Train Services: Extreme Weather

Joe Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) for securing such an important—and, given the weather on Sunday, timely—debate. When the weather turns, the Tyne valley finds out very quickly how well looked after its railway has been over the years. Last Tuesday, for example, 20 services were cancelled across the Northern network because of Storm Boelo and the whole Carlisle to Newcastle line was disrupted.

I grew up in my constituency and know what the morning after a particularly rough bit of weather looks like: people get a message on their app saying “Cancelled” or see that message at the train station, they make an apologetic phone call to their boss or client, and they wait for news at home, in the station coffee shop or just hanging around under the shelter. But this is about far more than just one storm. Extreme weather is no longer the exception. Heavy rain, flooding, landslips, high winds and extreme heat are all hitting the safe and reliable running of services, and climate change is the driving cause, as has been said.

The problem is that our railway was not built for this. Most of our infrastructure is of Victorian origin. Around 90% of Network Rail’s assets in my constituency were installed before the year 2000. Our rails are stressed. We exceeded the standard operating limit of around 30° in 2022. Track has been recorded at 51°. The July 2022 heatwave alone cut performance by 40% to 50% and cost £30 million in lost revenue in a single week. We have seen that replicated every year since. The result is buckled track, sagging wires and failing embankments.

Those are the headlines, but behind each disruption is a personal story. In Haltwhistle, closure of the line turns hospital appointments into an ordeal. In Haydon Bridge or Bardon Mill, it means people potentially losing out on a day’s work. In Corbridge, Riding Mill or Stocksfield, it means commuters being forced on to roads that could be flooded or blocked. In Prudhoe or Wylam, it means people being forced on to a bus that carries a fraction of what a train can. Rural lines like those in my constituency feel it first, and feel it worst. Cities have other routes. In the Tyne valley, when the railway goes, all that is left is the A69, which immediately becomes congested.

I want to add to the weather problem the trains problem. I recently wrote to Northern about the lack of capacity between Hexham and Newcastle and across the west of my constituency, including the absence of extra trains when Newcastle United are playing at home. It is hard to square the aspiration of a modern, passenger-focused railway with the fact that predictable surges in demand are managed by existing timetables. Northern has been candid with me that too much of the fleet is approaching the end of its operational life and needs ever more repair. Those units become unavailable unexpectedly because Northern runs many different types of train and not all are compatible with all routes, which limits its ability to move units around to strengthen services.

I am grateful for that honesty, but thinking it through again, when a storm hits and units fail, there is no spare train and no flexibility. An old fleet and an old network are asked to cope with a climate that neither was designed for. That is what 14 years of putting off tough decisions looks like to rural communities in my constituency, some of which face extensive difficulties even getting to the central train line. In Bellingham, Slaggyford, Knarsdale, Allendale or up in Stamfordham, an unreliable local bus that has been cut by the Morpeth Conservatives often does not arrive on time or at all.

I welcome the Government bringing the railway back into public hands and the new trains programme—the Minister is aware of my enthusiasm for that—but the structures are not resilient. Let me put a few challenges to the Minister. First, we need sustained investment in resilience rather than simply repair. We cannot answer extreme weather with more cancellations and permanent reliance on precautionary speed restrictions. Will he look at longer-term funding for renewals and maintenance so that the embankments, drainage and track are built for the climate that we have now and the one that is coming over the hill?

Secondly, we need safety and reliability together. The choice is not between accepting disruption and taking risks. Train drivers see and tell me of ageing infrastructure and extreme weather at first hand. Their experience must be part of how we plan for the decades ahead. Will the Minister make sure that it is?

Thirdly, we need spare capacity. Will the Minister press Northern on how the new trains programme will give the Tyne valley the flexibility to respond when something goes wrong—and when something goes right, like when there is a full stadium on a Mags or Newcastle Red Bulls match day?

Fourthly, we need a plan for the day if it goes wrong. We need proper replacement services, early and honest information, and a recovery plan in place for rural lines before the storm, rather than my constituency feeling like it is consistently improvised after the fact.

There is a bigger argument too: if we wish to hit our climate goals we need to get more people and more freight on to rail. Domestic transport accounts for 30% of our territorial greenhouse gas emissions and road vehicles represent around 90% of that figure. Rail is a fraction of that. A single freight train could replace up to 129 lorry movements. We cannot ask people to switch to rail and give them a railway that falls over at the first sign of trouble. The people of the Tyne valley and my constituency more broadly are not asking for luxury; they are simply asking for a railway that works when the weather does not.

Council Housing

Joe Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

Sir Jeremy, it is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship.

Across the span of one of England’s largest constituencies, housing, or the lack of it, is one of the main drivers of people coming to my constituency surgeries. It is one of the main drivers of people in desperate need of a place to call home, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) has just movingly set out. It is an issue that needs to be taken far more seriously, not just in this place but across the country. The particular lack of access to affordable and social housing in some of our most rural communities is something that has escaped much of the national debate in recent years.

Unfortunately, I must say that the Morpeth Conservatives, who run Northumberland county council, are currently engaged in what I can only describe as an ongoing misinformation exercise about the impact of trying to provide more housing. It is very clear to me that what is needed across Northumberland is appropriate development of the homes that are needed to allow people to build lives and communities, and to keep those communities together and functioning, but also to provide long-term stability to young people growing up in those communities, so that they know they will be able to have a life where they have grown up, should they wish to, rather than growing up with their noses pressed against the windows of communities that they will never be able to be part of because they cannot get a home there.

I will not keep colleagues’ attention for too long, but the crucial thing, from where I stand, is delivering those homes in areas where people can have access to them, where they can be rented at a reasonable rate, and, crucially, ensuring that they are not removed from circulation but are accessible to local people, so that those people can work in the pubs, shops and businesses that keep the lifeblood of our communities moving.

Without that, we will continue to see younger people forced out of rural communities, forced to leave their families and unable to care for their elderly relatives. That is something that comes up far too often—time and again—in my regular constituency surgeries.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I thank the Back-Bench speakers for their co-operation and discipline. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

Of course, it is always important to reflect on any of the legacies but we have to talk about the here and now. It has rightly been said that this Government are in control; the Social Housing Bill is supposed to unlock the system and yet it will not do that. Our questions should be directly to the Minister about how the Government will unlock the potential that everyone in this room wants to see. That is why the Conservative party proposes taking £50,000 off the cost of building a new home in England and Wales by cutting back on regulations and taxes; backing a genuinely brownfield-first approach to see new homes built on the existing 1.41 million sites viable for development; building, not blocking; a genuine council house comeback; and supporting aspiration.

[Joe Morris]

On that point, will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Bool]

I am just concluding. I call on the Minister to commit to changing the Social Housing Bill, to back the delivery of council housing and to help bring the shocking number of people in temporary accommodation down. That is the only way to see more council houses built, to see more people into safe and affordable accommodation and to get Britain building.

Representation of the People Bill

Joe Morris Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

If those in Scotland want to carry on with this vote rigging, they are fully entitled to do so, and I am sure that they will conjure up many other ways in which to do it.

This Government can wax lyrical as much as they like about the virtues of lowering the voting age, but we know how important it is for people to fully understand and appreciate what they are doing. It is the inconsistency that strikes me: 16-year-olds cannot buy alcohol, cannot have a tattoo, cannot be on the frontline and cannot get married, yet we are pushing for them to have a vote. It does not make sense at all. I therefore urge all Members to support my amendments and those in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, and to put aside their self-interest in relation to extra votes.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I thank the Government for, in particular, the proposals on 16 and 17-year-olds. I spent my summer conducting about 80 events across my constituency, meeting some of my youngest—and some of my oldest—constituents, and regularly hosting work experience students in my office and sixth-form surgeries at the schools in my constituency, and I have generally found more political maturity and wisdom in sixth forms than in the Northumberland county council Conservative group.

[Chris Vince]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, which enables me to welcome my two work experience students, Maja and Stacey, to the Gallery. I am sure they are enjoying his speech.

[Joe Morris]

I am very glad to have set up my hon. Friend for that.

I want to speak about money in politics, particularly with reference to new clause 17, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration. It has been clear to me, not just over the summer but when I have spoken to voters since my election and beforehand, that the influence of money on politics is increasing. That is undermining faith in our democracy; it is an assault by algorithms on our democracy itself. The figures that were chucked around historically now seem relatively parochial. What we are seeing is a complete and utter oligarchic takeover of our voting system by those with the very deepest pockets. I hope that when she winds up the debate, the Minister will explain what more can be done and how the Government will work constructively, as the Bill progresses through the other place, to tighten the safeguards that are already in it. I sense the amount of disquiet in my inbox from people who think that more must be done in the Bill to guard against the influence of money in our democracy, and particularly to guard against the role of the international social media platform owners who are poisoning the very lifeblood of democracy. Indeed, we all read the conspiratorial narratives that often appear in our inboxes.

I know that new clause 31 is not in scope, so I will not major on it. Suffice it to say that it is the people who are losing faith with politics who feel the most disenfranchised, and we owe it to them to have a national conversation about how we can reform our voting. Let me end by pleading again with the Minister to provide more clarity on the pace of tackling the influence of money in politics and by again welcoming the Prime Minister’s commitment to electoral reform.

Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Joe Morris Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The measures that I have set out today on overseas electors and residents returning to Britain from overseas should provide some of the certainty he is looking for so that his constituents can feel confident that our system is safe.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I welcome these measures, which are a fantastic step forward. These actions are about not just tackling foreign donations and dirty money, but putting faith back into our politics and ensuring that people can feel that their vote matters locally. Can the Minister assure me that the enforcement agencies will have teeth to ensure that these sanctions are applied appropriately and that people can have confidence in the integrity of our whole political system?

Ending Homelessness

Joe Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to take part in this debate about the progress on ending homelessness. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) both for securing this debate and for their opening remarks. I know that both those hon. Members have made combatting homelessness a central part of the force that drives them in Parliament. As we have heard, their excellent work as co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness has been solid, earnest and methodical, and has produced robust conclusions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East in particular has made a demonstrable difference in this field, with his 2017 private Member’s Bill, which went on to become the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which I will refer to shortly.

I do not doubt that all Members gathered here today share a strong desire to end rough sleeping and homelessness for good. Homelessness is a social tragedy, wherever it occurs and for whatever reason. No one in our society should be forced to live on the streets, and it is incumbent on us all to do our best to ensure that constituents can live in a safe, decent and secure home. Although progress was made to that end under the previous Government, work remains to be done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said in his opening speech. I offer my full support to the Government for their shared desire to end homelessness once and for all.

As policymakers have increasingly come to appreciate, homelessness does not simply begin at the point someone finds themselves on the street; rather, it is rooted in long-term causes, whether persistent issues with mental health or substance abuse, offenders stuck between prison and the streets, with no place to go, or young people in care leaving the system without a fixed destination. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and implemented by the previous Government, recognised that fact in law, placing an enhanced duty on local authorities to intervene at an early stage in an effort to prevent homelessness from occurring. Over 740,000 households have been prevented from becoming homeless or were supported into settled accommodation since the introduction of the 2017 Act—an achievement that should be acknowledged.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree said in their opening speeches, prevention must be at the heart of any national strategy for tackling homelessness, which is why I welcome the Government’s decision to continue the previous Administration’s approach of offering more effective support to prevent rough sleeping from happening in the first place. At the heart of the previous Administration’s approach was the rough sleeping initiative, which saw pioneering work across society between local authorities, voluntary organisations and healthcare providers to tailor support where homelessness occurs, meeting the individual needs of people facing homelessness and helping them to build an independent life once off the streets.

Ending rough sleeping for good will require a whole-Government and a whole-society effort to be achievable, which is why it is vital that there is a sense of purpose from the very highest levels of Government to drive change. Although the Government’s ambition to carry on this work is laudable, it is disappointing that the full cross-Government strategy for ending homelessness that they promised in their manifesto has yet to emerge, despite repeated promises from Ministers of its publication.

Commentators such as the Institute for Government have already warned that a lack of co-ordination between Government Departments is undermining progress when tackling homelessness, preventing public bodies from working together to be proactive and focus on the root causes of homelessness. The previous Government’s “Ending rough sleeping for good” strategy brought together seven Departments from across Government to that end. I fear that, without a similar statement of intent from the current Government, their approach to ending homelessness will fall short and fail those in need.

The consequences of the lack of clarity are already becoming clear, not least in the effects of the Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill on the housing market. Although Ministers and Labour Members continue to claim that that legislation will make it easier to find a home, the message from the private rented sector appears to be quite the opposite, with 41% of private landlords saying, at the end 2024, that they were planning to sell their properties. The Government’s proposals look set to cut supply in the private rented sector, which will in turn inevitably risk driving rents up and making it harder for people to find a rented home. That is exactly what we have seen in Scotland, where similar measures to what the Government are proposing were implemented in 2017.

In England, we have already seen a seven-year drop, with Savills reporting that the number of rental properties on its books dropped by 42% in quarter 1 of this year compared with the same period in 2024. That means 42% fewer homes available for families, less choice and more pressure on rents. That is not theoretical; it is happening now, and the Renters’ Rights Bill is accelerating that trend.

Of equal concern is what effect an increasing number of people who are unable to rent privately will have on the temporary accommodation provision. An accessible private sector is vital to providing the housing stock that reduces homelessness pressure. If the Government are serious about reducing the demands on local authorities for temporary accommodation, they need to do far more than simply announce stop-gap measures. That is especially pressing, as has been repeated during this debate, when 172,420 children in England are living in temporary housing, which is up 7.6% on this time last year.

Only by making a concerted effort to reduce the cost of living and make private housing more affordable will the Government get people out of temporary accommodation and into long-term secure homes of their own. Sadly, the signs on that front are not encouraging, and the same goes for the Government’s plans to deliver 1.5 million homes. The most recent estimates for additional net dwellings for 2024-25 show the Government on course to miss their house building target by more than 100,000 homes this year.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the latest spending review, which promised more funding for the affordable homes budget, is less generous than on first appearance, with funding hardly different from previous levels. I am sure hon. Members will agree that Britain desperately needs new affordable homes to ensure the long-term supply of housing for those currently without a place to call their own. That is why under the previous Government, 800,000 people bought their first home, through schemes such as Help to Buy and stamp duty relief.

Yet in the current economic climate, more social and affordable homes look increasingly difficult to deliver. Ending homelessness must not be simply an idealistic ambition, but a clearly defined goal, with policies set out to achieve it. None of that is possible without a clear vision of what steps need to be taken. I urge the Government finally to publish—

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gareth Bacon]

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, given that I have to allow time for the Minister and the two proposers to speak, I cannot give way.

I urge the Government to finally publish the strategy in full and provide much-needed clarity to the individuals and organisations on the frontline of tackling homelessness about how they plan to support them to do so. No amount of good intentions or Government interventions can compensate for the unaffordable economic reality facing those trying to find permanent housing. I further urge the Government to consider the long-term consequences of many of their housing policies. A private rented sector, where supply is driven out of the market by over-regulation and costs that continue to rise, can lead only to even more people being unable to find a secure place to live—a fate the Government must do everything they can to avoid.

I end my remarks by calling on the Minister to respond more quickly and effectively to ease the temporary accommodation issue, to work with local communities to supply good-quality homes for families, and to publish the homelessness strategy, which was promised more than a year ago.

Strategy for Elections

Joe Morris Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rushanara Ali]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we take those issues very seriously. Personating another voter is a deliberate act of fraud. It completely undermines our democracy and is a serious criminal offence that will continue to be prosecuted. If he has examples, he should report them to the police.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

For 14 years, young people in my constituency were frustrated by politicians who simply did not listen to their concerns on affordable housing, on the climate crisis or on good local jobs. Does the Minister agree that listening to young people and engaging them in the process is a key first step in rebuilding some of the damage done to our democracy over the 14 years of incompetence we saw from the Tories?

[Rushanara Ali]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for giving young people, from the age of 16, the right to vote and participate in our democracy. Young people are the future, and it is vital that we all work together to ensure that they learn about, and can participate in, our political system and our democracy. That is how we will ensure that our democracy is appreciated and that its value and influence, both in this country and globally, is shared by the next generation.

Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities

Joe Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I will keep my remarks fairly short. As many Members present know, churches in my constituency are much more than just places of worship. They are vital hubs for community cohesion and provide crucial resilience in the face of events such as Storm Éowyn and Storm Arwen, particularly for the most rural parts of the constituency. They are marks of local identity and symbols of the rich history that Northumberland, the north-east and Newcastle have to offer.

Northumberland is often called the cradle of Christianity due to Holy Island, also known as Lindisfarne, but Members will appreciate that, in my view, the west of the county has far more to offer than the coast—my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) is not here. We benefit greatly from that religious history through the great amount of tourism coming in and the huge involvement of local communities.

Organisations and churches operate throughout the Tyne valley and the more rural parts of the constituency, particularly the Holy Cross Anglican church in Haltwhistle, St Mary the Virgin in Throckley, St Mary Magdalene in Prudhoe. Hexham abbey is one of the most iconic buildings that my constituency and the north-east have to offer, not just because I will be getting married there later this year, but because there has been a church on that site for around 1,300 years. For anyone interested in history, it has been there since Queen Etheldreda made a gift of lands to Wilfrid, the Bishop of York, in roughly the year 674.

The constituency is home to more than just Hexham abbey. Bywell is the only village in England with two surviving Anglo-Saxon churches. In Bellingham, St Cuthbert’s has been attracting worshippers for over 800 years, dating back to at least the 13th century.

Such churches are not simply relics, attractions or bits of our history that have seen their day and are now merely decorations. They are the beating heart of our communities and they provide a community spirit in Northumberland that is unparalleled elsewhere in the world. I am tremendously proud to represent all of them. They also provide a crucial venue for hosting constituency office surgeries and for meeting individual members of the community.

Parking Regulation

Joe Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Norris]

I suspect that my reply to the hon. Lady will be the same as I have set out previously to a number of Members, either via written question or in correspondence. The timeframe is coming in due course. I will talk a little more about that, because we are having an important debate. We want to get this right, and I am aware of the potted and challenging history in this space. We want to get it right this time, and we are committed to delivering a code that recognises the importance of this issue to motorists and gets it right for them.

The Department meets regularly with the AA, the RAC and other consumer groups, which have done such important work in this area, to ensure that the code we publish will act in the best interests of motorists and addresses their concerns. As would be expected, we have talked to the accredited trade associations—the British Parking Association and the Internation Parking Community—to ensure that we do not inadvertently make life harder for motorists along the way. I assure Members that we will engage with the issues that have been raised with the Department as we work towards publishing the code.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

We have talked about the impact of parking practices on particular towns, and I am concerned about some of the towns in the Tyne valley, where a lot of effort is being made to preserve the local environment and clean air, and to drive down car use and promote the use of public transport. Northern Rail has just brought in paid parking at Stocksfield train station, which has dramatically impacted the local community and caused a lot of concerns about future on-street parking in residential areas. It would be good to know that the Government are considering those kinds of moves from train companies, which will ultimately have a damaging effect on local communities.

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend’s intervention shows that there needs to be, at the heart of this Government’s work, stronger local say about the full transport balance. The goals that he talks about are those of many of his constituents, who are the experts in ensuring the right balance. Whether that is in regard to bus services or planning, as raised by the shadow Minister, we want to ensure that the tools are in the hands of local communities, so that they can lean in and plan at a community level the amenities and assets that they need collectively.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Morris Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I thought the hon. Member was going to do better, but he did not. The Minister for Local Government was in Birmingham on Thursday, and I am always happy to visit Birmingham. It is a great city and has always been a fantastic place, and I have probably been there more times than the hon. Member has. Under the Tories, the number of homes approved on green-belt land increased nearly tenfold since 2009, so I will not take any lectures. We have said that we will develop on brownfield sites first, and we are taking action to make sure that we deliver the homes and infrastructure that people need. He could learn a lot from me.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

T3. At the end of January, 14,000 people were still on Northumberland county council’s social housing waiting list, yet hundreds of properties right across the county, including in rural Allendale, remain empty. Given the number of people on the housing list and in desperate need of accommodation, it is a disgrace that the Conservative administration has left them empty for so long. Does the Minister agree that a Labour council, backed by a Labour Government, will do much more to get people off the housing list and into homes?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local authorities already have a range of powers to bring empty homes back into use, but I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this specific issue in more detail.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Joe Morris Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas]

I will make a little progress, and then I will give way. Linked to urban densification is a pertinent importance to focus on the quality and aesthetic of the development that is taking place. I have long been a fervent advocate for design codes and the role that locally led placemaking principles can play in determining the quality of an area and its attractiveness for future inward investment.

I believe instinctively that residents across the country are not nimby, but I fear that successive Governments, including the previous Conservative one and the Labour one before that, have allowed mediocrity to reign. There is a lack of local distinctiveness in development, which causes an entrenched perception of nimbyism running throughout the country. I implore the Government to consider reinstating the Office for Place, which was disbanded back in July, and to think about the importance of those aesthetically-based placemaking principles and the role they can play in promoting the positive impacts of development. Linked to that, we have an acute need and opportunity to promote smaller, more artisanal developers, particularly those focused on developing the vocational skills needed to generate the incoming pipeline of talent to support the house building industry.

I will make a couple of points that relate to my constituency, but they probably apply to many others across the country. One is on the protection of the green belt. Green belt is a technical designation, but to the public at large, it is often considered to be lush open fields and meadows. My constituency has this large buffer between Bromsgrove and Birmingham. It is not the case that residents of Bromsgrove are nimby—I do not believe they are—but they do not want the identity of Bromsgrove to be eroded and, by virtue of that, it to become some kind of extension of Birmingham.

For me, and for many of my constituents, that word “identity” underpins the fundamentals we should be talking about. It is about sense of place and a lifestyle that people identify with. When I think about constituents from my area, they have probably grown up in Birmingham and moved into north Worcestershire. In many cases, they have done that because there is an aspirational element to moving into the countryside, and they want to benefit from the countryside that Worcestershire offers, while being in close proximity to Birmingham and all the services it offers.

I will wrap up my comments with four quick points that I would like the Government to focus on. They should consider intensive urban densification and the positive role that can play in delivering housing where it is needed and where young people live, and in regenerating town centres undergoing a lot of change.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It strikes me that the hon. Member is speaking a lot about building where young people live. One thing that concerns me as a fellow rural MP is that young people are increasingly forced out of our rural communities. Does he not recognise that we need to look at intelligent, targeted, moderate house building within those communities to preserve them for the future and preserve their demographic future?

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Member makes a very good point, with which I do not disagree. We have to strike a better balance—that is the point I am making. That leads me to my second point, which is around infrastructure. Bromsgrove has suffered from a lot of development in recent years, and it has not had the infrastructure to go with it. If we want to strike the right balance and enable young people to stay in the communities where they grew up, particularly rural ones, we need to have the housing there, but we also need to recognise that rural areas cannot do all the heavy lifting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

There have been many eloquent and thoughtful contributions to the debate today, and I would like to build on and respond to some of the comments that have been made. Great speeches have been made by hon. Friends and Members from all parts of the House. In particular, may I mention my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay)? Like me, he has some concerns about the Bill, despite knowing the Government’s genuine intentions. It comes with some serious questions, particularly about giving power to Natural England—a quango—while removing and cutting other quangos; and about the future resourcing of Natural England, with those extra responsibilities. I hope the Minister for Housing and Planning will be able to answer some of those concerns in his wind-up.

The Deputy Prime Minister has maintained that democracy will still be there for local people who want to have their say over planning applications, but the simple fact is that the Bill will cut the rights of planning committees and local authorities to make decisions for their local areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) mentioned that house building was up in rural areas versus urban areas, and I will come on to that point later. He was absolutely right to outline the challenges he has in Mid Buckinghamshire and in the wider county. He was also right to focus on the infrastructure and how it is wrong just to focus on renewables. Thousands of acres will be used up for solar power across the country, and the Conservatives believe that we should be looking at alternative options for energy.

The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) says that he is a planning bore, and that he became one during his time listening to various members of the Labour party. When we were both in opposing student political parties at the University of Southampton in 2000—not so long ago, I will say—he was not a bore then, and I do not expect that he will be in the speeches he makes during his career in the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) is a strong advocate for his constituency. He is right to say that the introduction of EDPs is a good idea, but as cases show—I will develop some of the thinking behind this later on—there is a mercenary approach that does not provide local habitat protection, and just tries to move the issues somewhere else.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) mentioned local planning and removing powers. He said that the use of the compulsory purchase order is anti-democratic when it comes to agricultural land, and he is absolutely correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) recognises, as we do, the Government’s mandate to try to build the 1.5 million homes required under their legislation. However, I have to say to the House that nobody believes they will be able to achieve it, including the Minister for Housing and Planning—[Interruption.] It is on the record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) mentioned the “rural versus urban” competition that the Government have created, and the 80% uplift in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) said that targets had doubled in his constituency while they were down in London. I failed to persuade a single Labour Member to admit that the Mayor of London is not capable of delivering the numbers, although the Government have reduced them by a record amount. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said that there were no details of community improvement funds, and that the threshold for solar developments was still too low and needed to be raised. We look forward to discussing that in Committee.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned the green belt and nature being at the heart of planning, and the top-down application in the Bill. I completely agree with her. Last but by no means least, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said that development consent orders should be accountable and better suited for local people, and we entirely agree.

We on this side of the House have always had concerns about the Government’s centralising zeal when it comes to planning. When they first introduced the Bill to the House, it cemented many of our fears about the traditional centralising mission that Ministers in this Administration have shown a taste for in various areas of government since taking office. Let us face it: that is the Labour party’s way. While we all recognise that there is a need for tangible changes to deliver suitable and relevant infrastructure, they should not be to the detriment of the rights and responsibilities of locally elected representatives and planning committees or those who now face having their land taken away by this Government’s unfair compulsory purchase order changes; but that is what the Bill does. The Deputy Prime Minister said that she wanted to streamline decision making, but we all know that the Bill takes those local powers away.

I once said during a Westminster Hall debate that it was fundamentally not good practice or good governance to deliver substantial changes to the national planning policy framework before legislating for an overarching change in planning infrastructure policy. It leads to confusion on the ground and delays in good planning, and rushed enforced devolution and local government reorganisation will further delay and complicate the intended consequences of the Bill. Let us also not forget that the Government have now introduced new housing targets that will reclassify land from grey belt, and will see areas green-lighted for development over the objections of local people and local authorities. This Bill will do that on a strategic scale that we have never seen before. Instead of delivering an algorithm that would fairly distribute building targets, the Government have introduced a politically motivated, unfair housing target regime that has opposition councils in its crosshairs, tripling the building burden in some cases, while rewarding Labour councils for their failure to deliver in their own authorities. This reeks of political gerrymandering, and the Government must think again.

The Deputy Prime Minister said that she wanted the homes that she will be delivering to be affordable. May I remind Labour Members that it was her Government, when she came in, who scrapped Help to Buy, scrapped shared ownership, and scrapped mechanisms that allowed the people in this country to get on to the housing ladder?

There are three areas of concern in the Bill. First, it threatens to remove local councillors’ ability to have their say by setting up a national scheme of delegation that will specify which types of application will be determined by council officers and which should go to planning committees—rules all made from the desks of Ministers in Whitehall—but not planning applications that can be decided in the committee rooms of town halls across the United Kingdom. The Local Government Association agrees, and has commented:

“there remain concerns around how it will ensure that councils—who know their areas best and what they need—remain at the heart of the planning process. The democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English”

—and British—

“planning system, and this should not be diminished.”

We agree; the Government do not.

These changes will require rural county areas to develop 56% more housing than the last Government’s standard method. That is more than any other local authority type and equates to over 180,000 homes needing to be delivered in counties per year, compared with just over 115,000 under the previous method. On average, that is a rural uplift of 115%, while urban areas with major conurbations—mostly Labour authorities—are only up by 17%.

[Joe Morris]

The hon. Gentleman and I both represent rural constituencies, and we both know there is a demographic crisis in those areas. Does he agree that young people in rural areas need homes to live in and homes to work from? What do he and his party have against young people in rural areas?

[Paul Holmes]

I do not have anything against young people in rural areas at all, but surely the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will not see it as fair that his Government have reduced targets on their own authorities in urban centres, where there is already the infrastructure, where generally housing supply is better and where it is easier to get that infrastructure through, but are punishing rural areas across the country.

It is not a sensible or feasible solution to a very clear problem; it will drastically increase pressure on existing rural infrastructure and override the democratically elected local leaders who have a stake in, and should have a say in, the development of their local areas. It also raises the question of how this legislation is deliverable when local government reorganisation will change the spatial development strategies of local authorities. It is further concerning that the chief executive of Homes England has cast doubt on whether the Government can realistically meet their goal of 1.5 million homes, and so did the Housing Minister, in a Select Committee hearing last year. Council leaders, developers and even the Government’s own experts are warning that these targets are unachievable.