Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate. It is a truth universally acknowledged that an MP in possession of a majority, however big, must be in want of a debate, so I am full of admiration for the right hon. Gentleman staying tomorrow to debate Jane Austen in Westminster Hall. As for myself, I am hoping to get away before that, so this will be my last appearance before Christmas. I therefore take the opportunity to wish hon. Members, the House staff who look after us so amazingly well, the officials, yourself, Mr Twigg, and even the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) a very merry Christmas, although I know he would prefer that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) were here instead of me.

I say with some hesitation that I am hoping to go home before that, because it has been something of a week for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I am not quite sure how the Minister is still standing—he is sitting down now, but must need a break. Knowing the Minister’s prodigious amount of activity this week, perhaps tomorrow we will have three Bills and two White Papers coming out and I will be brought back here, but hopefully not. Yesterday, we were debating quarrying and planning—it was a blast. I did not know that I would be getting up and sitting down so many times on MCHLG business this week, but one could say that the Chairman of Ways and Means shapes our destinies, rough-hew them as we may.

I will move on to the more serious points of the debate about the cumulative impact of housing development. I fear that it is worse than the right hon. Member for East Hampshire surmises, because although I remember from my A-level economics that, in a perfect market, increasing supply should reduce price, we need to remember that in any locality in the country, we do not have a perfect market in house building. We have usually one supplier, maybe two, controlling the supply of homes to the market, drip-feeding them to sustain their prices. Any private house builder that went into business to reduce prices would rightly be punished by their shareholders. Putting private house builders in charge of reducing house prices is a bit like putting Herod in charge of childcare. As another seasonal reference, I am forced to consider what would be the cumulative impact of stables being used under permitted development for change of use to emergency temporary accommodation for young mothers.

The point that I think the right hon. Gentleman is really getting to with cumulative impact is the prolific number of permissions that are coming about outside the plan-led process. The plan-led process is so important because it is where cumulative impacts can be properly gauged and established. Any development that is not in the local plan, unless it has an environmental impact assessment, is not going to carry out a cumulative impact assessment. That is why we are so concerned that the Government’s recent announcements will undermine that plan-led process, with so many loopholes. To take one example, there is the abolition of the town centre-first approach for retail development, but there are many others that will undermine that plan-led process.

There is a particular need to look at the cumulative impact when it comes to flooding. The Environmental Audit Committee has recommended that the Government revise the guidance on the cumulative impact for flooding for this very reason. Many of the developments being discussed will not carry out cumulative impact assessments because they are outside the local plan or are sub-EIA development. I ask the Minister whether and to what extent the Government will carry out that review. Flooding is a massive issue for Rockwell Green and Hilly Head in my Taunton and Wellington constituency, which has been flooded twice in the last five to 10 years. We need to see a proper cumulative impact assessment of flood impact and flood risk.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

The cumulative impact of development in Tewkesbury is nothing less than a threat to the continuing viability of Tewkesbury as a permanent settlement. The Environmental Audit Committee recently produced a report on flood resilience in England. Would my hon. Friend join me in asking the Government if they will implement recommendation 89 to make water bodies statutory consultees on development?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend makes a massively important point—absolutely, they should be statutory consultees. He gives me the opportunity to raise an even more serious concern. From careful reading of the Government’s snappily titled consultation on statutory consultees, alongside the ministerial statement of 10 March this year, it appears—I hope the Minister can put me right—that they are considering cancelling and withdrawing the direction that prevents councils from granting planning permission, against the advice of the Environment Agency, in flood risk areas. They are certainly consulting on that basis, so I hope the Minister will clarify whether that is the intended approach and how many homes in flood risk areas he expects will be permitted, against the advice of the Environment Agency, if they go ahead with that change. It is a very serious matter and could affect areas across the country—not only Rockwell Green in my constituency, but places far further afield.

My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) made excellent points about the need for cumulative impact to be properly considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) felt that plan-led development in his constituency was in jeopardy. I agree: after yesterday’s announcement, I feel that plan-led development is in jeopardy everywhere. The Saunders Lane development in Woking is a classic example of where proper consideration of cumulative impact is required.

The Liberal Democrats would pursue a different approach. Cognisant of the market conditions that exist in relation to private house building, we would focus on public investment in a programme of 150,000 social and council rent homes. In fact, we have never met the housing figure of 300,000 per year, except when we have had a big programme of council and social housing. With that element missing, private house building has bubbled along at more or less similar levels; third sector housing has increased somewhat. The big missing element has been council and publicly funded social homes.

For the reasons that I have set out, without a massive injection of such homes, we cannot rely on private house builders to increase supply in any meaningful way, however many permissions above and beyond the 1.4 million homes that have planning permission already, but are not being built, are given out. That figure, as my hon. Friends have explained, so clearly and starkly demonstrates why the challenge is not the issuing of planning permissions, but how to get those permissions built out. We urge the Minister to use much stronger “use it or lose it” measures to tackle unbuilt permissions. I welcomed the statement that he made in the summer about taking forward such measures, but we have yet to see anything really happen in that regard.

We need to remember those who cannot afford homes, and that however many private house builders provide more private homes, 99% of them will be out of reach of people who cannot afford a first home. That is why we need there to be social homes, but we also need a new generation of rent-to-own homes, so that people can get on the home ownership ladder at an early stage in life.

With that, Mr Twigg, I once again wish you a merry Christmas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman slightly. I remember that in the last Parliament, under the Conservative Government, there absolutely was a commitment from Planning Ministers and Secretaries of State to prioritise brownfield development. That was announced during our time in government by the former Prime Minister but three, and by a number of Ministers in the MHCLG.

[Cameron Thomas]

How many was that?

[Paul Holmes]

Well, I believe the hon. Gentleman will have watched the news. I would be the first to acknowledge that we had quite a few in the last Parliament, but there absolutely was prioritisation of brownfield sites first. We prioritised building houses where they were needed, not where they were not.

What steps do the Government plan to take to protect rural communities feeling the adverse effects of increased housing development? If the Government are serious about building homes and maintaining public confidence in the planning system, they must take cumulative impacts seriously, plan infrastructure properly and ensure that developments work with communities, not against them—something that the Liberal Democrats and my party have been very clear will be removed by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the English devolution Bill.

I have been very clear about my concerns regarding the Government’s housing targets and the credibility of the 1.5 million homes ambition, which is now being questioned by a number of experts. If the Government are serious about supporting the house building sector and securing its economic benefits, they must ensure that housing delivery is realistic, properly planned and supported by the necessary infrastructure. Crucially, this requires a far greater focus on the cumulative impact of development so that growth is sustainable, communities are supported, and the long-term economic and social benefits of house building are not undermined.

Finally, Mr Twigg, I wish you, the Clerks and staff, the Minister, and even the Liberal Democrats a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not think that is correct—at least not in the medium to long term. Going back to the point I just made about supply and demand, we have to build sufficient volumes of homes to arrest the steady rise over many years in house prices and start to gently bring them down over time. We are some way away from that, but the affordability uplift should respond over time if we start to build, in a high and sustainable manner, the large number of homes we need.

I will now address the rural-urban balance, which was raised by a number of colleagues. We have had this debate before. We recognise that the targets we have introduced are ambitious and they do mean uplifts in many areas, but such is the severity of the housing crisis in England that all parts of the country, including rural areas, must play their part in providing the volume of homes the country needs.

However, it is not the case that the new formula directs housing growth away from large urban areas. We scrapped the arbitrary 35% urban uplift that the previous Government applied to the 20 largest cities and urban centres—and the core of those centres, as was mentioned. However, across city regions, the new standard method increases targets by 20%. Through it, housing growth is directed to a wider range of urban areas, including smaller cities and urban areas as well as larger city areas.

London was referenced; under the previous Government, housing targets in London were deliberately set at entirely unrealistic levels because that arbitrary 35% standard method was applied not just to the core of our capital city, but to every London borough. We have revised that number down, but London still has a stretching house building target, which we increased in response to feedback to the consultation we received.

In the draft framework yesterday, as the shadow Minister and other hon. Members recognised, we also gave more support for a brownfield-first approach to housing. We welcome responses to the draft framework, through which we now have in-principle support for development within settlements, subject to specified exemptions where there could be unacceptable impacts. We have built on that with the announcement of a default “yes” for development on land within reasonable walking distance around train stations.

Local plans have been mentioned a number of times; in some ways, this gets to the heart of the matter. I would first say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman that, far from undermining the plan-led system, the announcements we made yesterday will strengthen the plan-led system. The clear, rules-based policies in that new draft framework will make it easier for local authorities to come forward under the new system of local plan making and get those plans in place more quickly and effectively.

Why do they need to be in place more quickly and effectively? Because authorities with an up-to-date local plan will typically meet the five-year housing land supply, which is what is required to pass the examination in the first place. Having a local plan in place supports a much more comprehensive approach to considering cumulative impacts of development, so we need those local plans in place across the country. It is not my party’s fault that we do not have universal coverage of local plans. I remember standing for years where the shadow Minister is now, telling Conservative Housing Ministers on this side of the Chamber to take effective action to use the full range of their intervention powers to drive up local plans. We are not there, but this Government are committed to doing that.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire knows about this, as we have discussed it before: local authorities are able to justify a lower housing requirement than the figure that the standard method sets, on the basis of local constraints on land and delivery, such as natural landscapes, protected habitats and flood-risk areas.

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank the Minister very much for giving way, and I wish him a merry Christmas. Nothing would empower my local authority more than the Government implementing recommendation 89 of the EAC’s report into flood resilience in England. Will his Department do that?

[Matthew Pennycook]

We will respond in due course to that report, in the usual way. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about flood risk; I am trying to set out that local constraints can be taken into account in the context of local plans. Government provide flexibility in policy for areas that have such local constraints when calculating housing needs and setting targets, and we provided further guidance on the matter alongside the December 2024 NPPF.

East Hampshire district council is availing itself of that flexibility through the use of a locally determined method, as part of its efforts to progress towards submitting its plan for examination. My officials have been actively supporting that process, including by facilitating an advisory visit for the Planning Inspectorate, and I will continue to meet with officers to discuss any further support.

Several hon. Members mentioned the duty to co-operate. Local authorities often face pressure from neighbouring authorities to meet unmet housing needs under the duty. I recently announced that the duty as a legal provision will cease to exist once the new planning system regulations come into force early next year. However, East Hampshire and neighbouring authorities will still be expected to show that they have collaborated across boundaries, including on meeting unmet need, in line with the current and draft NPPF, which set out policies on maintaining effective co-operation.

I understand hon. Members’ long-standing concerns about infrastructure. The Government are aware that there is more to do across Government and with the sector to ensure that the right infrastructure gets built. I draw hon. Members’ attention to the remarks I made in the statement yesterday. The previous NPPF, from December 2024, strengthened the support for infrastructure —particularly essential infrastructure such as health services and schools—and the latest draft, which we published yesterday, consolidates and strengthens that. On top of that, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which should receive Royal Assent this week, we are streamlining the delivery of nationally critical infrastructure, from rail to roads to reservoirs, across the country.

The shadow Minister asked me about section 106. We want to see a simpler, more transparent and more robust section 106 system. That should include standardised templates. As the NPPF published yesterday shows, we think that, in the first instance, that should be rolled out on medium sites.

To conclude, I thank the right hon. Member for East Hampshire once again for giving the House an opportunity to discuss this important range of matters. As in our debate earlier this year, I appreciate that I will not have convinced him of the merits of the Government’s approach to planning reform or the standard method, but I hope that I have provided him and other hon. Members with sufficient reassurance in respect of local plans, infrastructure and other important matters. I too wish all hon. Members, you, Mr Twigg, House staff and officials a merry Christmas. I hope that everyone has a well-deserved break.

Supporting High Streets

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

For 30 years, MJ’s Gym has been central to the Northway and Tewkesbury communities. It is one of those gritty local gyms with a playlist 10,000 songs long, where men and women of all ages train out a hard day’s work. I met Chris for the first time a few months back. He tries to keep MJ’s running in his spare time while he works as an electrician, but because of decisions made by this Government, he is struggling to keep MJ’s solvent. I do not want to lose MJ’s and all its history to another sterile gym chain.

Will says that the Cleeve Bookshop is only viable in the current economic climate because it is kept afloat by online sales. I do not want to lose the Cleeve Bookshop to another chain store. Lauren is sustaining Bumpyland Softplay using the wages that she earns from her full-time job. As well as giving our children somewhere to play and build their social skills, she is employing young people in their first jobs. I have already spoken, frequently and at length, in support of my hospitality sector. Needless to say, the businesses in that sector need the Government to change course, too.

My high streets in Bishops Cleeve, Tewkesbury and Winchcombe have soul and character, and are worth preserving. However, if the Government do not change course, we will lose them forever. Clearly, support for small businesses should not come at the cost of further cuts to public spending, as proposed in the motion that the Conservatives have tabled today. None of us has any economic lessons to learn from the party that drove our local services to ruin. Therefore, will the Government take reasonable steps, such as increasing the digital services tax and the online gambling tax, so that they can reverse their employer national insurance contributions hike and create a new, lower-rate NIC band to lower the cost of employing part-time staff?

Residential Estate Management Companies

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate.

I purchased my home in 2017. By the time I surrendered a deposit of several thousand pounds, which had taken me a decade to accrue, I had already engaged with a financial adviser, secured a mortgage in principle and researched my eligibility for a Government equity loan. I had already picked the carpets by the time I was told to sign an estate management contract. The concept was completely alien to me; it was explained that on top of my council tax—paid to a local authority to maintain my public services—I would now pay a private company to maintain certain other things around the development. If I declined, I was not allowed to buy a home. It felt a lot like blackmail. It is worse than I realised at the time; the private company is entirely unregulated and it can, and does, charge me and fellow residents whatever it wants for services. Residents can, and often do, see their annual bills rise severalfold.

In serving her local residents, the excellent local councillor Sarah Hands for the Innsworth ward can regularly be found mediating an abdication of responsibility between Persimmon Homes—it still has not passed the estate on to the local authority almost a decade after moving offsite—the local authority, Severn Trent Water and the estate management company. FirstPort is so notoriously difficult to even find a point of contact for that residents give up and then Sarah Hands gets it in the neck instead.

I echo the requests made by the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper). The restructuring of local government gives us an opportunity to end this scam, return estates and services to the local authorities, and outlaw the practice of signing these contracts at the point of house purchase.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

We are bringing forward the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, as the hon. Member knows, and we have set mandatory targets. Unlike the previous Government, we believe that infrastructure has to come through this process, and we are working across Government to ensure that. We are already pushing further on section 106 notices in our work with developers. We are telling them that we want the houses, need the infrastructure, and want them to do this properly.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

2. What steps she is taking to ensure that new homes are sustainable.

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

10. What plans she has to build more sustainable housing.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

The Government are committed to ensuring that the 1.5 million new homes that we will build during this Parliament will be high-quality, well designed and sustainable. We intend to amend building regulations later this year as part of the introduction of future standards that will set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes.

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank the Minister for his response. While visiting the Netherlands with the Environmental Audit Committee, I saw the benefits of long-term, joined-up, strategic planning. In Rotterdam city centre, rooftop gardens provide mental health benefits and allotment space, while at ground level, sunken community spaces and underground car parks mitigate flooding. The Tewkesbury garden town will bring 4,000 new homes to my constituency. Will the Minister meet me and stakeholders who support the garden town, so that we can set the standard for development across the country?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The approach of the Netherlands, not least to spatial planning and design standards, has much to commend it, but we would need a stand-alone debate to do that subject justice. As for the Tewkesbury garden communities, they are precisely the kind of sustainable and infrastructure-led development that the Government want to see more of, and that we are backing through legislation and policy. I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member and local stakeholders to discuss what more might be done to deliver on the aspirations set out in the Tewkesbury garden communities charter, which was published last year.

Political Donations

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Irene Campbell]

I absolutely agree that we need to see change; my right hon. Friend makes the point very well.

More recently, as people will be aware, Elon Musk proposed to donate a large sum to Reform UK. While he could not make a personal donation, there are ways that he could get around the rules, which I will describe. The current rules on donations to political parties are defined in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which is based on the 1998 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, “The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom”. A lot of what I have said already demonstrates how complex this area is.

The Committee summarised the purpose of the rules by saying that

“what happens here is the concern of those who live and work here and the political parties should not be entitled to fill their coffers with donations from abroad, made by persons and corporations who have no genuine stake in the country.”

More recently, the Elections Act 2022 changed the electoral rules, removing the 15-year limit on the voting rights of British citizens living overseas to vote in UK parliamentary elections, and allowing them to register on the electoral roll and donate to political parties without a time limit.

To be clear, under current UK electoral law, foreign donations are banned as they are not a “permissible source.” Permissible sources include individuals on the UK electoral register, UK registered companies, trade unions, unincorporated associations and limited liability partnerships, or LLPs. It is worth noting that, under the rules, parties can accept donations or loans with no upper limit, as long as they come from one of those permissible sources. Donations are defined as

“money, goods or services given to a party without charge or on non-commercial terms, with a value of over £500.”

There are additional rules around the thresholds for party headquarters and local accounting, but I will not go into detail because they are not straightforward.

There are ways for foreign individuals to get around those rules. For example, a multinational corporation owned by a foreign national could legally donate to UK political parties. Additionally, unincorporated associations, which are permissible donors, do not have to conduct permissibility checks on their own donors, leading to a lack of transparency in their donations.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

The hon. Member made an interesting point about the role of companies, and specifically referred to Reform UK. Will she join me in putting on the record that Reform UK is not a political party like most of ours are, but in fact a limited company registered at Companies House, with the primary shareholder being the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)? Does she agree that, where necessary, any change to legislation needs to incorporate such risk factors?

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree with the statement the hon. Member has just made.

The Electoral Commission, the independent regulator for the rules, has said that, at present, donations can be made using funding from otherwise impermissible sources, including from overseas. There are variable monetary penalties from the Electoral Commission for breaking the rules, which are outlined in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. These can be between £250 and £20,000, depending on the severity of the breach, which is another area that the petition seeks to address.

There are many electoral reform recommendations from independent bodies that address some of the concerns in this petition. In relation to fines for breaking the rules, the 2021 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended reviewing the maximum fines that can be issued for breaking electoral rules, saying that the maximum fine the Electoral Commission may impose

“should be increased to 4% of a campaign’s total spend or £500,000, whichever is higher”.

The Electoral Commission supports that, saying in 2020:

“The Scottish Parliament recently raised the maximum fine to £500,000 for Scottish referendums, and we believe this would be a reasonable benchmark for the maximum fine in relation to other parts of the UK’s political finance regulations”.

Additionally, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommends that political parties introduce caps on donations. It said:

“A cap of £10,000 should be placed on donations to a political party or regulated donee from any individual or organisation in any year.”

Similarly, Australia’s new electoral reform Act imposed caps on political donations and electoral expenditure, after recent elections where a multimillionaire donated 117 million Australian dollars to a political party.

Both bodies have also addressed the loopholes that allow possible donations from foreign parties. In particular, the Electoral Commission said last year that parties and campaigners should

“only accept donations from companies that have made enough money in the UK to fund…their donation.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. Conservative Friends of Russia, later renamed the Westminster Russia Forum, was founded in 2012 as a lobby group, posing as a think-tank, with absolutely no research published. It was founded at the Russian embassy in London by, among others, Vladimir Putin’s man in London, Sergey Nalobin, and Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the official Vote Leave campaign. The opening was attended by Boris Johnson and his wife, Carrie. To date, the public has never had access to the group’s activities or fundraising records, but, through this group, Putin’s regime had access to Conservative MPs and, according to one of Britain’s top spies, Kremlin money changed hands to influence the Brexit campaign.

We know that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), whom I will shortly email to notify of this mention, then leader of the UK Independence party, met the former Russian ambassador to London, Alexander Yakovenko, which the hon. Member initially denied. We know that Arron Banks, who donated millions to the leave campaign, met the Russian ambassador at least three times. We know that event organisers for the forum were largely London-based businesses but with an interest in Russia, and that, at its peak, events drew 170 attendees. We also know that the Conservative party took millions of pounds in donations from Russian oligarchs, and accepted such donations at least as recently as March 2022, after Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine and several years after its occupation of the Donbas and Crimean peninsula. The Westminster Russia Forum was disbanded shortly after the full invasion.

I consider it a matter of public interest that the full extent of the group’s activities and fundraising is published unredacted. The Liberal Democrats further call for the full, unredacted release of the Russia report to pierce the veil of secrecy of Russian influence in UK politics. We call for greater independence for the Intelligence and Security Committee to investigate Russian interference. The Conservative party declined to do so, and it is easy to imagine why. No longer should the PM have control over its membership, nor the authority to prevent publication of its reports, as Boris Johnson did with the Russia report. This is both a matter of national security and of public confidence in our politics.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I think I made myself clear: if you are going to mention a Member, you need to inform them before you mention them, not after, to give the Member the opportunity to turn up. I suggest that you inform the Member concerned as a matter of urgency, Mr Thomas, and apologise for not doing so beforehand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

We have already set out our plans in Parliament, and before the summer recess we will set out a strategy in relation to what we intend to do, including the legislation.

[Cameron Thomas]

I am delighted to hear that the Government will give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote. Do the Government intend to appropriately educate 16 and 17-year-olds about the right to vote?

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not think I should have allowed that first intervention, and I certainly should not have allowed the second. This is completely out of scope. Can we stick to the motion?

Proportional Representation: General Elections

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is an honour to sit on the fair elections all-party group, which is so well chaired by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). It is also an honour to take up this fight in this House with the Liberal Democrats for whom electoral reform has been a central tenet for decades.

In order to be here today, I had to resign my commission in the Royal Air Force where I had, for 23 years, defended our country and our interests overseas. However, I came to recognise that the most crucial way to defend our democracy was to do so here while backing proportional representation. Throughout the 2024 general election campaign, residents across Tewkesbury constituency frequently expressed their frustrations with an electoral system that was certain to condemn them to another five years of the same Conservative Member of Parliament whichever candidate they voted for. Tewkesbury had been represented by my predecessor for 27 years, and it was the view of many residents that Tewkesbury would never experience change because our broken electoral system would see this safe Conservative seat won by the Conservatives at an eighth consecutive election.

[Mr Holden]

Does not the hon. Gentleman’s presence in this House demonstrate that the system does work, and can deliver change in individual seats?

[Cameron Thomas]

No, for two reasons: the Liberal Democrats defied the odds, but there are many other smaller parties who are not adequately represented; and, as I will come to later, 58% of voters across the country did not get the MP they voted for, and that is true even in my constituency.

At the general election, Tewkesbury did see change, but only through the coming together of several unique circumstances, and despite first past the post. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), I was loaned the trust of Labour, Green and Conservative supporters. The general election may have been won by Labour and returned Liberal Democrats in record numbers, but let us not delude ourselves: the country voted tactically in record numbers for whoever would remove the catastrophic, nepotistic and morally bankrupt Conservative Government of 2019.

July’s election brought the briefest respite before frustrations rose once again. This is the most disproportionate House of Commons in British history, with Labour MPs in 66% of seats but with the lowest vote share—some 34%—of any winning party since 1945, and 58% of UK voters did not get the MP they voted for. I have previously described first past the post as “barely democratic”, and these figures vindicate me.

Public apathy towards politics is reflected in a steady decline in general election turnouts since the 1950s, from over 80% to less than 60% in 2024. If we want to arrest this decline, people must feel that their vote matters. The only way to ensure that the next election returns a representative Parliament is to transition to a proportional representation electoral system.

I have occasionally been challenged by those who say that proportional representation would increasingly return hung Parliaments, and would lead to bickering and chaos, rather than functioning government. This challenge falters when those people are presented with the fact that the previous Government and their 80-seat majority were elected through first past the post. Never in the field of British politics was so little achieved by so many. They scrambled from controversy to controversy, fighting among themselves while undermining our institutions and allowing our public services to crumble.

Today, our friends in the United States are living with the inevitable result of their two-party system. Far-right populists have seized the previously conservative Republican party, neutered the media and dismantled many institutional safeguards. We must recognise that we face the same threat, as our Conservative party—the most successful election-winning machine on earth—continues its lurch to the right and brings fringe opinions into the mainstream. It can happen here, and we must have a fair electoral system to mitigate that.

Liberal Democrats were elected in record numbers in 2024 on a pledge to deliver proportional representation. Labour Members want proportional representation, and the public increasingly want proportional representation, so I say to the Government: let us come together and do something historic. Let us put aside our individual and party political interests for the many. Let us do the right thing. Let us change our country for the better and deliver proportional representation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for securing a debate on this important topic.

I will endeavour not to repeat the remarks that have been made so eloquently by other Members, but I must start by also thanking the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for referring to the question that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister a few weeks ago: that is perhaps as close to fame as I will get in this Chamber. He was right to observe that the Deputy Prime Minister requires persuasion on this point, although hopefully the eloquent and articulate contributions of Members on both sides of the House will help to achieve that and gain her support for the APPG’s request for a national commission on electoral reform.

For me, there are three key arguments in favour of proportional representation. First, there is currently a clear gap between how people vote and the outcome—namely the Parliament that they get, and thus the Government—and they do not necessarily feel invested in the result. Let me address the point made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst). The 2024 general election was, probably for the first time, quite a proportional one for the Liberal Democrats in its ratio of vote share to the number of MPs we have. Indeed, if I may be perfectly candid—at the risk of incurring the wrath of my colleagues—in parts of the country where we have more proportional systems, we do not always perform quite so well, so we are certainly not campaigning for this change on the basis of self-interest. It has, in fact, been a very long-standing Liberal Democrat and, indeed, Liberal commitment, and I will say more about that shortly.

Secondly, the current system is not engaging people. As has already been mentioned, turnouts are declining. In 2024, a record low of 58% voted for the two largest parties, Labour and Conservative, while one in three said that they had voted tactically for someone other than their preferred candidate or party member. Indeed, when many voters were telling me on the doorstep that they would be voting tactically for me, I pledged to commit myself wholly, so that I would not have to ask them to do that again in the future, and that is partly why I am here today.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

My hon. Friend speaks of low turnout. I would be grateful for his opinion on whether a switch to an electoral system of proportional representation would be to the deficit of any particular parties in the House, and whether that is reflected in their turnout at this debate.

[Olly Glover]

There is certainly a clear variation in the representation of parties in the House for this debate. However, I agree with other colleagues who have said that while we do not necessarily know how people will vote if they are given a more proportional voting system, that is all the more reason for us to have one, so that people can feel they can vote with their hearts and not with their heads or, indeed, on the basis of a bar chart of whatever level of accuracy—[Interruption.] I should emphasise that mine are always spot on.

Thirdly, proportional representation would deliver less adversarial and more inclusive and discursive politics, which has the potential to improve policy, governance and tone—things which many people find frustrating in our current system. Parties would no longer be able to govern alone with as little as a third of the vote, and would have to do so with others. That is not a problem but a benefit of moving to a proportional system, because Governments would represent a majority of voters and would have to work together to represent the various platforms of the parties concerned.

The United Kingdom is highly anomalous in retaining first past the post. Very few other European countries do so. The hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) made a point about coalitions. I hope he is equally condemnatory of coalitions that Labour has had with other parties—for example, the coalition with the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament in the late 1990s, and, in Wales, the need to rely on minority support from either the Liberal Democrats or Plaid Cymru at various times.

As for those who scaremonger or are worried about the stability of countries with proportional representation, let us consider some examples from Europe. The hon. Member for Ilford South cited Belgium. Well, Belgium has a better GDP per capita than we do, and, if I may defend a nation that is so often mocked, the only real crime of the Belgians is preferring mayonnaise to ketchup on their chips, rather than their electoral system. Let us consider Norway, a highly prosperous nation that has made wise decisions such as creating a sovereign wealth fund from its precious oil resources, something from which this country would have benefited had we done the same. Switzerland, which also has proportional representation and regular coalition Governments, has the most punctual railway in Europe, and 100% of it is electrified compared to our derisory percentage somewhere in the 30s. Poland, a new democracy with 30 years of the fastest economic growth in Europe, also has proportional representation and coalition Governments. I put it to the House that we have very little to fear, and a great deal to gain.

As I said earlier, the Liberal Democrats and the Liberal party have called for fair votes for a century, and we continue to lead the campaign for fundamental reform of the electoral system. I will go where my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove did not, and say that it is wrong to suggest that preferential and proportional systems prevent individual accountability. The single transferable vote system is highly proportional and also, critically, retains voters’ ability to vote for individual candidates or not, if they choose. I agree with Conservative Members who have described that as an important principle. Reform is needed to address the need for fair representation in politics, and to improve the engagement of members of the public. Not to take action would further erode trust in politics and politicians, and would increase the risk of people voting for more extreme options next time out of frustration with the current system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the importance of the constituency connection. Hon. Members have made important contributions about alternative systems, outlining their merits and limitations. Each of those systems has its pros and cons, and that has been strongly and powerfully debated by many hon. Members today. I respect those strongly held views on electoral reform.

I know that colleagues will be disappointed, and I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news when there has been a general love-in during the debate across the parties, bar some exceptions, but at this time the Government have no plans to change the voting system for elections to the House of Commons. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am getting unlikely cheers; I am not used to being cheered by Conservative Members. As has been pointed out, the first-past-the-post system, while not perfect, provides for a direct relationship between Members of Parliament and their local constituency. A change would require a national conversation and referendum. The Government’s focus and No. 1 priority, having won the general election and secured a mandate, is to kick-start our economy, create the growth that is desperately needed, and improve living standards, our NHS and public services, to serve the people of our country.

Members have put their arguments across eloquently, and I respect those arguments. As others have pointed out, we had an opportunity to change the voting system in the 2011 referendum. Unfortunately for those who are proponents of such a change, that referendum was lost. The processes that underpin our elections are of paramount importance and changes cannot be made lightly; however, I stress that we are not averse to changes to, and innovation in, our democracy. We must continue to monitor all aspects of our electoral system, and ensure that it runs effectively and adapts to the modern challenges that we face as a democracy.

As we set out in our manifesto, we are seeking to make changes, including our commitment to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. We are continuing to assess the voter identification policy in order to address any inconsistencies. I am pleased that we were able to add veteran cards to the list of accepted documents last year; our veterans community will be able to use them to vote in polling stations this May. We are continuing to consider whether further improvements to policy can be made. I am conscious of the contributions of some hon. Members about the exclusion of legitimate voters. It is crucial that we ensure that people are not disenfranchised, while ensuring that there are not abuses of our system.

As I mentioned, the Liberal Democrat party, in coalition with the Conservative party, secured a referendum on AV in 2011, with considerable cross-party support from Labour Members. The proposal was rejected by 67.9% of votes. While I recognise the strength of feeling, I have made the Government’s position clear. Hon. Members asked whether the Government have any plans for a national commission on electoral reform. At present, we do—we do not. [Laughter.] That was not a Freudian slip. Some hon. Members asked about the London mayoral election and police and crime commissioners, following the changes in the Elections Act 2022. The Government currently have no plans to change the voting system for those polls. Like a number of policies, we will keep these matters under review.

A number of hon. Members suggested that the first-past-the-post system is contributing to a decrease in turnout, and pointed to the low turnout at the last election. It is on all of us to think carefully about the drivers of low turnout, which will be a range of factors. We all have a responsibility, as elected representatives, to work with our parties and communities to promote engagement, particularly among young people. We will work with colleagues to promote that democratic engagement, and ensure that young citizens are active citizens from an early age.

In order to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley enough time to wind up the debate, I will address just one other point. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) spoke about foreign interference in relation to funding. Foreign money has no place in UK politics, and it is vital that we protect our democracy from those who seek to interfere in UK elections through illegitimate political donations. That is why we committed in our manifesto to strengthening the rules around donations to political parties. We will work with Members across the House to ensure that we protect the integrity of our democracy.

[Cameron Thomas]

I invite the Minister to join the APPG for fair elections. She will see that there is a very clear correspondence between first past the post and the lack of engagement over time.

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank the hon. Member for his invitation, and welcome him to send us information. He knows that I cannot be a member of the all-party group, but I recognise and commend its work. Having been a member of and chaired many all-party groups during my 14 years in opposition, I recognise the importance of their work.

I thank hon. Members across the House for their important contributions to the debate, expressing strongly and deeply held views about a really important subject: the future and nature of our democracy. Whichever side of the argument we are on, it is vital that we always maintain our commitment to working together to protect our democracy, and that we work tirelessly to strengthen our democracy.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

“We had reached the bottom. It is not possible to sink lower than this; no human condition is more miserable than this, nor could it conceivably be so. Nothing belongs to us any more; they have taken away our clothes, our shoes, even our hair…They will even take away our name: and if we want to keep it, we will have to find ourselves the strength to do so, to manage somehow so that behind the name something of us, of us as we were, still remains.”

“He who loses all often easily loses himself.”

“My number is 174517; we have been baptized, we will carry the tattoo on our left arm until we die.”

Prisoner 174517 was liberated from Auschwitz concentration camp in January 1945, one of only 20 surviving members of the 650 who had arrived on his transport 11 months earlier. He was liberated strictly in a physical sense, but remained tortured by what he had experienced until his death in 1987. Before his death, Italian-Jewish liberal Primo Levi wrote extensively about his experiences. I recommend his collection of essays, “The Drowned and the Saved”, as one of the bleakest—yet most compelling—books I have ever read.

My past visits to Dachau and Sachsenhausen camps cast long shadows in my memory. We are fortunate that those relics of this horror continue to haunt their landscapes as foreboding reminders, but with the surviving voices fading year on year, we must guard against the path that led to Auschwitz. The Holocaust was unique in its industrialisation of genocide; nothing so terrible at such scale had happened before, nor since. We must not delude ourselves that it could not. As the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) said, “never again” must mean never again, and as the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) said, genocide does not occur overnight.

The black shoots of fascism were intolerance. It was then—as it is now—spread throughout a frustrated population, appealing to their sense of national identity and stimulating a feeling of injustice. In this environment, nationalism festers and larger groups are mobilised by divisive populism that validates them as superior, but oppressed by an imagined elite and undermined by minorities. In 1920s and 1930s Germany, the Jews were both the imagined elite and the minority. Today, we see various groups demonised, including Jews, Muslims and refugees—it depends on the source.

I recommend that Members read a compilation of Nazi propaganda, “The Jewish Enemy”, by Jeffrey Herf. Those who choose to read it will observe very clearly the parallels between such propaganda then and now. It is not a coincidence; it is learned and it is finessed, with the same stereotypes, the same accusations, the same divisive rhetoric, and the same risks of following that same terrible path. We must not be fooled by those who mislead us—who minimise, normalise and amplify the actions and the rhetoric of division and fascism. Those who do must be challenged, outed and comprehensively defeated. I associate myself with the Minister’s statement that remembrance without resolve is not enough. Let us honour the memory of those who suffered the Holocaust by standing vigil to stave off its repeat.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Cameron Thomas Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I pay tribute to my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for so boldly taking up this cause. His so-named sunshine Bill, which to my mind reflects his own disposition so brightly—as though it was his own glowing cranium—[Laughter.]

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I may only speculate what it was that attracted my hon. Friend to discuss a Bill regarding the promotion of shiny surfaces atop well-built structures—we can only guess. Does he agree that as this Bill moves forward, it is absolutely essential that the Government work across parties to build a consensus, including all those experts and those passionate in this subject, and to work together to ensure that it is successfully delivered for the betterment of all our residents?

[Cameron Thomas]

My hon. Friend has so eloquently put across the pragmatism that we can enjoy from Liberal Democrats in working across parties for the benefit of our constituents, and I thank him for that.

This undertaking by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham has been brought up consistently on doorsteps across the Tewkesbury constituency in recent years. Widely considered to be a blindingly obvious antidote to rising energy bills and the phasing out of fossil fuels, people have tended to ask, with an exasperated tone, why on earth new homes are not built with solar panels by mandate. As my hon. Friend has described, the public roundly support such measures, with one poll registering 70% support. Whether or not the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill goes to a vote today, I hope that the Government will recognise the alignment with their environmental pledges and that they will take the ball and run with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for energy security and net zero, I am delighted to support the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson): the sunshine Bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am beaming.

South Cambridgeshire is one of the fastest growing constituencies in the country in terms of house building and lab space. People constantly say to me, “Why are all of these new homes without solar panels on their roofs?” or “Why do these new homes only have one or two solar panels or only on part of the roofs?” Sadly, in 2025, developers are still required only to meet—not exceed—the Merton rule’s inadequate 10% energy improvement standard. That is why Liberal Democrat councillors in my constituency have been pushing hard to change this at the local level. In fact, in the five years since they took control of the council, South Cambridgeshire has rapidly become the district with the highest number of solar panels fitted and with the fastest increase in planning applications that include solar panels.

It is the lack of ambition and political will at the national level that has held back the revolution in solar rooftops. That is why we are still building homes that are cold and damp and that have skyrocketing energy bills. The former Conservative Government disgracefully scrapped the zero carbon homes policy, and dithered and delayed on the future homes standard.

[Cameron Thomas]

Earlier, the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) lamented—in good faith—the drawdown of environmental pledges in 2016. Of course, that was not the coalition Government; what we saw and what we got is what happens when the Liberal Democrats are no longer there to hold people to account.

[Pippa Heylings]

It will not surprise anyone to hear that I agree wholeheartedly. The record has been corrected. It is vital that the Bill helps to repair that damage, and we look forward to the Minister’s commitment to bringing about these changes.

As has been mentioned, the lack of ambition on the solar rooftop revolution has contributed to the barrier to public acceptance of larger scale solar farms. We are hearing people say, “Why not put panels on the rooftops of homes, industrial sites and commercial warehouses first?” We need a joined-up plan; we need the Government urgently to bring forward the much-promised land use framework and the National Energy System Operator’s strategic spatial energy plan, which will show how much solar farm energy is still needed and where it would be best placed. In that way, we can meet all our needs.

The Bill is our chance to get this right. It is our chance for a cleaner, greener and more secure future that addresses the triple cost of living, housing and climate crises and takes people with us. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham.