability, it is right that the community, having been failed and the way they have, what to see very clear accountability. We will record recommendations made by public enquiries by next summer, backdating at 2024, so there will be some public tracking of enquiry recommendations which meet the commitment under the grain felt our commitment under the grain felt our review, and I will refer to the points I have made the Select Committee.

The Cabinet Office. As part of its ongoing work is looking at how to improve responsibility so that actions can be taken more clearly, and I wouldn't want to run ahead of that, and to address the point from Liverpool Riverside, that we remain fully committed to Hillsborough Mall which will include candour for public servants and sanctions for those who refuse to comply, but the justice piece is the honourable members talks with real power on, I am conscious that when I talked to bereaved survivors about whatever the matter of the day is, they always say to me yes, but that is not justice yet, and I know that in the prime minister acknowledged last year that the enquiry, while exposing the truth, does not yet bring the justice that families rightly deserve, and I am again aware of the frustration in this area and the strong feeling that accountability is yet to be achieved.

We support the Metropolitan police service as they conduct their investigation and we will continue to do that. I want to
20:56
Alex Norris Portrait Alex Norris MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Nottingham North and Kimberley, Labour )
-
-
touch on the tower itself, as this will be a very poignant anniversary will be a very poignant anniversary because it will be the one where the tower is as it is for the final tower is as it is for the final time, and we will continue to work with bereaved families and survivors, next-of-kin and residents survivors, next-of-kin and residents as we prepare work to carefully take down Grenfell in the autumn. And as down Grenfell in the autumn. And as we look to the future, we are committed to supporting independent committed to supporting independent memorial commissions in their work to create a fitting and lasting memorial determined by the community, and the Deputy Prime Minister and I will continue, as we Minister and I will continue, as we have throughout, meet with whoever he wants to to act on the issues that we are raising, but more importantly, that they raise with importantly, that they raise with us, and I know there is a lot of anxiety that as this tower is carefully taken down, that that will be a forgotten moment for the Grenfell community, and I want to give that assurance.

With these colleagues behind me, I know this will not be the case, but it won't be for the government either, but as the member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green said, this is a moment of trauma for individuals. It is crucial that really good mental- health support is available for the community. I am raising this, as is my friend from West Lancashire in the Ministry of health and social care with the Integrated Care Board to make sure that the right mental health services are there, to make sure that the right screening facilities are there, to make sure there is the right screening for children and young people which is such a community priority, and I will work with him in that venture to make sure those healthcare services are there.

We failed the leadership to change, and we still hear from too many residents that they are not getting the experience that they should. The Deputy Prime Minister have become an exemplar challenge as a fitting challenge, and we will hold them to account and tell residents feel the change. Residents will befall even that terrible night in 2017 have lived on a building site for a long time for they say that to me every time I see them. It is a very significant gap either way, and I will continue to work with him, with the residents Association because I know we presence at every opportunity on this, and with the council themselves, on how to take this issue forwards.

The honourable gentleman mentioned peeps. That has . We are looking to lay secondary legislation as sooner we can do, and I am committed to working with disability groups to make sure that the guidance in the toolkit and its imitation is as good as possible, and we have committed funding this year and any future funding will be part of the spending review process which is coming tomorrow. I agree with the points on the pace of remediation. I inherited a trajectory that took us into the 2040s.

Our remediation exhilaration plan set buildings above 80 m with unsafe cladding in the government scheme concert in is that 2029, and we will be updating our exhilaration plan this summer to push even further on what we can do to get quick remediation, and he mentioned social housing and the challenges around social housing and the impact on remediation but on building and those points are very well made, and we will announce longer term plans

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in that space shortly. Very briefly, I thank the Minister for being generous. One Minister for being generous. One issue constantly raised by RSL issue constantly raised by RSL providers is the fact they are not able to apply for the building safety remediation. Is this something we will be seeing an something we will be seeing an update on in recent weeks and maybe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

announcements tomorrow? They can access the building safety scheme, but I have heard from them that the circumstances that they do that with, declaring a they do that with, declaring a degree of financial distress is very difficult for them to do, and I understand that. Her suggestion has understand that. Her suggestion has a lot of merit in it. I couldn't be drawn ahead of any events that are drawn ahead of any events that are coming, but all I will say is that the suggestion has an awful lot of merit in it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to recognise that so many leaseholders in my so many leaseholders in my constituency have been affected either delay in remediation. Their lives are on hold because they can't lives are on hold because they can't sell their flat and they can't move food so we need to look at what we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

food so we need to look at what we can do to try and support these things going forward. And those trapped are living

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And those trapped are living under intolerable circumstances, and as part of the update will have more about what we can do to provide them about what we can do to provide them To conclude, this has been a hugely important debate, we will have many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important debate, we will have many more, and work our hardest to deliver justice for the community as soon as possible can. The question is at this House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is at this House do now adjourn. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Aye". The ayes have
21:07
None Portrait Oral questions: Energy Security and Net Zero
-

21:07
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page