Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Murphy]

Unfortunately, I have another quote, which is from yesterday. With regard to the Opposition’s amendments, can the shadow Minister point to a single measure that would increase the number of homes? All the changes directed at the Bill seem to be designed to impede development. I also want to ask him what he meant yesterday in his opening remarks, when he said,

“The last Government built the largest number of houses in history.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 693.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It might be helpful if I emphasised that we are not here to relitigate yesterday’s debate; we are here to debate the amendments that have been tabled today. I am sure the hon. Member will restrict his comments to that.

[Paul Holmes]

I was expecting so much from the hon. Gentleman, given how he intervened on me consistently in Committee with an encyclopaedic knowledge of my previous quotes. I did not know that he took such an interest in my career up until this point. I know, as a county neighbour, that he is a dedicated and assiduous Member of Parliament who genuinely stands up for his constituents. I will say to him that my comments yesterday were absolutely accurate. Over 1 million homes were approved, and many more first-time buyers were given the chance of owning a home, under the last Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Taylor]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the entertainment he provided throughout the Bill Committee’s proceedings, and for his generosity in the Tea Room. Talking about reflection, however, would he agree that when one looks in the mirror, one does not always like what one sees? The Minister has reflected on many of the proposals that were brought forward in Committee and he has clearly decided that those things would be better left in the national planning policy framework, as opposed to being in this legislation. Would the hon. Gentleman also agree that we do not have more young people buying and owning their own homes now than we did in 2010, and that the reason for that is—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady will have the opportunity to contribute later. Interventions really do need to be shorter than this.

[Paul Holmes]

I know that many of my hon. Friends were concerned to hear about my generosity in the Tea Room. It was simply that we were very tired and I bought an espresso for the Minister, just once. I did offer one to the Lib Dem spokesman, but I have not delivered on that promise—

[Paul Holmes]

I expect to see a “Focus” leaflet—or whatever the Lib Dems put out in Hamble Valley—saying that is a Tory broken promise, but when did we ever take notice of the accuracy of Lib Dem literature? But I will buy him one, I promise. With regard to looking in the mirror and not liking what we see, I wake up daily basis and consider how much weight I have gained in this House over the past four years.

What I will say to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) is that in Committee the Minister consistently said that he would reflect, so she is right; she has accepted the premise of my argument on this. However, not once in this legislation has the Minister made any attempt to take into account our serious concerns. He has not changed this piece of legislation once. This is a parliamentary democracy and there is not a monopoly on brilliant ideas, despite the fact that the Minister likes to think he has one.

If the Minister wanted to make the Bill better, he could look openly at some of our amendments and accept them. I know that when he stands up to make his winding-up remarks, he will not accept them and that this legislation will therefore not be able to be supported by all parties in this House. If he had made some changes that could have delivered to the people of this country, we would have been able to support it. This is a shame, because some of his genuine and well-intentioned attempts to change the housing market in this country will now not be achievable because of the Labour Government’s intransigence.

As I have said, the Minister could have made some decent changes to the Bill. We and the Green party and the Lib Dems had serious concerns on environmental standards—[Interruption.] I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary for a very long time, and I thought that PPSs were supposed to sit and ferry notes for their Minister, and not to contribute to the debate. I am having real difficulty with this consistent heckling from the two PPSs. They are aspiring to high office and I really do not think they should be carrying on in this way; I never did—then again, I was never a Minister, so there we go. I am a big fan of them both, of course.

I shall finish on this point. The Greens, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party had a real disagreement on environment standards, and it is still our contention that environment standards will not be improved under this legislation. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) tabled a number of amendments because experts had clearly stated their concern that environmental standards would be reduced under this legislation. The Minister did not make any concessions. On the centralisation and erosion of local powers for planning committees, we tabled a number of sensible amendments—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The shadow Minister will know that we are debating the amendments that have been selected today, on development corporations and compulsory purchase. Perhaps his final minute could be restricted to those subjects.

[Paul Holmes]

I heed your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Development corporations are an over-centralisation of the measures that the Minister is proposing, and planning committees will lose some of their powers to them. The Minister has not moved once on that. The Bill will do more harm than good to the power of local councils and our constituents, and it will diminish environmental standards.

We stand against the legislation because of the Government’s intransigence. We will continue to stand up for environmental standards and for local authorities; it is a shame that the Minister has not done so. That is why we will not support the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Smith]

All I can say is simply that I have been working with constituents who have been affected by the compulsory purchase orders, and I will continue to do so. The hon. Gentleman and I may disagree about whether that project should ever have gone ahead under the previous Government.

On rural development, where are the future rangers, conservationists and gamekeepers? Where is the next generation of farm hands to deliver environmental land management schemes?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I will keep reiterating the point: we are not going to relitigate yesterday’s debate, and we should be discussing the amendments that have been tabled on compulsory purchase orders, development corporations and extraterritorial environmental concerns. The hon. Gentleman might like to think of a way to weave those topics into his remarks, rather than rehashing either yesterday’s debate or a Second Reading speech.

[David Smith]

I am simply trying to make the point that many of the amendments proposed seem to set up a false dichotomy between the ability to develop our country, including with housing, and to protect the natural environment.

I will give one example of that. Norham parish council in my constituency is trying to open up a plot of land for a small development, because it sees the value of young families moving into the village. That development would go some way towards securing the future of the first school and the community at large. It is not helpful for the parish council to be caught up in red tape, which diminishes the possibility of that development happening. A recent local report said that nearly one in two businesses in rural Northumberland cited a shortage of affordable local housing for staff as a key barrier to business.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Smith]

Absolutely. There need not be this false dichotomy between what development corporations can do and the protection of our natural environment.

Rural Great Britain is crying out for “little and often” development. We can get this right, and the Bill is trying to deliver that by cutting through labyrinthine planning rules so that we can have more homes and more infrastructure. If there is no one left in rural communities, the natural world will be without the stewards and protectors that it requires.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Gideon Amos]

I reiterate my thanks to all members of the Bill Committee and to the Clerks and officials, who I know had plenty to be getting on with during our sittings.

I am grateful for the support of my colleagues for the amendments I have tabled. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 22 on active travel, and new clause 114 on open spaces in new towns and other development corporation developments, and our amendments 88 and 89 on recreational land, form our key proposals for this part of the Bill. All of them urge the Government to go further when it comes to releasing land value for infrastructure that meets community and environmental needs.

On part 5 of the Bill generally, our compulsory purchase proposals included that where major permissions of over 100 homes are not built out, greater powers to acquire that land for housing would be given to councils in a new “use it or lose it” planning permission. I was delighted to hear in the news that the Government are taking up that idea—although I gained a slightly different impression in Committee—even if the promise of more conditionally approved compulsory purchase orders will not give councils the same strong “use it or lose it” power that our amendment would have.

Wary of your strictures to stay on topic, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will briefly allow me to add my welcome to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) of the fact that, following the introduction of his private Member’s Bill, the Government, to their credit, have agreed that all new homes will be fitted with solar panels as standard—his sunshine Bill really is “winning here”—bringing zero emissions a step closer, after all the hard work of Liberal Democrat and Labour Ministers on zero-carbon homes, before the Conservatives cancelled the programme in 2015.

I turn to our amendments on compulsory purchase and development corporations. Our community-led approach is about the essential infrastructure people want to see being put in place ahead of the building of new homes. Clause 104 could support that by helping the building of council and social homes. It would reward landowners with a fair value, rather than inflated prices from an imaginary planning permission no one has ever applied for, as set out in section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Our manifesto supports that for the delivery of council houses, and we are supportive of steps that ensure that landowners are awarded fair compensation, rather than inflated prices, for specific types of development scheme.

However, at my meeting with farmers in North Curry on Friday, there was concern about the idea—possibly as a result of rumours—that under the clause, farmers would lose land to Natural England so that it could carry out its environmental delivery plans, and in return would get only a reduced payment. I am not convinced that is what the clause does, but family farms have had a tough time recently. They provide food for our tables, and they have been hit hard by risky trade deals with Australia and New Zealand under the last Government, followed by a new inheritance tax on small family farms, the underspend of the agricultural budget, and the closing of the sustainable farming initiative.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nesil Caliskan]

I was pleased to be a member of the Public Bill Committee, and I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill. I will also speak to clauses 4 and 46, and to new clause 55 and amendment 1, which I worry will further frustrate the planning process—the opposite of what the Bill tries to achieve. As the Member of Parliament for Barking, I see and hear at first hand the impact of the housing crisis, as others do in their constituencies. Every week, I meet constituents who share with me their personal and desperate stories about overcrowding, years spent in temporary accommodation, poor-quality housing and sky-high rents.

Let me say this about hope. Hope is demonstrated through the actions of a Government who are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes and who will tackle the housing crisis—a challenge that has been absolutely ignored for decade after decade. Supply is one of the fundamental reasons why communities like mine are facing a housing crisis. Our planning system is hindering supply in a housing market that is already experiencing huge demand. It is a planning system that too often blocks or delays the necessary infrastructure that would support new homes being built, particularly as overall business cases for house building are intrinsically linked to infrastructure delivery.

On Second Reading, I spoke about the pre-application consultation requirements for NSIP. Like others, I have previously highlighted the lower Thames crossing, so I will not repeat that example, but it is really important that Members keep in mind the amount of money that is wasted through such processes. That is why I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister considered representations made by me and others in respect of reforming the pre-application procedure specifically. I welcome clause 4—alongside Government amendments 58, 60 and 67, and new clauses 44 and 45—which removes the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for NSIP applications. The changes will mean that delays are reduced and essential infrastructure is consented to faster. That will save up to 12 months from the pre-application stage and millions, if not billions, of pounds. It could make the difference between whether an infrastructure proposal is viable or not, and between whether homes are built in an area or not.

To be clear, that does not mean that applicants will avoid a duty to consult. As the Minister outlined in his statement to the House on 23 April, local communities and local authorities will still be able to object to applications, provide evidence of any adverse impacts, and have their say as part of the post-submission NSIP process. As a vice president of the Local Government Association and a former council leader, I understand all too well how important it is that local people have a voice, but I also understand that a national housing crisis needs a national solution, and this Bill is an important step in trying to achieve that.

At the heart of the debate is a recognition that the housing crisis cannot be solved by individual local politicians seeking to gain political favour by campaigning against new homes in their area. I know how difficult it is for local authorities to develop and agree local plans, but we cannot have a situation in which even though 90% of planning decisions are currently made by planning officers, key projects that would see infrastructure delivered in this country are held up, as are the thousands, if not millions, of homes that we need to deliver. I absolutely support this important Bill, and I look forward—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I rise to speak to a number of the amendments before us. I spent a lot of time with colleagues on the Public Bill Committee, and some of the amendments are very good and some are not so good. I will try to rattle through as many as I can.

I support new clause 43, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). Our villages should have the same protection as our towns. Villages have a unique character across all our constituencies, and I am privileged to represent six of them—Brickendon, Hertford Heath, Great Amwell, Stanstead Abbotts, St Margarets and Goffs Oak. I have seen a local council that has built probably too much development in a village, and I have seen that change the fundamental character of Goffs Oak. We should be trying to protect that character, because when people move to villages, they do so for the rural way of life and their unique character and identity. We should stop urban sprawl, and we should stop villages linking together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I am sorry, I will not give way because there are so many colleagues who still want to speak and we are short of time.

Green MPs gave the Bill a chance on Second Reading, because a secure home is out of reach for too many people. Rents are spiralling, over 165,000 children are living in temporary accommodation and over 1 million people are stuck on housing waiting lists. It is scandalous that just 3% of the housing built in the last decade was for social rent, and there is now a wait of more than 100 years for a family-sized social home. I served on the Bill Committee for the past six-plus weeks and I worked hard to persuade the Government to fix the serious flaws in the Bill, but unfortunately those calls have so far been ignored.

I am profoundly concerned that, in the glaring absence of a social rent housing target, this Government are writing a charter for developers’ greed. That is why Green party MPs have tabled new clause 78, to push for safe, warm homes in the communities we love at a truly affordable price. It would require housing plans to set targets for building zero-carbon social rent housing based on local needs, because without an explicit social housing commitment, big developers will be able to line their pockets even further while ordinary people are still locked out of affording a decent home.

I am hugely concerned, as are so many people and the nature organisations that we all trust. By the way, the Bill rolls back nature protections. That is why I have proposed amendments 24 to 63, which would delete part 3 of the Bill entirely, because the Government repeatedly blocked cross-party efforts in Committee to amend part 3 to reduce its harmful impact on nature.

Part 3 is harmful for three key reasons. First, it weakens and undermines the requirement for nature protection to be achieved to a high level of scientific certainty. Secondly, it creates a “pay to pollute” system, allowing developers to skip straight to offsetting, trashing the long-established principle of the mitigation hierarchy—that is, that development should first seek to avoid harm. Thirdly, it upends the requirement for compensation to be delivered up front and creates wiggle room for developers to avoid paying the true cost of the harm they do.

The Government know the nature crisis in our country is severe, yet they repeatedly voted in Committee to reject a raft of constructive amendments to improve part 3 and ensure a win-win for housing and nature. I remind the House that the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto pointed out that

“the Conservatives have left Britain one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world,”

but part 3 will make that terrible situation worse. It is not just the nature organisations that tell us that; it is the independent expert advice of the Office for Environmental Protection, which says that the Bill constitutes a “regression” in environmental law, directly contradicting the assertion of the Secretary of State.

If Ministers insist on bulldozing ahead on part 3, I urge them at the very least to accept my new clause 26. With cross-party support and wide backing, it seeks to match the current degree of certainty for environmental protection. I also strongly support amendment 69, in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would ensure that improvements are delivered before the damage they are compensating for.

We can and must both protect nature and build warm, affordable, zero-carbon social rent homes. The Government said it is what they want. Sadly, it is not what the Bill delivers. Without urgent change—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I call Alex Brewer.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

The planning system certainly needs change, but local people know their area, which is why local planning authorities must retain their current powers, as outlined in amendment 1. As we have heard, each area is different. In my constituency we are fortunate to have the Loddon and Whitewater chalk stream rivers nurturing ecosystems and sustaining biodiversity.

The Labour manifesto promised

“more high-quality, well-designed, and sustainable homes… creating places that increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery.

Chalk streams in this country are at risk. A third are over-abstracted, a third failed their phosphorus targets, and a third failed their fish and plant assessments. Only 11 have any form of protection. We cannot rely on the local nature recovery strategy or the national planning policy framework to protect those ecosystems. These rivers need bespoke national protection written into primary legislation in this House, as outlined in amendment 16. We cannot make reparation after the fact. Once chalk aquifers are destroyed, they cannot be replaced. When we say irreplaceable, we mean it.

The Government also say they want to make the UK a clean energy superpower. My colleagues and I are thrilled that the Liberal Democrats’ call for solar panels on new homes is finally being implemented. Solar power is a key way to harness the power of the natural environment as we develop infrastructure for our communities. Supporting new clause 7 and putting solar panels on all new car parks would be the natural next step in the right direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that it is hoped that new clause 82 has been selected to be called for a separate decision of the House. My concern is that the House will be denied the ability to have that separate decision.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that the Member who put forward the amendment has the right to withdraw it and has indicated that they will do so. It is at the Chair’s discretion whether a separate decision is called for, and in this case it is my understanding that the amendment is not going to be moved.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that the Member should shout and make it clear on the Floor of the House that he does not wish the amendment to be put to the vote, so that Members can voice their opinion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Member for his further point of order. If I do not call the Member to move his amendment, and it is not my intention to do so, there will be no separate decision.

[Paul Holmes]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I am entitled to raise a point of order.

I appreciate your ruling on this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I ask for clarification because it is my understanding that if we have been informed that an amendment is for separate decision, the Chair asks the Member whose amendment it is whether they want to withdraw it, with the leave of the House, and I have never seen that question not being put on the Floor of the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. It is simply not the case that it has to be withdrawn on the Floor of the House; this has happened on numerous occasions.

I call the Minister.

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

It is a pleasure to rise to respond to what has been a very comprehensive debate. [Interruption.] A significant number of amendments have been spoken to in the course of the debate—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) should not be shouting at the Clerks in that way. I have made my point.

I call the Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook]

A significant number of amendments have been spoken to in the course of the debate and the House will appreciate that I do not have the time to address the vast majority of them. I will therefore focus on addressing as many of the key amendments and points of contention as I can. I have been extremely generous in giving way in opening the debate, but I hope that hon. Members will now appreciate that to get through as many points as possible I will not be taking further interventions.

The debate this evening has evidenced support from across the House for nature and for ensuring we get the nature restoration fund right. I spoke in detail about the Government’s position in opening the debate. As I repeatedly made clear in the Bill Committee and will reiterate this evening, we are listening to the concerns raised by hon. Members and stakeholders. We are clear that this is the right model to take us forward.

We are of course open to ways to improve the legislation, however, and on that basis, and to emphasise the point I made earlier in the debate, we are giving serious consideration to ways in which we might instil further confidence that part 3 will deliver the outcomes we believe it will, such as providing greater confidence in the rigour of the overall improvement test, as raised by the OEP and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos).

We are also giving due consideration to how we can provide for greater certainty in the timescale for delivering conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), as well as seeking to clarify the evidential basis and environmental rationale for strategic conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). The status quo is not working. The case for moving to a more strategic approach is compelling and I look forward to further consideration of part 3 in the other place.

Turning to the important issue of children’s play areas and playing fields, I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling new clause 16 and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for tabling new clauses 82. I particularly commend my hon. Friend on all that he is doing to make the case for high-quality, accessible and inclusive areas for play. The Government agree that access to play space is vital, which is why strong protections are already in place.

The national planning policy framework is clear that local planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities, and opportunities for new provision, including places for children’s play. In December, we strengthened the strong protections already in place in the NPPF by adding explicit reference to safeguarding “formal play spaces”. That means that those facilities can be lost only where they are no longer needed, or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative

Given the existing policy expectations, safeguards and sources of support, we do not believe that it is necessary to add the sort of legislative requirements the amendments would entail. However, I recognise the importance of what the amendments seek to achieve, and the provision of play space is one of the areas we are considering as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision making, on which we will consult this year. I commit to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East to writing to my counterparts at the Department for Education and at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we are acting across Government to increase spaces for play. I will work with him to broker the necessary ministerial meetings that he seeks. With those assurances, I hope that he and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Turning to swift bricks, which were mentioned several times during the debate, we recognise that they are a vital means of arresting the long-term decline of the breeding swift population. While swift brick coverage is increasing, with nearly 30 house builders having made a voluntary commitment to install one for every new home built, the Government want to do more to drive up swift brick installation. However, there is a principled difference of opinion as to the best way to achieve that objective. Although I understand why many are attracted to the argument that the only way to make a significant difference to swift numbers and other red-listed species is to mandate the incorporation of swift bricks into all new-build properties, through building regulations or free-standing legislation, I take a different view.

In all sincerity, I do not believe that amending building regulations is the most appropriate way to secure the outcome that the House as a whole seeks. As building regulations are mandatory, going down that route would compel developers to install swift bricks in all new buildings, irrespective of what they are or where they are located.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could fill a gap in my ignorance —I am sure you can. Earlier today, Mr Speaker announced that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), whom I will call my hon. Friend because he is my county neighbour, would not move new clause 82, to which I am a signatory. Mr Speaker had said that the new clause would be subject to a separate decision, and anybody would interpret that to mean that there would be a vote on it. My understanding, from previous experience, is that when the principal signatory to an amendment decides not to move it, any hon. or right hon. Member who is a co-signatory to it is at liberty to move it, to test the will of the House. It may well be that the Standing Orders have changed, and that I am negligent of that knowledge. If that is the case, I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what has changed?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Had he been in the Chamber earlier, he would have heard several earlier points of order on this question. He would also have heard me say that a decision on the new clause would be at the discretion of the Chair, and Mr Speaker indicated earlier that there would be a separate decision. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), who tabled new clause 82, indicated that he wished to withdraw it. A decision on it is at the discretion of the Chair. If the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) wishes to question that further, he is at liberty to do so.

[Paul Holmes]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Labour Members may chunter, but I have a right to raise a point of order on process in this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask for your guidance? I am a relatively new Member, but it is my—[Interruption.] I want to raise a point of order, and it is not up to them to say I cannot.

New clause 82 has been signed by over 60 Members of this House. Through the usual channels, I was told, as shadow Minister, as were others, that the Speaker’s Office had selected the new clause for a separate decision. Over 60 Members have signed the new clause, and my understanding of precedent in this House is that any Member who has signed it can move it. It is a new and dangerous precedent if Members can indicate before the debate that they wish to withdraw a new clause, and other Members who have signed it are not given the choice to move it. May I seek your clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker? It seems highly unusual that over 60 Members have signed the new clause but none of them can move it, especially when we were given an indication that it would be subject to a separate decision on the Floor of the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his further point of order on this subject. I have provided the clarity for which he asks. The decision is at the discretion of the Chair.

New Clause 43

Protection of villages

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages.

(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—

(a) preventing villages from merging into one another,

(b) preventing villages merging into towns, and

(c) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages.”—(Paul Holmes.)

This new clause would provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the NPPF.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

Pubs and Community Funding

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul]

The hon. Member makes me feel slightly less guilty for reeling off all the pubs in my constituency; now I am not alone in advertising all those amazing pubs. I absolutely encourage his constituents to vote in that competition, and to let him know what they love about their pubs.

I will go back to the winners, as I know Members want to know who they are. Lastly, and rather appropriately given the subject matter of the debate—I promise this is not a stitch-up; this is actually what the numbers said— I am pleased to say that the Garibaldi has won best overall pub and best community pub. I am sure from my speech that Members will understand why it is so special, and why so many residents have voted for it, so I will not wax lyrical any further, but I hope the Minister will support me, the volunteers and local residents in trying to save this gem for future generations. Again, I reiterate my invitation: he should pay a visit when he gets a break in his busy schedule. I would love to take him on a pub crawl.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Perhaps the best invitation he will get all week!

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you will be able to give us a flavour of the pubs in Romsey and Southampton North. We feel sure that that would add to the debate this evening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order, and it would of course be remiss of me not to mention the Grey Hound in Broughton, which was the Romsey and Southampton North pub of the year 2025.

[Alex Norris]

That’s the spirit, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Before I finish, colleagues have asked about support to reduce overheads, and it is worth noting that nearly half of pubs have a rateable value of under £15,000, which takes them out of rates entirely. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) asked for a confirmation of rates, but I am afraid I cannot run ahead of the Chancellor, who will set the rates for 2026-27 at the forthcoming Budget in the autumn. For this year, there is a 40% relief, which I know is very welcome indeed.

To conclude, we have seen the strength of feeling from colleagues this evening, and also had a wonderful insight into the variety of ways in which pubs touch our communities. There is a common theme, which is the huge social value in people from a community, who know their community, coming together to tackle challenges and add to that community. We should want as much of that as we can foster, and the Government are keen to support that.

Question put and agreed to.

St George’s Day and English Affairs

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a very important intervention. There is so much more that brings us together, and it is incumbent on all Members of this House to make that case, and to focus on bringing people together, rather than pushing us further apart.

England’s greatest asset is its people. That is nowhere clearer to me than in Newcastle-under-Lyme, the northern corner of the ancient county of Staffordshire that is my home and my constituency. Our people are hardworking, and many are God-fearing, decent folk who do not walk by on the other side, but who turn up to be counted. We see that in our national health service, in our schools, on our railways, in our veterans’ centres and in communities up and down England. We saw it during the pandemic and in the struggle alongside the people of Ukraine against Putin’s tyranny. We see it every single day.

One of England’s greatest features is our countryside, and my home of Newcastle-under-Lyme has plenty of it. Our farmers, who produce food of the greatest quality to the highest standards, deserve real and meaningful support. They feed us, work hard and lead the world when it comes to tending to and caring for our land, and I urge Ministers in this Government to keep that in mind. Where the previous Government failed, we must listen, learn and turn up to be counted.

The contribution of the English language to western literacy is simply immeasurable. England was home to the greatest writer of all time, William Shakespeare, and the works of Shakespeare alone continue to put England head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to influence on global literature. Alongside him, England can claim T. S. Eliot, the Brontë sisters, George Orwell, Jane Austen and many more.

English music is some of the most popular and influential music of all time. Still today, the Beatles— I see the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey)—are considered by many to be the greatest band of all time, but that is a debate for another day. Alongside the Beatles, we have the Stones, David Bowie, Amy Winehouse, Queen, Adele, Elton John, Kate Bush, the excellent Joan Armatrading, Cilla Black, Oasis, the Clash, Pink Floyd and, of course, Robbie Williams—a man of and from north Staffordshire, whose mother lives in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme.

England has made some of the most enduring and significant contributions to music of any nation on our planet, and that is without mentioning the many other cultural endeavours mastered by the English. English film remains dominant globally. A new James Bond film is still one of the premier cinematic events, and no tariff will get in the way of that. Christopher Nolan, an Englishman, is arguably one of the most exciting and skilled film directors working today. We give thanks for actors like the late Dame Maggie Smith and the late and wonderful Glenda Jackson, formerly of this parish, and to those still going strong like Dame Joanna Lumley and Dame Judi Dench, who I had the pleasure of celebrating my birthday with last year—[Interruption.] A story for another day, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As the birthplace of Reginald Mitchell, the designer of the iconic Spitfire plane; home to a university; birthplace of a Prime Minister—albeit that he moved to Australia to serve in that high office—and the home of the founder of the modern circus, Philip Astley; the ancient and loyal borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme has left its mark on English history and culture. If that is not enough, we also have the popular Stoke City clown icon Nello Baldwin—a constituent of mine. Speaking of Stoke City, I could not make this speech without mentioning England as the home of the beautiful game. With the local football landscape back home in mind, I of course also pay tribute to Port Vale.

Today it is important to call for action to ensure that the truths of England’s story and potential are preserved. We must work to ensure that people across England, and indeed all across the United Kingdom, continue to feel pride in our flag and our communities, and feel hope for the future and respect for our past. Any talk about love for flag and country must be matched by an investment in the people who make them what they are —investment in our national health service, our education and employment support services, our arts and culture, and our villages, towns and cities.

I do not want my speech to focus solely on the past, when there are so many exciting things to say about England’s future, but it would be remiss of me not to touch on some parts of our history that fill me with a particular sense of reverence. Our democracy is one of the oldest in the world. An English Parliament has existed in some form since the 13th century, and monumental events, such as the signing of the Magna Carta, have solidified England’s position in history as a forebearer of individual rights and freedom of political expression. Those rights were fought for and hard won across centuries by brave women and men who had the vision to see a better country and a better world for all of us.

There are many things I could say about England’s relationship to the wider world, but one of the enduring strengths of our country that I always come back to is the courage, tenacity and character of ordinary English people right across history. England is home to people from all over the world, and we are much better for it. Of course, we cannot forget that England, too, left its mark on all corners of the globe.

For some—misguidedly, in my view—talking England up is alien to them. To speak of the exciting future ahead of us in the vibrant country that we have become is difficult for some to do. All they seem able to contribute to our national conversation is a view of England as a nation in decline—a nation once great, now not. I have spent much of my several minutes speaking outlining the incredible successes and achievements of England’s past, but for those people, there is nothing more to England than its past. To them I say, “You don’t know England.” We have faced our fair share of adversity, and today of all days reminds us of that, but as Disraeli said:

“The English nation is never so great as in adversity.”

I am never so proud to be English as in those moments. It is when times are toughest that I am blown away by the courage, tenacity and generosity of the good people of this country.

The English have always found a way to get on, persevere, and, as Churchill put it, “keep buggering on”, whether after the destruction of two world wars or through the heartbreak of a disappointing Euros final. We will continue to do so. I will continue to look back at our past with the respect and reverence that it deserves, and look forward to our future with hope and optimism, because doing so is part of what makes us English, and things can only get better.

I leave my final words to the last verse of one of my, and my late grandfather’s, favourite hymns. He moved to this country in the late 1940s to help ensure that we beat fascism and defended democracy. I shall resist the temptation to sing the verse to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Disappointing? Not for some.

“I will not cease from Mental Fight,

Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand:

Till we have built Jerusalem,

In England’s green and pleasant Land.”

We have much to do, in this House and in communities right across the country, so let us get on with. Happy St George’s day to one and all!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

Havering Borough and Essex Devolution

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point about the flying of historic county flags. Middlesex Heritage, an organisation established by Russell Grant which has promoted the importance of the heritage of the ancient county of Middlesex, actually purchased two Middlesex flags. They gave them to the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and one of them was proudly flown from No. 10 Downing Street, London being part of the county of Middlesex. That tradition continued under the next Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman means the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me say this to my hon. Friend. I do hope that the current Prime Minister will uphold that proud tradition and, later this month, fly the Middlesex flag. I think it would please a lot of people in the historic county were he to do so.

The historic counties remain today, and are proudly celebrated by local people throughout those counties and throughout England. Mr Speaker is demonstrating that by flying the historic county flags here in the House of Commons on all the historic county days. What happened six decades ago was only a change in local government structures, but sadly ceremonial arrangements were also changed, which was completely unnecessary and has added to the confusion, removing Romford from our rightful place under the Lord Lieutenancy of Essex. It seems that changes like this happen every few decades when new Governments take office, and we are seeing that again today. I say to the Minister, “Let us do this properly and get things right.”

In Havering, we have much in common with Brentwood, our neighbouring town, but not really with Brentford in west London. Epping is on our doorstep, but Ealing is a long way from our neck of the woods. We visit Southend but never go to Southall. What works for Hampstead is not always what is required in Havering, and it is unlikely that my constituents could tell you where Colliers Wood is, but Collier Row is a cherished part of Romford, Essex, and has many rural parts that feel like one is deep in the English countryside.

I am not suggesting that the people of Havering do not value the important connections that we enjoy with the City of London and what is known as the east end of London, because we do. So many families, including mine, have moved from the east side of London to Essex over the past century, and our links to London are vital to us for business, work, travel, tourism and, of course, family connections—not to mention going to the theatre in the west end. Coming from a borough that orbits the capital, I can tell the Minister that the people of Havering are not opposed to co-operating with boroughs, towns and communities to the east when it makes sense to do so, but Greater London, as a region with an overarching Mayor, is too big and too remote to meet the needs of a borough such as Havering, which considers itself to be part of Essex.

It is also very costly for us to be part of Greater London, as we pay tens of millions of pounds per year to the Greater London Authority. That equates to a vast sum for the GLA precept per household—an exorbitant amount of money that my constituents simply cannot afford. London-wide policies are imposed on us, such as planning decisions and, of course, the ultra low emission zone, but we do not get the services that we are meant to receive. They are completely inadequate, with policing being the worst example.

Birmingham City Council

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on the statutory intervention at Birmingham city council and on the issues affecting the waste service.

This Government were elected on a manifesto that pledged to fix the foundations of local government. The public rightly expect and deserve well-functioning local councils that provide the essential statutory services that residents rely on. Local councils must be fit, legal and decent. Commissioners have been working with Birmingham city council for the past 18 months to support it in its recovery, and today I am publishing their latest report into the progress on that journey. The report lands at a point of acute difficulty for residents in Birmingham, as the ongoing dispute in the waste service is resulting in rubbish piling up in the streets. I will therefore take this opportunity to update the House on the status of that dispute.

To address the report first, the council has taken important initial steps forward on its improvement journey, and is working constructively with commissioners. It has made significant progress on addressing historical equal pay issues and fixing the foundations of governance. The leader, Councillor Cotton, and his group are taking the difficult decisions to get the council back on track, and the commissioners have recognised his calm leadership through stormy waters. The new managing director, Joanne Roney CBE, has brought a steady hand, and is beginning to make permanent senior appointments that will contribute to much-needed stabilisation. The council has also achieved a breakthrough by reaching an agreement to settle the outstanding claims and end the ongoing equal pay saga. It is also set to re-implement a strategy for the Oracle IT system.

Those improvements are encouraging, but challenges remain. In the short term, commissioner oversight and close supervision will still be required to maintain momentum. There is a difficult road ahead on key aspects of the best value regime—on governance and culture, financial management and service delivery—because substantial risks threaten the journey to reform and recovery. As Members will know, there is a live industrial action in waste services, involving one of the three recognised trade unions in that area. The Government will support the leader and his team in Birmingham, directly and through the commissioners, to move the council on from these historical issues. That support includes an increase in core spending power for 2025-26 of up to 9.8%, or £131 million. That figure includes £39.3 million through the new one-off recovery grant, which illustrates this Government’s commitment to correcting the unfairness in the funding system. We have also put in place an in-principle agreement for exceptional financial support totalling £1.24 billion.

Turning to the waste dispute, councils deliver over 800 vital services that make a huge difference to millions of people across the country. However, it is accepted that for many, the most visible and universal service is the collection and disposal of household waste. Members across the House will know that the current industrial action in the city is causing misery and disruption to local people, and I know that hon. Members whose constituents are affected will be acutely aware of that disruption.

From the outset, I want to be clear that the statutory intervention is led by commissioners, and Ministers cannot legally intervene in this industrial action. However, I have been in regular contact with the leadership of the council throughout this, as they have sought to find a resolution in which the reforms needed to build a sustainable council are still undertaken, and the waste collection service returns to functioning normally, in the way that Members would expect. This situation is causing public health risks to the city’s most vulnerable and deprived residents. As a result, Birmingham has today declared a major incident, so that it can use the mechanisms that it needs to better manage the impact on local residents. I support that decision, and I will back local leaders in bringing the situation under control in the weeks to come.

Well-established arrangements are in place to enable local areas to escalate issues when they need support, and the Government are monitoring the situation closely. This is a local issue, and it is right that the key public sector partners in Birmingham lead on it. If leaders in Birmingham feel that tackling these issues would require resources beyond those available to them, and request national support, we of course stand ready to respond to any such request. This Government will always back local leaders and give them the support that they need, not swoop in to criticise or take over from Whitehall. We will not hesitate to give support in any way that Birmingham leaders need. As Parliament would expect, a meeting will take place with the leadership of the council, the commissioners and other key local partners to ensure that we are doing everything we can to support and protect public health.

It is in the interests of all parties and, most importantly, for the benefit of Birmingham’s residents that this industrial action is brought to a close in a meaningful and sustainable way as soon as possible. We encourage all parties to redouble their efforts to get around the table and find a resolution. Any deal to end industrial action must maintain value for money and ensure fit-for-purpose waste collection services, without creating or storing up liabilities for the future. All parties recognise that Birmingham’s waste service has been in urgent need of modernisation and transformation for many years, so any deal reached must not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Practices in the waste service have been the source of one of the largest equal pay crises in modern UK history, resulting in costs of over £1 billion to the residents of Birmingham. This situation simply cannot continue. I support the council on its journey to creating the sustainable, fair and reliable waste service that residents in Birmingham deserve. We will support the council in resolving its historic issues and establishing the leadership, governance and culture that will drive good-quality public services for the people of that city, so that it can take its rightful place with confidence as one of our great UK cities.

As the council moves to the next stage of intervention, I will continue to work with the council, commissioners and the wider local government sector to understand how we can best ensure that residents get what they need from their local council. I will monitor progress, as I have done since the general election, to ensure that continuous improvement led by the council can be secured. As I am sure the whole House would expect, the commissioner arrangements will need to remain in place while the situation in Birmingham is so fragile. The commissioners have a vital role to play in supporting Birmingham’s transformation, working hand in glove with local leaders.

The Government remain committed to working in genuine partnership with the city and its council, and I continue to encourage the council to strengthen its partnerships with regional stakeholders, including Mayor Parker in the West Midlands combined authority, to support economic growth and financial sustainability. We are keen to promote growth and regeneration opportunities for Birmingham, and we are confident that as the council continues to work to fix the basics, while making progress against the milestones, local stakeholders will be encouraged to work in partnership with the council to deliver a clear vision for the future.

I look forward to continuing dialogue with commissioners, the council and regional partnerships, including Mayor Parker, on opportunities for growth in the region. A partnership approach with a clear vision will increase Birmingham’s capacity to achieve sustainable growth. The people of Birmingham deserve a well-run, accountable and financially stable council with good public services, not least waste collection services. I am encouraged by the council’s leadership and commitment to the same, and I look forward to the council beginning to demonstrate more ownership of its recovery, and to seeing evidence that it can deliver the lasting improvements that are required. I will deposit in the House Library copies of the commissioners’ report, which is being published today on gov.uk.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I remind Members that if they are seeking to contribute in a statement, they must arrive on time. It is extremely discourteous to the Minister, and indeed to the House, to be late.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker—I ran all the way from the top floor of Derby Gate, but I was not fast enough. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an elected member of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council.

The people of Birmingham have a right to receive decent services, and it is critical that the ongoing dispute is resolved as quickly as possible. Like the hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton), we are concerned about the impact on public health and the environment, and urge the Government to confirm that when waste collection resumes, it will be safely disposed of and recycled where possible, and not just given to the cheapest bidder.

Fundamentally, the Conservative Government slashed funding to local authorities year on year, forcing councils to do more with less and plunging so many, of all political stripes, into financial crisis. However, we are disappointed that the Government have not yet addressed some of the financial crises, particularly around confirmation of the special educational needs override, which I know councils across the nation are really worried about, and which is making it more difficult for them to make decisions about their future plans.

We welcome the multi-year settlements, which I am sure the Minister will refer to, but we remain concerned about how effective they will be. Two recent examples give us cause for concern: the roads funding, which appears to give local authorities more money, actually cuts England’s road repair budget by 5%; and the employer’s national insurance change, which promised to cover councils’ costs for direct staffing in full, did not do so in some cases, including for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council. All that is underpinned by a broken council tax system that is regressive. In some areas, the council tax base is totally inadequate to provide for the growing list of services, and the Lib Dems want to see a radical overhaul.

Birmingham should serve as a lesson for the Government, because this matter is a result of the long-running equal pay crisis. What learning are they taking from the situation in Birmingham, and what extra measures is the Minister introducing to prevent public health and community safety issues?

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 1B, 2B, 7B and 8B, and by Lords amendments 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords non-insistence on their amendment 15. If any of those Lords amendments is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Clause 1

Determination of additional multipliers

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 2B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 7B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 8B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 13B, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 15B to 15E, and Government motion to disagree to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords non-insistence on their amendment 15.

[Jim McMahon]

I am grateful for the opportunity to consider the Lords amendments tabled in lieu of those to which this House disagreed. I reiterate my thanks to Members of both Houses for their continued diligence in the scrutiny of these measures.

The Bill makes provision to enable the introduction of permanent lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from April 2026, ending the uncertainty of the temporary RHL relief. The RHL relief stopgap measure creates uncertainty for businesses, as well as a significant fiscal pressure on the Government. This Government are committed to addressing that in the Bill.

The Government face the significant challenge that we must balance the books, so we cannot and should not make tax cuts without ensuring that those tax cuts are funded. The Bill therefore makes provision to enable the introduction of a higher multiplier for all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000, ensuring that the permanent tax cut from RHL properties is sustainably funded from within the business rates system.

The Bill will also help to deliver another of the missions set out in the Government’s manifesto: breaking down barriers to opportunity. It will remove eligibility for charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities in England. As I have said before in this House, the Government believe in parental choice but are also determined to fulfil the aspiration of every parent to get the best education for their child. To eliminate the barriers to opportunity, we need to concentrate on the broader picture towards the state sector, where—let us remember—over 90% of children are educated. The revenue raised through the removal of charitable relief will help to deliver our commitments to education and young people and will help us to meet our overarching mission of breaking down barriers to opportunity for all.

Lords amendments 1B and 7B seek to allow the Treasury to exclude healthcare hereditaments from the higher multiplier through regulations. Lords amendments 2B and 8B seek to allow the Treasury to exclude anchor stores from the higher multiplier through regulations. The amendments are unnecessary, because the powers that they seek already exist in the Bill. Let me be clear: the powers in the Bill will already allow the Government, should they so choose, to exclude certain properties from the higher multiplier. This is not the intention that I have set out; the Government’s intention is that the higher multiplier will apply to all properties at or above the £500,000 threshold to ensure that local multipliers can be adequately funded. I urge the House to reject the amendments, because they are not required and they duplicate powers that already exist in the Bill.

Lords amendment 13B, tabled by Lord Thurlow, would require the Government to

“undertake a review of how the provisions in this Act may affect businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000.”

The amendment would require the review to be laid before Parliament within six months of the day on which the Bill is passed. It also specifies that the review

“must consider the merits of a separate Use Class and associated multiplier for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses that do not have a material presence on local high streets, to apply in England.”

We have previously considered two similar Lords amendments, and our position has not changed. The amendment is unnecessary. The “Transforming Business Rates” work that is under way recognises the cliff edge in the business rates system and recognises that it may act as a disincentive to expanding. I reiterate the assurance that I have previously provided to the House: the Government are already looking at this precise issue.

The second part of Lords amendment 13B would require the Government to undertake a review examining the merits of a separate use class in business rates and an associated multiplier for warehouses that cater for retailers without a material presence on the high street. As has been set out, the Government are already exploring that objective through the projects that have been mentioned. The “Digitalising Business Rates” project will allow us to match property-level data with the business-level data held by HM Revenue and Customs. This will improve the way in which we target business rates. The Government therefore remain of the view that the amendment is not required. I urge hon. Members to disagree to it.

The Government are fully committed to transforming the business rates system. This is simply the first step in a wider programme of change in a system that is long overdue for reform. As the Chancellor set out in the spring statement last week, the Government will publish an interim report setting a clear direction of travel for reform, with further policy details to follow at the autumn Budget. Reforms to the business rates system will be phased in over the Parliament.

Finally, amendments 15B to 15E seek to move the measure to remove the charitable rate relief from private schools from one that is being made by Parliament through this Bill to one that the Secretary of State would make through regulations, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure for that statutory instrument. The Government are committed to delivering on our manifesto commitments, and part of that is removing the charitable rate relief from private schools to raise revenue to help deliver on our commitments to young people and education, including the in state sector where, as I said, most children are educated. The Government’s view is that this is a matter for Parliament to decide, which is why we have invited Parliament to do so through this Bill. Therefore, the amendments are unnecessary, the Government cannot accept them, and we ask the House to disagree to them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I thank their noble lordships for their diligent further consideration of the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill and for the new amendments they have passed to address their concerns with the legislation. These changes shine a spotlight on Labour’s muddled priorities, exposing an approach that punishes aspiration, squeezes business, and increases the cost of living for consumers and the cost of doing business.

This very week, we will see the new jobs tax introduced and business rate hikes. The Employment Rights Bill is coming down the line, which is of great concern to many private sector businesses, and consumers will consequently see higher prices and lower wages. Tomorrow, we will also see a hike in council tax, energy prices, water bills, broadband and the BBC licence fee.

I will address the four primary groups of amendments in turn. First, Lords amendments 1B and 7B tackle the proposal to levy a higher multiplier on medical, dental and other healthcare settings. The amendments would prudently protect all healthcare premises—occupied or vacant—from the higher multiplier, addressing a glaring flaw in Labour’s Bill. For too long, we have cautioned against their detachment from practical governance, but now it is undeniable: rather than targeting the untaxed profits of internet giants as pledged, they are heaping costs on to hospitals and GP surgeries. It is baffling that Labour’s so-called reform of the rating system would burden healthcare at all, let alone doing so while they plan to hike national insurance on jobs tomorrow to fund the NHS—only to claw it back today by taxing those same health services.

Just yesterday, the Government pledged to funnel more cash into the NHS by taxing jobs through national insurance hikes, yet today they turn around and tax the NHS itself via business rates. It is a fiscal farce—a two-faced assault on healthcare that undermines their own rhetoric. As Conservative Members have mentioned in recent debates, Labour’s obsession with revenue grabs over sensible relief is choking the sectors we need most.

--- Later in debate ---

This measure is simply wrong, and I agree with the other place that the statutory instrument required to bring in the regulations should be voted on by both houses before such measures can be introduced.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Here we go again. This is very similar to what we spoke about last week, so I will again put on record my thanks to the noble Lords for their work in pushing forward the amendments from the other place.

We welcome the business rates reform and look forward to a far more substantial overhaul of the system. However, we are deeply concerned about the proposals for hospitals. Lords amendment 1 sought to exclude hospitals and it is so disappointing that that was not accepted. In my area, in Dorset, both Poole and Royal Bournemouth hospitals would be caught by the £500,000 rateable value rule. Poole hospital has a rateable value of £2.1 million and Bournemouth’s is £3.3 million. World-famous hospitals, including Great Ormond Street, The Royal Marsden and England’s oldest hospital Barts, would all be caught up.

The Government have rightly been proud of the early delivery of extra NHS appointments, but keeping hospitals in the Bill risks real problems for local councils which might find themselves having to take difficult decisions to take the hit and not charge their hospitals the higher amount. To take away the discretion altogether, I ask Ministers please to remove the provisions from the Bill so that hospitals do not pay twice.

I share the concerns of the shadow Minister regarding the businesses that are on the cusp of the £500,000 threshold. The impact of flipping just over from the lower to the higher multiplier could be profound. So many businesses are already on the cusp, given the national insurance increases, the living wage and the impact of the Employment Rights Bill. The additional worry about tipping over into the higher threshold could see many fail to invest in their businesses for the future.

I will keep this brief, because we know where we are. We too do not agree with the taxation of education and we continue to support the Lords amendments to remove private schools from the legislation. The main reason that we feel that way is that we know that many parents of children who have additional needs choose the private sector because it is so difficult to get what they need in overcrowded schools that are falling apart at the seams. We therefore fundamentally disagree with the principle of taxing education.

The Government have made a good start on the Bill. We want to see a much more fundamental review of business rates. There is a long way to go, but we think that the amendments, if accepted, would demonstrate a Government who are listening. At a time when trust in the Government needs to be built, a Government who listen to sensible amendments would be most welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

The rating system adequately reflects the scale of properties. Less than 1% of properties in the business rates system will use the higher multiplier. That will fund the tax break for those on the high street that will use the lower multipliers. In the evidence session —the hon. Gentleman was there—we heard retailers say, “Of course, that will have an impact on our distribution centres, but we have so many stores that are below the threshold.” That allows national retailers with multiple locations to benefit; in the round, they find themselves better off as a result of this policy. As for rebalancing the situation for online retailers and those on our high streets, that is exactly what this measure does. Big distribution centres will pay for that relief.

I once again thank hon. Members for their contributions, but for the reasons set out, I respectfully ask this House to disagree with the amendments before us.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. As the escalators in Portcullis House are still not working, I shall allow an additional two minutes for the Division.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (changed to Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers) Bill)

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

We welcome scrutiny through amendments and the insight that the other place can provide, just as we welcomed scrutiny in the evidence sessions and Committee sittings; it adds value. We need to be honest: it is natural for Members to want to widen the scope of legislation during its passage, and to include more. In Government, we have to deal with the art of the possible, which means balancing a number of competing interests, not least the impact on taxpayers in the round. The Bill is targeted at those who need it the most—communities and local economies—and it is fully funded to ensure that it is sustainable. We cannot draw the legislation so wide that it does not stand the test of time and does not cover its own cost. That would not be responsible, and certainly would not be sustainable.

Lords amendment 14 would require the Government to implement the recommendations of the review. Given that we do not know what those recommendations would be, I trust the House will understand that we cannot accept an amendment to accept them blindly in advance.

Finally, Lords amendment 15 and consequential Lords amendments 17 to 19 would strike from the Bill the clause that removes charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities. We are unable to accept these Lords amendments. This Government made a manifesto commitment to raise school standards for every child, break down barriers to opportunity and ensure that every child has the best start in life, no matter where they come from or their financial background. Achieving our ambition involves meeting our commitment to removing the VAT and business rates charitable relief tax breaks for private schools; the approach and design of this policy has been carefully considered in the light of that. The measures are necessary in order to raise the revenue to deliver on the Government’s commitment to education and young people, and to improve the state sector, where—let us be clear—90% of children are educated. This Government are prepared to take the tough but necessary decisions to deliver on those bold commitments, so, as with all the other amendments brought here from the other place, I cannot accept these Lords amendments. I hope that the rest of the House follows suit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Lords amendments. We shall not agree, and I will explain why. I thank the Lords for their careful consideration of the Bill; in particular, I thank the noble Lord Jamieson and the noble Baroness Scott for their scrutiny and amendments.

The legislation comes at a critical time for businesses. The partial withdrawal of retail hospitality and leisure relief—a policy choice by this Government—is hitting businesses hard. The average pub is more than £5,000 worse off as a result of the Minister’s choices. That, together with the Government’s trash-talking of the economy, the £25 billion annual tax rise for businesses by means of the rise in employers’ national insurance, and the prospect of the job-destroying Employment Rights Bill, has led directly to a massive reduction in business confidence. According to the Institute of Directors, business confidence, which stood at a high of plus 5 in July last year, has collapsed to a covid-level low of minus 65.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Sewards]

The Bill is designed specifically to revive our high streets. The hon. Gentleman will remember, because his party was in government at the time, that our high streets were struggling and suffocating, and it is incumbent on this new Government to revive them. That is why it is so important for us to pass the Bill today. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman mentioned manufacturing, and his hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) chirps from a sedentary position—[Interruption.] I mean “chunters”. I think it important to recognise that the Government are supporting manufacturing too. There are other mechanisms for doing that, but the Bill we are pursuing today, and passing today, is all about supporting our high streets, and I am very proud to support it.

Queen Street is in Morley, in the centre of my constituency. You are welcome to visit it any time, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a lot on offer, almost of all of which comes directly from small businesses. The Lords amendments to which I have referred do not prioritise them; nor do they prioritise the smaller parades of shops in Farnley, Drighlington, Gildersome and Wortley, and they do nothing for the shops and businesses in Ardsley, Tingley, Robin Hood and Lofthouse. That is why I cannot support them. I back the businesses in Morley high street, along with all the other small businesses that I represent.

Lords amendments 15,17,18 and 19 would, in effect, reintroduce the tax break for private schools. We have had this argument about private schools at the general election, in the House, in Bill Committees and again today, but as a former maths teacher at a state school in Leeds, I am more than happy to cover old ground to reinforce my own argument. The proposed amendments seek to remove an integral part of the Bill that generates the revenue that we need to support our plans in government. I will make no apologies for supporting the 94% of children who attend state schools. We all—and I include everyone in the House—want children to have the best opportunities in life, with the highest-quality teaching and schools to match. It should be a basic function of the state to provide well-funded, excellent state school places for all students, whether their parents choose to take advantage of that or not.

On the Labour Benches, as we have proven over recent months, we are prepared to take the action necessary to ensure that all children can access through the state the education they deserve. The £70 million raised by the measure in the Bill, alongside the other revenue-raising measures we have taken in the Budget, will result and do result in a real-terms increase in per pupil funding for the 94% who attend our state schools. I am very proud to support that. We will never make any apologies for properly funding state schools by ending the tax breaks that were previously enjoyed by private institutions. That is why I will not be voting for the amendments.

To conclude, I am pleased to support the Bill in its current, unamended form. I will support our high streets. It will give confidence to small businesses and it will give state schools the funding they desperately need.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I, too, begin by putting on record my thanks to the noble Lords in the other place for all their work on the Bill, in particular those on the Liberal Democrat Benches: Baroness Pinnock, Lord Shipley and Lord Fox.

Business rates reform is long overdue and, while we welcome the proposal to permanently reduce business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, in the meantime many businesses across my constituency, and indeed the country, are reeling as they see the impact of the reduction in rates relief in bills landing on their doormats. I have heard from a number of businesses just in the past few days. I am really concerned about pubs, restaurants and cafés in my constituency who are wondering how, with the national insurance rise and the reduction in rates relief, they will continue.

The Liberal Democrats would like to see a fundamental overhaul of the business rates system, not just the sticking-plaster solutions proposed in the Bill that tinker around the edges. As I said, lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure are a step in the right direction, but there are countless small businesses outside those sectors that need their tax burden reduced too, for example manufacturing businesses. We tabled amendments on Report to improve the Bill and to ensure it gave consideration to whether there should be provision for manufacturing facilities, which can be big and built on expensive land but sometimes produce relatively low-value goods. Lords amendment 4 sought to do the same, whereby manufacturing premises would also pay new lower business rates under the Bill. Without that, light engineering and printers, among other businesses in our town centres’ mixed economies, could be priced out.

A recent report by Barclays bank concluded that the words “made in Britain” were worth an additional £3.5 billion to UK exporters, so it is important that something is done to support the manufacturing sector. We have learnt the hard way in recent years, with the pandemic and wars, that we need to be much more self-sufficient as a country, yet there has been a big drop in confidence in the sector since autumn, with an increase in manufacturers’ costs and orders in general reported to be smaller in size. That comes on top of the additional Brexit red tape that those businesses have to contend with to export. Therefore, we support retaining this amendment in the Bill.

As I have said, we want fundamental reform of business rates so we can boost small businesses and our high streets. We tabled an amendment on Report to require a review of the impact of the Bill on businesses, high streets and economic growth, so we support retaining Lords amendment 13, which would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of the Bill on businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000 and so will be caught by the new higher business rates.

Turning to our NHS, yet again we see the Government giving with one hand and taking with the other. As with national insurance contributions, so with the business rates changes: there are unintended but significant consequences for our health service. Lords amendment 1 sought to exclude hospitals and other healthcare settings from paying new higher business rates for properties with a rateable of £500,000 or more. Without the amendment, 290 local hospitals will be caught by the rates, an unacceptable new burden when the NHS is already struggling. As my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock pointed out in the other place, without the amendment the likes of Great Ormond Street hospital for children will have an additional burden of £600,000 per year on business rates alone, the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford has a potential business rates increase from £3.4 million to £4.1 million, and the Hull Royal Infirmary could see its bill rising from £1.8 million to £2.1 million. Those are typical figures for hospitals across the country. I do not believe it is the Government’s intention to reduce hospitals’ abilities to drive down their waiting lists, yet that is exactly what the impact of these changes and the consequent higher charges will be, so we support the amendment.

The Bill also levies a tax on education by removing the business rates exemption for private schools that are charities, a measure that will be compounded by the Government’s move to levy VAT on private school fees and the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions. As I have said many times since the general election—and indeed before—the Liberal Democrats are opposed, in principle, to the taxation of education, as it is a public good. We strongly support and champion parents’ right to choose, on which both those tax measures are an assault.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Where we can make common cause is over the absolute mess in which the Conservatives left both our public services and our economy. I have no quibble in agreeing with him on that point. We Liberal Democrats set out a whole series of tax measures—actually we were the only party that was not afraid to put forward revenue-raising measures—but his Government are choosing not to accept any of them. They included taxing our big tech giants that are ruining the mental health of our children and young people—[Interruption.] Yes, in fact, they are planning to slash that tax altogether. We also suggested reversing the tax cuts that the Conservatives gave to the big banks, so that we can continue putting free school meals on the table for children, which, again, his Government are thinking of cutting. Then we suggested reforming capital gains tax—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are in fact debating Lords amendment 1 and the Government motion to disagree.

[Munira Wilson]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply seeking to address the hon. Member’s point. I am coming in to land now.

Time and again we see Government policy at odds with their stated objectives. They want to tackle NHS waiting lists but then slap business rates on to large hospitals and put national insurance rises on to our GPs, hospices and social care providers. They claim to drive growth but then slap business rates on to much-needed manufacturing and put a cliff edge on small businesses in our town centres. They want to extend opportunity to all but then go after charitable independent schools that are serving their wider communities—not to mention punishing parents who dare to make that choice for their children.

Amid some good intentions, the Government have lost their way in parts of the Bill. I implore Ministers to genuinely consider the amendments before them in order to support our hospitals and allow businesses up and down our country to grow and flourish.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

A Division was called.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Division off.

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment 4 accordingly disagreed to.

Lords amendments 5 to 12 disagreed to.

After Clause 4

Review: threshold effect

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 13.—(Jim McMahon.)

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of Gideon Amos has not been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

That raises a broader point. At the moment, councils in parts of the country such as my constituency are being abolished by this Government, so there will be no democratic accountability down the line, and there will be no democratic accountability at council level through planning committees, either. They are removing layer after layer of protection for local communities such as mine, with huge amounts of green-belt land suddenly redesignated as grey-belt land, despite recently being high-grade agricultural land. Can my hon. Friend understand the concerns in communities such as mine about what these proposals are doing? They want to see more housing, but not at the expense of London seeing a housing target—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. That was a very long intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. About 60 Members are seeking to get in, so after the Front-Bench speeches have been completed there will be a five-minute time limit.

Coastal Communities

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

In many ways, my constituency of Southport is a typical coastal community and, like many coastal towns, it has seen better days. It is coping with challenges that do not necessarily impact inland areas to the same extent. Part of that negative change is due to the nature of the town’s economy, but a big part of it is due to its geography: it is a seaside town.

What made many of our seaside towns successful originally—the sense that they were a trip away from the big city and that people could travel for miles through the countryside to get to them—now militate against us. While it once might have been appealing for families from Manchester to take a packed lunch to the seaside and enjoy the scenic train route through Lancashire, it is no good for our commuters to still be stuck on that scenic route, trundling across the north-west to get to work and back every day. What was once our strength has now become our weakness.

Austerity has hit us hard too. The former Government removed in excess of £200 million a year from the local area. The multiplier effect of that has had an impact on private businesses in the town because when so many customers see that their wages are not keeping up with prices, then small businesses fail. We have seen a lot of that in Southport in the past decade.

Austerity manifests itself in different ways in different areas, and in my town austerity has manifested itself most prominently in the closure of the town’s seaside pier. A botched repair job 25 years ago means that there are now structural problems estimated to cost over £10 million to fix. The pier is in local authority ownership, and thanks to the previous Government, the local authority has not got the money to bring about the necessary repairs. I have been campaigning on innovative ways to ensure that piers across the country are safeguarded for the next generation.

This Labour Government have more coastal MPs than at any point in our country’s history, as is evidenced by the overwhelmingly empty Conservative Benches. The common issues faced by coastal towns are felt keenly by my colleagues on the Labour Benches. With that in mind, I am pleased that the Government are willing to commit to support our coastal communities and I too put on record my wish to see the creation of a specific Minister for coastal communities. The issues our areas share are so specific to the coast, common to each other and important to our residents that Government will gain greatly from a dedicated Minister ensuring that the views of our towns and areas are heard in this place.

I am sure that if government steps up and meets some of the challenges that our towns face, the decade of national renewal that we know the country needs could be implemented.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. With an immediate two-minute time limit, I call Siân Berry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Billington]

Indeed, we need a place-based approach with that active state. If we want economic growth that reaches all parts of the country, invest in coastal communities. If we want public services that really improve the experience of people who are most alienated because of state failures, invest in coastal communities. If we want to create an environment that works for nature and people, invest in coastal communities. I am speaking not just about financial investment, but about investment of Government time, energy and focus.

When colleagues and I were trying to work out which Department would be answering this debate, we literally did not know. While I am obviously delighted to see the Minister in his place, the issues raised in this House today span all Departments, whether that is Health, Transport, Environment, Education, the Home Office, the Treasury or many others. I simply note that if there is not one Minister who fits the portfolio, there should be one—a Minister for coastal communities who can focus on regenerating our towns and growing our coastal economies.

I will end with a point about the previous Labour Government. In the 1990s, cities were not the places they are today. That Labour Government had a relentless focus on improving them, and the regeneration we have seen is testament to what can be delivered. Coastal towns are in the same position now, and the Labour Government have not only—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Members will be aware that I will call the first Front Bencher at 4.38 pm. That means that not all Members will now get in. They might consider that when making interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

My constituency of Scarborough and Whitby includes some of the most beautiful towns and villages in the country, but it also has some of the worst health outcomes. We have talked a lot about older people in this debate, and I will use my time to talk about younger people.

I am excited by the opportunities that the advent of renewable energy offers young people in my constituency. Scarborough university technical college is already training the engineers of the future, who will work on the wind farms off our coast. The Construction Skills Village in Eastfield is training apprentices in bricklaying, plastering and other trades to help build Labour’s 1.5 million new homes. However, we must deliver year-round, non-graduate careers for our coastal kids and ensure that funding is funnelled not into cities and universities, but into coastal communities. Only by doing this will we deliver on our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Lady for being so brief. That brings us to the Front Benchers.