Representation of the People Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

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

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

As so many have said in this debate, our democracy must not be for sale, so it is disturbing that the campaign spending arms race is becoming out of control. As has been mentioned, in 2023 the previous cap on campaign spending of £19 million was increased massively to £34 million. None of our constituents was asked whether they wanted that, and the Electoral Commission said at the time that it had not seen evidence to justify the increase.

We all know what can happen when campaign spending spirals out of control. A number of Members have referred to the situation in the US, where opaque crypto interests spent $189 million just between January and the end of June this year. That is with four months to go before the mid-term elections. We have also seen huge donations from crypto interests in our own country, but they were given in pounds.

New clause 70 would set a limit on campaign spending of £24.4 million. That is what the previous limit of £19 million would be now, allowing for inflation, minus 15%, per the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I understand that the Government are keen to avoid additional legislation at this stage, given the time pressure for ensuring that votes at 16 are delivered. I also acknowledge the letter from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the First Secretary of State, which was published last night, urging the Electoral Commission to examine the matter. That letter makes it explicit that

“spending limits on parties and candidates are too high, and ought to be reduced”.

It asks the commission to provide recommendations to the Government by July 2027 at the latest.

I am pleased that the Government have heard the call from Members right across the House from the many different parties represented here who have supported my new clause. I am really grateful to the Members who supported it. As the Government have made that request to the Electoral Commission clear, I will not push for a vote on my new clause, but I really want to see progress. The Electoral Commission now has to work speedily on a lowered limit for campaign spend, to stop this arms race. That message has come clearly from this House, and the commission needs to act on it now.

In my remaining remarks, I want to urge the Government to move at pace on the further risks to UK democracy to which so many speakers have referred, many of which are covered by the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). As others have said, we must ensure greater transparency on targeted online political advertising, including that facilitated through artificial intelligence, and on additional measures on third-party campaigning and political funding.

The stakes really could not be higher, as so many have said. The UK Extremism and Democratic Resilience Centre has recently shown that online platforms and AI-generated content are playing a powerful role in amplifying not just divisive narratives, but extremist narratives and conspiracy theories. This has led to a disturbing increase in the size of the still small, but now much more consequential, minority that accepts political violence. Over one in 10 people in our country now say that they could accept political violence. There has also been an increase in those who reject at least some democratic norms, with almost a third of people saying that we should ignore democratic institutions and rules if they get in the way of change. In the centre’s words,

“hostile states and domestic extremists are deliberately accelerating these fractures to further destabilise Britain”.

The Bill and the Government’s amendments will help, but they do not yet meet the full scale of this challenge. The Government have to engage in the kind of protection and promotion of democracy that they successfully urge many other nations to do when under the threat of foreign interference. Extremist narratives have to be contested and online platforms regulated and reformed, so while welcoming the Bill overall, I will continue to push for change so that we can really ensure that we have what is the right of every citizen in our country: free and fair elections.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Listening to the debate, I think part of the problem is that the Bill is being brought forward in an enormous transitional period. Some of its original objectives might be being met within the legislation that we are proposing, but the debate has moved on since then. We also have to admit that the debate has moved on within the Labour party because the change of leadership. So in some instances, we might not be talking to this Bill; we might be debating what we want to see in the next Bill, which needs to be brought forward with some urgency, particularly because the general tenor of the debate is a recognition that we are in a dangerous political moment in our country and that we must address the threats that are creating that moment.

I can understand the Government not being willing to accept several of today’s amendments, and there might not be time enough when the Bill goes to the other place to ensure that those amendments are shaped in such a way that they can be legislated for quickly. However, I would urge a rethink about the next Bill, which should certainly be brought forward before the end of the year to take into account this whole range of measures, particularly those that have been excluded from the debate overall because of the title of the Bill, which is, to be frank, a bit shaming for the House’s political debate.

I have tabled two very straightforward new clauses. I thought they were in the tenor of the original Bill, and I was surprised when they were not included. In fact, the current Lord Chancellor moved similar amendments in 2022. They relate to the Bill’s aims to bring England and Northern Ireland into line with the reforms taking place in Scotland around the age limit of 16. Also, I thought that we were going to ensure that the franchise was the same.

As people know, Scotland and Wales lowered the voting age, but they also extended the franchise to all residents. At the moment, because we base voting on citizenship, 4.4 million residents cannot vote in a general election in our country, and 1.2 million in England and Northern Ireland cannot vote in any election. That means that 16,300 people in my constituency have no vote whatsoever—people who live here and work here. Most pay their taxes, and fund our public services, but they are locked out of the democratic system.

My new clauses argue that, as in Scotland and Wales, voting should be based on residence rather than citizenship. Some may argue that there should be some investment of time, and other countries designate a timescale for residency. In New Zealand, for example, 12 months’ residency allows someone to vote. New clause 36 deals with local elections, and would permit those who have permission to enter or stay in the UK to vote in elections.

New clause 35 would extend that to general elections for those with settled status—that is an accepted term in many of our pieces of legislation—and indefinite leave to remain. It is an amendment that we have supported in the past. It would mean a simpler system of registration, and it would increase voter participation. Above all else, it would bring about a greater sense of social cohesion: people who live in our society yet have no say in our society would be brought into the political system.

We have had the debate about different languages and all the rest—to be honest, I wish we had never got rid of the Latin mass, but that is another thing, and might offend the other side on that issue—but all my new clauses try to do is recognise the reality of our society. The reality is that our society is a diverse community. This legislation could recognise that diversity, and ensure that everyone has a stake in our society and a democratic right to vote.

[Peter Lamb]

May I express my delight at my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) making it on to the Front Bench? She is going to do a fantastic job.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I had 14 years in local government, and I was very involved in electoral administration in my area. So much of what we are talking about today involves the Elections Act. I was appointed to chair the Local Government Association working group that went through it, which was a cross-party group. By the end, we came up with a consensus viewpoint: based on the evidence and expert testimony we received, very little of that Act was thought to make much sense. I will not insult Conservative Members by saying that it was a nakedly political attempt to rig the electoral system to their benefit, but if they were going make a nakedly political attempt to rig the electoral system to their benefit, it would have looked exactly like the Elections Act.

The basis on which they argued the case at the time was personation. It is vanishingly rare that people actually turn up and try and pretend to be anyone else at a polling station. I will deal with that in just a second, but I must respond to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), at the start of this debate. We knew that the Opposition would say something to try to explain why widening the franchise or making it easier for people to register to vote was a bad idea, but I was not expecting that. It was a good thing we had free hearing tests in Parliament just before recess, but I did not need one: the dog whistle across the Chamber was so loud that it was apparent to all of us.

When Reform eventually turned up to say something, it was the exact same talking points. Conservative Members will not rebuild their party by aping the Reform party. Parties have had this issue time and again; what they are doing might play well within their own ranks, but it will not rebuild their party with the country. Although I have never voted for the Conservative party, I know that there are many moderate Conservatives who must feel a great deal of shame at what is happening to their party, which is driving towards the right and away from common-sense positions.

Personation is vanishingly rare in our system. The reality is that someone would need to know that a seat was on an absolute knife edge to make it work at all. They could not do it as a single person going around all the polling stations—they would need hundreds of people to go around with them. It could not be rigged in a way that would not leak out; they would run into someone in the process. They would need decades of marked registers, which are available to purchase only for six months after an election. Someone would need so many people and to run such a well organised campaign, and even then, they could just get unlucky in the process. I can confidently say that personation has never changed the result of any national election, and it is very unlikely that it has affected a local seat.

What has caused a real problem—personation is not a real-world problem—is foreign interference in our political system. We know there are people who we may soon be at war with who are trying to intervene directly in our elections. We know that questionable money is a problem. Frankly, Russia was pretty happy to give the Conservatives money at one point. We know that tens of thousands of people have been turned away from polling stations since the introduction of voter ID. We know that millions of people are not registered. One in seven eligible voters is not registered in our system, and individual voter registration helped to make that the case. Disenfranchisement in our system is an absolute travesty, and this Bill gives control back to the British public by re-enfranchising them.

National Planning Policy Framework

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on council and social housing. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this very important debate.

On a personal basis, a debate on national planning policy feels like a very fitting bookend to the outgoing Administration. The issue of what gets built where defines our daily lives like no other issue, and I have found my first two years in this place defined by those debates. Without wanting to cast myself as a latter-day Cassandra, I shared early on my view that, try though Ministers might, there would be no appeasing the developer lobby—no amount of deregulation will ever satisfy them—and so it has proven, with the clamour for relaxed fire safety standards and the weakening of environmental policies, and for there to be less opportunity for ordinary people to influence decisions in the planning system, as loud as ever.

However, my views on the subject have changed. Today, I am not joining this debate to raise a series of detailed concerns about the latest redrafting of the NPPF—although I do still have such concerns, especially in relation to possible changes to the sequential test on surface water flooding and limits being imposed on local authorities to pursue more ambitious policies on climate and nature restoration. The point I really want to make today is that I believe we have reached a point where national planning policy is completely broken and the NPPF is beyond reform. After decades of deregulation, the genius of Labour’s post-war democratic settlement has been degraded and reduced to a system of fiendishly complex processes, combined with overwhelmingly negative outcomes, which, for all the world, seems to have been designed by an evil genius to drive all those involved mad.

When Lewis Silkin created the planning system that rebuilt this country from the ashes of world war two, he described the distinctly Labour vision for a policy that would meet “actual needs, democratically expressed.” Yet what the NPPF has achieved for years—I am afraid the latest iteration will be little different—is almost the precise opposite of Silkin’s idealism. Pretty much ever since the first version of the NPPF in 2012, what we have seen is the proliferation of speculative development across the country, with democratically produced local plans ridden roughshod over and housing built first and foremost for profit, not for people.

In fact, a national planning policy framework is not even an accurate name for what we have. There can be no plan-led system when national policy introduces the overwhelming likelihood of caveats to local plans through an ever stronger and equally inaccurately named presumption in favour of sustainable development, which in reality functions as a passport to permission for all but the very worst speculative schemes. This is not planning in any reasonable sense of the word—it is merely reacting.

Under the NPPF system, more and more of the initiative, the influence and the advantage lies with the vested interests of land promoters and major developers, whose private profit will never accord with the public good. And thus we have a national system in which the notion of affordable housing is a running joke, and in which the environment that politicians so often protest their love for is repeatedly trashed as a secondary matter compared to the unequally distributed benefits of growth. It is a national planning policy framework that overwhelmingly produces outcomes that lock us into car-dependent, unsustainable lifestyles, with polluted air that chokes the lungs of our children and costs the NHS billions, and utterly fails to secure public consent for the development we very desperately require to meet the needs of those stuck in temporary accommodation and in cramped, crowded and unsanitary conditions.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise to the Minister; I am hopping between two different debates in two different Chambers. I told my constituents that I would make this point about planning policy in my area, which has fought for decades to protect the green belt. The introduction of the concept of the grey belt means that developers are now turning green belt into grey belt by dumping, cutting down trees and despoiling the area, and then applying for planning permission for development. The concept of grey belt has undermined all that we have spent decades campaigning for.

[Chris Hinchliff]

I agree with those concerns. As I understand it, many of the applications for grey belt are in fact on greenfield sites, and that needs to be addressed.

For all its labyrinthine processes, the NPPF makes a mockery of local democracy, which breeds disillusion and contempt for politics in this country. The system we have created through the NPPF traps communities in a never-ending cycle of adversarial confrontations with corporations that see our local landscapes as easy pickings and cream off much of the wealth of new developments, while leaving the public to carry the majority of the costs. The section 106 mechanism they rely on is not only obscure, but demonstrably incapable of securing the investment in the infrastructure—GPs, schools, sports grounds and public transport—necessary to keep pace with population growth, when hundreds of new houses are bolted on to towns that have already seen almost all their facilities closed.

The housing the NPPF produces is often both miserabilist and identikit. It is seemingly designed to erase local identity and shorn of local traditions, with no space for community and with a built environment that is best described as unhappiness given physical form. All in all, the damage that successive iterations of the NPPF have done to our country is difficult to forgive. Now is the time to consign the NPPF to the dustbin of history where it belongs and start afresh instead of making further amendments.

The one positive note I can strike is that it is not difficult to imagine something far, far better. We need to return to Labour’s democratic principles, stop treating the public as a problem to be silenced and embrace them as a source of optimistic solutions for meeting the needs of the future. It is time to replace the constant nonsense that traduces our constituents as nimbys, and to put power in their hands so that they can decide where and how to meet the housing needs of their communities in a way that expresses their hopes and priorities for the future. It is time to bring back architects in every local planning authority, working with each community to shape plans for future development on an appropriate scale for each settlement, and with a renaissance in the local vernacular that strengthens and reinvigorates the culture and identity of each unique town, village and city. In short, it is time to ditch the NPPF and build a new system that puts power in the hands of the people and allows planners to genuinely plan with communities.

Fire and Rescue Services: Funding

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Samantha Dixon]

I am going to make some progress.

The Government are committed not only to providing stable funding, but to continuing to work with the fire sector to make sure that the funding system remains fair and responsive. Funding allocations for fire and rescue authorities are determined through a national funding formula, which assesses relative need using factors such as population and other cost-and-demand drivers.

The current fire funding formula was designed more than a decade ago. As part of the fair funding review and following a consultation, the Government updated the relative needs formula for fire and rescue, using the most up-to-date data available and changes in individual authority’s allocations so that they reflect updated data in the formula.

Looking ahead—this is really important in relation to the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade)—we have committed to working with the fire sector on a comprehensive review of the formula ahead of the next spending review. As part of that engagement, every fire and rescue service in England has been invited to participate in sector engagement workshops, the first of which is taking place in Manchester today. It includes chief fire officers, heads of finances and relevant officers. It is an important opportunity to reform funding for the future.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I am also a member of the FBU parliamentary group. I understand that consultations on the formula are going on, and we welcome them. Will the Minister ensure that trade union representatives are built into those regional consultations?

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his point, because it brings me to the work of the ministerial advisory group—a group established following our manifesto commitment to work with the entire sector. The ministerial advisory group involves the National Fire Chiefs Council, the inspectorate, the Fire Standards Board, the National Joint Council, the Local Government Association and the Fire Brigades Union. They sit at the table looking at reforming the role of the firefighter, the funding for the fire sector, and the governance of and arrangements for the wider sector. I have asked that group to be bold in its decision making, because after the past 14 years, the sector cannot continue as it is. We need to support that work as fully as we can. Local fire authorities need to listen to their communities, work with their communities, and work with the Government to support their communities going forward.

Funding is only one part of the picture. There is exciting work ahead of us. There is a generational opportunity, and this Government are determined to seize it.

Question put and agreed to.

Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue.

I share the concerns and frustrations that have surfaced in the debate. The industrial action has gone on far too long. The ongoing disruption is not in anybody’s interests: it is holding back the great city of Birmingham, a city that I am incredibly fond of, and the people of Birmingham, who deserve better. It is the people of Birmingham who matter: it is their voices that must be heard, and they should be at the centre of the resolution of the dispute.

I have heard the points made by all Members, and I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) says. Birmingham is a city that its people are deeply proud of, and they deserve to be. She was right to mention the funding settlement that we have just awarded to Birmingham city.

I want to address directly a point that has just been raised. The reason why Birmingham is seeing a core spending power increase of 45% under this Government is not that it is some kind of reward for what has happened there. That is ridiculous. The reason is that we are reconnecting council funding with deprivation—with poverty. We are reversing what we saw under the Tories, which was town halls dealing with the worst of austerity, and the places that had the least being hit the worst. That is going to change, because we need to sort out poverty in this country. We cannot do that without a town hall that has the resources that it needs to help people. That is why we are changing it. I do not take kindly to the idea that we should not help councils to tackle poverty in this country.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Labour Members fully agree with the Minister on that point, certainly. I refer to my registered interest as a member of Unite.

As time is limited, will the Minister address the key question that several Members have put to her? The Government have a specific, special role in this matter. It is not like other disputes between the council and a workforce: because of the role of commissioners appointed by the Government, there is a responsibility that falls on the Government’s shoulders.

There will be a major picket on 30 January that trade unionists will be coming to from across the country, to support their comrades—their brothers and sisters—in the dispute in Birmingham. I will be going as well. There is a limited time in which that picket could be made redundant if the Government convened a meeting of all the parties concerned. It behoves the Government to do so, because it seems as though it is the commissioners who are blocking the settlement. I urge the Minister to convene that meeting and get people round the table, because I think a negotiated deal could be forthcoming as a result.

[Alison McGovern]

My right hon. Friend spells out the situation: clearly the Government are not the employer but, given that we have commissioners, we will want to hear regularly about what is happening in Birmingham. I will come to that point later.

The Government are not a party to the ongoing dispute. It is an issue for the parties involved to work towards a sustainable solution, notwithstanding the question I have just been asked and my response—given the arrangements with commissioners, I will want to hear from them directly. The Government have that responsibility because of the decision that was taken.

I call on all involved to end the disruption. Last spring, the Government took action to avert a public health crisis, as a number of Members have mentioned, and supported the council in clearing the streets. As a result, the council was able to remove thousands of tonnes of waste from the street and restart regular kerbside collections. As a result, thankfully, we have not seen a return to the crisis that the city faced last spring, and the waste has not piled up to dangerous levels. The council and my Department will continue to monitor the situation closely and ensure that waste does not build up again. It is important to note that although residual waste is now being collected regularly, recycling remains suspended, as Members have said. That situation must change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

No, not at all. I have set out my opinion that this needs to be brought to an end. Members have set out the consequences for the residents of Birmingham, for staff and for others, including the right hon. Member’s constituents. Of course the strike needs to be brought to an end; the point I was making is that the Government took steps to bring a public health crisis to a close.

Government commissioners have been in place at the council since 2023 to oversee its improvement journey. In their most recent report, the commissioners highlighted the positive progress that the council has made in key areas—we needed to see progress on other issues as well, not just the dispute—but they noted that the dispute has consumed council time, diverted attention and slowed overall progress. That is a real concern for me. The council still has work to do towards financial sustainability. Given the points made by the commissioners, we all want to see things brought to an end. As I say, I will want to hear regularly from the commissioners about the progress.

In recent weeks, the city has faced additional strike action by agency workers in waste. As I understand it, and as Members have mentioned, a small number of agency workers began a separate strike on 1 December due to alleged bullying and harassment. I am sure that everyone here will agree that bullying and harassment are totally unacceptable, so the council and the agency, who are the employers, must address the issue.

Since the new year, some disruption has been caused by recent snowfall across the midlands, and there have been issues at council depots, but I am told that the council has plans in place to resolve any backlogs created. Disruption at pickets has also been a big factor affecting waste collection, since contingency arrangements were put in place. I understand that Unite the union has acknowledged and apologised for that behaviour, which no one wants to see repeated.

In recent months, Unite has urged the council to come to the table to find a way forward to end the strike. I am obviously extremely sympathetic to that goal, as I have mentioned on a couple of occasions. The council has duties and responsibilities beyond the industrial action. I support the leader of the city council, John Cotton, in his position that any solution to end the strike must be both lawful and financially viable. We all want a resolution to be found.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will, briefly.

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

The intervention needs to be short.

[John McDonnell]

It is almost heartbreaking to witness this happening. It is pure sophistry to say that the Government do not have a role or that they have no locus. The Government appointed the commissioners, who report to them. I appeal to the Minister: simply get people in the same room, because a deal is available.

[Alison McGovern]

All the parties will have heard what my right hon. Friend has said, what I have said, and the priority that we put on getting a decent service for the residents of Birmingham and getting staff in a position where they can do their jobs. We all support that, and everyone will have heard what my right hon. Friend has said.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I think some of those points might have been stretching my patience on scope somewhat. I do not intend to put on a fixed time limit. However, Members might like to consider whether they can stay within the bounds of about six minutes, so that I can get everyone in.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to argue the case for Wessex. [Laughter.] No, I don’t.

I originally came in to support new clauses 67 and 68, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), on the licensing of cabs and others. Unfortunately, he had problems printing out his speech and arrived late, so he is unable to speak directly to them, but I am sure he will intervene on the subject.

Things have moved on since we first drafted new clauses 67 and 68, and I am really grateful. The Government have brought forward a series of amendments—new clauses 49 to 54, I believe—that deal with national licensing. That is a huge step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) eloquently put the arguments for why those provisions are needed, and moved the argument on as well, because out-of-borough licensing is the big issue that is hitting us at the moment.

I declare an interest as a member of Unite—it is in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The genesis of our involvement is that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and I convened a meeting of cab drivers who were all members of Unite. The GMB has taken an important role in this as well. It is the first time I had seen a united front of cab drivers, with black cab drivers and other drivers representing all areas of this sector of the economy united in this one demand on proper national licensing and out-of-area provision.

[Peter Lamb]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts to move these provisions forward. I will relay the key points of our agreement on this issue. The key challenge is that since the Deregulation Act 2015, we have a system in which councils no longer know who is operating in their area, on what basis they are operating, and what standards they are operating on. I am directly familiar with how the system has shifted as I was a member of the licensing committee from 2010 onwards. Most significantly, councils have no power to enforce or investigate when things go wrong. City of Wolverhampton council really needs to go and investigate the entire country because of the way in which the systems are operating.

If we are not going to have a national system, the only way we can get back to a system where someone has the confidence that if their daughter gets into an Uber tonight, the council will know who she is, can intervene if she is in danger and will investigate if something goes wrong, is by returning to national standards, and by having a situation where local licensing authorities can once again control who is starting or ending in their patch—not having people coasting in from out of area.

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend got a good part of his speech in anyway. That is exactly what came out of the meeting with the cab drivers themselves. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North, they put an emphasis on the Casey report and raised their concerns.

My understanding of the Government’s intention is that, having inserted national licensing into the Bill, there will be a rapid consultation on how it will work—that will be excellent—and, with regard to the out-of-location measures, there will be further discussions about the whole licensing regime for cabs. As the Minister said, the legislation is that old that it goes back to the horse-drawn Hackney carriage in the 19th century.

The one point I want to make is that this is a matter of urgency. Everyone I have spoken to feels that it is a matter of urgency because of the vulnerability of passengers. As has been said, the vast majority of people who work in the sector want to provide a good service, which is why they are lobbying so hard for national standards, but there are some rogue operators and they are putting people at risk. We are only as good as the last serious case of abuse in the system. That is why I emphasise to the Government that this is a matter of urgency. If it requires a separate piece of legislation, as I am advised it probably will, we need to ensure that we have spoken to the Leader of the House. I think that, on a cross-party basis, we would give that legislation time and priority, as the dangers are so hefty.

New clause 13, which some of my hon. Friends will talk about, reflects what is happening outside this House: a movement in local communities to have more control of their local community, particularly through local environmental controls. For the life of me, I do not understand why the Government are resisting new clause 13, but maybe the spirit of it will go into the other place. All it is asking for is a review of how the Localism Act 2011 has worked.

I supported the 2011 Act—it was about empowering local communities. The movement that is building for people to assert control over their local areas is significant, and the Government need to take that into account. Perhaps, as the debate moves forward, the Government will look more appreciatively on an amendment like new clause 13 in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I strongly support this Bill and was proud to serve on the Committee. The Bill will deliver an enormous transfer of power out of this place and into our local communities. As a former councillor, I know that trusting local representatives to make decisions about local services and issues leads to much stronger outcomes.

I want to speak strongly in favour of the Government’s new clauses 49 to 57, which provide for the introduction of national minimum standards for taxi licensing. I am delighted to see the Government bringing forward those measures, which I and others, many of whom have spoken today, have proposed to tackle the huge problem with cross-border licensing, which is an issue for both taxi drivers and passengers. Right now, local councils have significant flexibility around taxi licensing policy, without a baseline, which means there is huge variance between councils. Yet drivers can operate anywhere once licensed. Unsurprisingly, that creates huge demand for licensing from councils with laxer standards.

Wolverhampton has become the UK’s taxi licensing hub. In the first five months of last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) mentioned, the council issued over 8,500 licences, which is more than 30 times any other council in the midlands. From April 2023 to March 2024, 96% of licences went to people living elsewhere. Wolverhampton-licensed taxis now operate nationwide, and a third of taxis in Manchester are registered in Wolverhampton, 80 miles away. That is not the drivers’ fault, as seeking out the best deal possible is understandable, particularly if it is cheaper or if processing times are faster. However, there are several problems.

First, drivers who do the right thing and register locally are undercut by those going to councils with weaker standards, creating a race to the bottom that harms both drivers and passengers. We must emphasise that drivers want this to be fixed too, so that rogue operators can be dealt with. There is a real democratic deficit: local authorities cannot regulate their own standards effectively and they lose control, as seen in Peterborough in my area, where plans for CCTV in taxis had to be dropped because locally licensed drivers would pay more while others would avoid the cost by licensing elsewhere.

Secondly, climate and emissions aims are undermined too. Peterborough city council will not license a vehicle that is over nine years old, but Wolverhampton allows cars up to 12 years old. There is a lot of variance on that.

[John McDonnell]

We have all had a go at giving Wolverhampton a bashing. The council has not advertised this licensing; it just deals with it efficiently, so drivers have gone there—but it was not the council’s fault.

[Sam Carling]

I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said. In fact, I carefully drafted this speech to avoid attacking Wolverhampton in any way, because I recognise that the reasons for this situation are complex. That goes to my next point: overstretched councils cannot monitor conditions, let alone enforce them, for drivers operating hundreds of miles away. If there is an incident in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire involving a driver who is licensed halfway across the country, there is no way that their licensing council can properly investigate and do something about it. It would be like asking Police Scotland to investigate something in Cornwall; it just does not make sense.

Thirdly, there is a huge safety issue. Some councils have less stringent Disclosure and Barring Service checking requirements, they are cheaper, or they have no requirement for CCTV or emission-compliant vehicles, so both passengers and drivers are left without adequate protection when there are incidents. That was a key point of the recent Casey audit on child sexual exploitation and abuse, which identified that some councils go beyond statutory guidance as a means of tackling sexual exploitation, but were hindered by a lack of stringency from other authorities.

That problem was also raised in the 2014 Jay inquiry into child sexual abuse in Rotherham. That rings true with calls from all sectors, including from trade unions such as Unite and the GMB—I declare that I am a GMB member—in their long-running campaigns around this matter, to which I pay tribute. I am delighted that the Government have listened to me and others and adopted the proposals that were brought forward in Committee. I look forward to seeing the detail of what the Government propose for national minimum standards, and I will continue to engage closely.

At this point, I was going to talk about the importance of considering raising the licensing authority level to strategic authorities and transport authorities, so it was brilliant to hear the Minister say just now that we will be consulting on that, because that is the other key part of this story. Together, those two measures could have a profound impact on dealing with the issues in this sector.

Turning briefly to other amendments, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s new clause 45, which will remove the requirement for local councillors’ home addresses to be published. Given the security environment, this is excellent news. I am aware of more than one incident in my region over the past few years of councillors’ home addresses being publicised maliciously online by bad faith actors, encouraging people to intimidate councillors in their homes. Indeed, that has happened in my region on several occasions, so this provision will have a tangible impact on keeping safe those dedicated volunteers from our communities who are trying to do what is best.

New clause 79, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), talks about establishing local accounting officers and public accounts committees in each mayoral strategic area. The Government have been talking about this for some time, and there is a lot of support for these committees to hold local spending to account and provide some real oversight, so I would appreciate some thoughts from the Minister on why the Government are not bringing that forward at this time, and whether they are considering doing so more broadly.

To conclude, I really welcome the Bill. We went through it line by line in Committee, so I know what a difference it will make, transforming local government, pushing power out of this place and empowering communities to make decisions that make sense for their areas. As with the last Labour Government, we are spearheading the devolution we need to unlock the growth and opportunities that have for too long been overlooked.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I heard both the point that the hon. Member has just made and the point he made during the debate. The model we have in London has been a successful one for 25 years. We will continue to work with the mayor and the constituent councils to build that partnership, and to look at ways in which we can strengthen not only the powers and responsibilities of the mayor, but their accountability.

Moving beyond London, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mike Reader), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip for highlighting the opportunities of devolution. It was great to hear that from Government Members—what we heard from Opposition Members on this topic was pretty disappointing—because we recognise the need to create strong institutions within a functional geography. We understand the opportunities in the south midlands and Staffordshire, and we want to see devolution across the country, whether through foundation strategic authorities or through mayors.

Let me directly address the point that was made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), who has been a consistent and powerful champion for town and parish councils. We are very clear in the Bill that the objective is to take power out of Whitehall and Westminster and push it to the appropriate level, and there is absolutely a role for town and parish councils in that—I said that in Committee, and I will say it again. We are clear that certain powers must sit at the functional geography layer, where the mayor of the strategic authority is the right level. There are also powers that absolutely must sit with our local authorities, and there are powers that will sit with our neighbourhoods.

Members have mentioned that neighbourhood governance provision is unspecified in the Bill. That is deliberate, because we think that neighbourhood governance should be driven locally. We will set a series of principles in statutory guidance, but ultimately we want places to come up with the neighbourhood governance structure that works for them. In some places, that will mean building on the strength of town and parish councils; in other places, it will mean building on neighbourhood committees and neighbourhood forums. It is right that we allow that process to be led locally.

I will now turn to new clause 33, which the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire spoke to, and the subject of joint planning committees. We do not think that the new clause is necessary, because provisions already exist to ensure joint working across authorities, including the creation of joint committees for the purpose of planning.

Finally, I will pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) about the importance of skills. Skills have a critical role in driving economic development, and our strategic authorities and our mayors should grip that. We want to ensure that they are planning adult education provision. They are already working with employers and others to develop skills improvement plans, and we will look to build on that. I come back to the fact that we are creating provision for a right to request. I already know from conversations with our mayors that they are clear that they want more purchase and agency over adult skills. I anticipate that we will build on this area.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I heard the word “finally”, and that moved me to intervene. I offer my support and thank the Government for amendments 116, 117 and 118 on air pollution, which render redundant the Government’s announcement tomorrow on the expansion of Heathrow. Before the Minister moves on, what is the Government’s attitude to new clause 29? It seems to embody many of the Government’s policies. If she will not accept that new clause tonight, will she work on some of the issues within it for the Bill’s next stage of consideration?

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising new clause 29, which I was just coming to, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) and other hon. Friends for championing the issue. We are clear that mayors and strategic authorities have an important role to play in the fight against the climate and ecological crisis. That is why climate and environment are included in the competences that will sit with strategic authorities under the Bill. We already have mayoral strategic authorities that are subject to the biodiversity duty. They are required to work with their constituent authorities to deliver air quality action plans. We are already seeing on the ground that our mayors and our strategic authorities are in the vanguard and are pushing, and I imagine they will continue to build on this area as they accumulate powers and more levers over this area.

We support the intention behind the poverty and equality duty, as I said in Committee. We think it is a thread that runs through the Bill. Any mayor and any strategic authority will fundamentally care about poverty and reducing inequality, and the functions within the Bill are the enablers of that.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

We now come to King’s consent. Do we have a Privy Counsellor present?

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

King’s consent signified.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege.

Clause 2

National policy statements: parliamentary requirements

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I add my thanks to those in the other place for the work that they have done on this Bill, and particularly on Lords amendment 1, which I will explain my thinking on in more detail.

I stand to speak on this issue because of the importance of scrutiny of Government policy by the Select Committees of this House. While this House has an important scrutiny task, and Bill Committees have their job to do, there is a valuable role for Select Committees in scrutiny because of the depth of knowledge of the Committee teams, which are made up of Members, experienced expert staff, and Clerks. That depth of knowledge can be very helpful to Ministers and Governments, who can get useful input as policy is developed, and Select Committees have a particular role in relation to national policy statements.

More widely, I say to Members on the Treasury Benches that although I massively appreciate the work that the Minister has done to ensure that we lean into this issue —which I will touch on in a moment—Governments of whatever party need to be mindful when they are pushing legislation forward. We get elected with an agenda and, quite rightly, we are impatient to push things through, but we need to be mindful of the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. We diminish that at our peril, because we risk a slippery slope. One day, a mad, bad or dangerous Government—do not tempt me on that, given the past 14 years—could misuse the system. We need to stress-test what is being proposed by the Government of the day in the light of that important fact.

We have 13 national policy statements covering types of national infrastructure. I do not need to go into detail on that, but they include energy, transport, waste water and waste. The normal process has been that these statements are laid before the House, and Select Committees are involved. For time reasons, I will not go through the technical detail of how that works, but basically, Select Committees have an important role to play in scrutinising any changes to national policy statements. The Government are concerned that this can take too long, and have decided, as the Minister has explained, to introduce a new reflective amendment procedure. Under that procedure, the Government would not be subject to the existing statutory obligation to respond to a resolution of either House, or to recommendations from a Committee of either House, regarding the proposed changes.

The key question is: what is proposed to replace the existing procedure? As the Minister has said, there will continue to be a public consultation on reflective amendments —the smaller category of amendments that might be introduced. The Minister will need to write to the relevant Select Committee, and Ministers must make themselves available to appear before the relevant Committee to explain why the proposed changes to the NPS mean that the reflective amendment route is appropriate. The Minister and I have been discussing this for months—I have been speaking on behalf of those on the Committee corridor—and I thank him very much for his time.

On Report, the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that Ministers would appear in front of Select Committees

“as far as is practicable”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.]

I raised with him the concern that although “practicable” may be a legal term, it does not really work for Select Committees, because there is a question about what it means. The Minister could be on holiday, or could be visiting a constituency somewhere else in the country, and it might not be practicable for them to appear before a Select Committee. I have been a Minister, and it is right that Ministers should be accountable to this House. That should be a priority; it is the job of a Minister to steer legislation through the House, politically and practically. I know that the Minister has been looking closely at whether he can give us a reassurance that Ministers will be expected to appear before a Select Committee if required to do so, not just as far as is practicable.

Under the new approach, an amended national policy statement will be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days—I am glad that the Minister has been clear that it will be sitting days, not days during a recess period; that is critical—and the Government will respond to any Committee reports during that time. However, they no longer have a statutory obligation to respond. I hope that the Minister can reassure me further, at the Dispatch Box, that they would be expected to do so.

Speaking on behalf of the Committee corridor, we are very clear that we would play our part in ensuring that these matters were turned around within a proper timeframe, and there would not be unnecessary delays. There is a great team of people behind our Select Committees. If you were not in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would say that I am privileged to work with probably the best set of Chairs of Select Committees that we have ever had, but that would cut you out, and you did important work that set the tone for us all. You were a leader in this field when you chaired the Women and Equalities Committee; we follow in big footsteps. There is a very talented team of people on the Committee corridor who want to make sure that this process works. We take very seriously our responsibility to scrutinise Government legislation, and our role in getting it through Parliament, although not necessarily without amendment. We will work very closely with the Government when submitting our views.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Those who are watching this debate might think that we are just debating tedious parliamentary processes, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) made clear, national policy statements have impacts. We are about to consider—in some detail, I hope—the national policy statement on airports, which would result in 15,000 people in my constituency losing their home, and whole communities being wiped off the face of the earth. That is why it is so critical that we get this procedure right; otherwise, we will not carry the community with us.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I think I can reassure my right hon. Friend that, as the Minister has made clear at the Dispatch Box, very large changes would go through the old process. There is no watering down of that, which is absolutely right and proper; the Government are leaning in the right direction on that. Our concern was about turning smaller amendments into reflective amendments. The Minister outlined four categories of amendment; when he sums up, I would be grateful if he could clarify who decides which of the four categories an amendment would be in, and whether there is any prospect that the process could be misused by a future Government. I cannot imagine that the Minister would misuse it, but in a bad world, could this process be abused by the Government of the day?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

Building 1.5 million homes to tackle the housing crisis at the same time as protecting British wildlife is an issue that the general public are rightly passionate about, and one that Government must get right for people, for nature and for the economy. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, initiated an inquiry to explore that exact question last November, and we will shortly be able to share our conclusions and recommendations to Government. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a central plank of the Government’s plan to unlock the planning system in order to deliver the housing and infrastructure that Britain needs.

I was interested in the contribution of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who rightly identified the issue of developers sitting on land. I have to say, as someone who has been in local and parliamentary politics for 23 years, that that has always been the case, so it was unconvincing that, having identified the issue, he did not seem to have any solutions. He listed a number of things that the Government might consider, without enlightening us as to whether he supported any of them, so it is clear that the Government will have to crack on alone if they wish to address this important issue.

The Bill has been significantly improved during its passage, and my original concerns about part 3—which were shared by many others—have been allayed. I have been through enough debates on legislation in this Chamber where people have accused Ministers of not listening to give credit to my hon. Friend the Housing Minister for having listened to criticisms and skilfully clarified how the Government will respond. I thank him for that.

Unfortunately, the Minister’s work has been made more difficult by briefings that characterise nature as a blocker to development. In fact, research from the Wildlife Trusts found that bats and great crested newts were a factor in just 3% of planning appeal decisions. I think these anti-nature narratives are at best lazy, and often unhelpful; they distract from some of the more significant challenges in the planning system, such as the lack of resources and skills in local authorities to support good planning applications. Tackling those genuine planning barriers, alongside this Bill, will be essential to building the homes that we need.

Lords amendment 40 would limit environmental delivery plans to only certain environmental impacts, including water pollution, water availability and air pollution. Addressing environmental impacts at a strategic level, as enabled by the EDPs introduced by the Bill, has the potential in some circumstances to deliver more benefits for the environment and faster planning outcomes. In some circumstances, this strategic approach would absolutely not be appropriate—for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) alluded to, harm to a site-loyal species would often be impossible to redress in a different location.

I do believe, though, that it is reasonable to steer clear of stipulating on the face of the Bill which environmental issues EDPs could be developed for in future, as Lords amendment 40 would do. If guided by current robust scientific evidence, or evidence that might come to light in future, it is possible to imagine that a strategic approach for addressing environmental impacts could be found to be appropriate for issues beyond only water and air pollution.

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely considered speech. On that point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), we now have concerns being expressed by virtually every environmental organisation we have ever worked with, including SERA—the Socialist Environment and Resources Association—Labour’s own environment campaign.

Could there not be a compromise here? If the Government were really clear on the process for the future, the issues that my hon. Friend has just raised could be considered. Then, we could see that there was a strategic approach on some issues, but that there would be further consideration on others that the Government could come back to. There is potential there for a compromise with the other House as part of this ping-pong process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call John McDonnell.

[John McDonnell]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for leaving the Chamber for a period. I had to chair a meeting upstairs that had been planned for a number of months.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) mentioned the 4 Cs. I will add a fifth: confidence. One problem that we have as a Government —on this issue and on a number of others—is that we need to instil confidence in the general population that not only are our objectives sound but the methods that we are about to use will be effective. I want to stick to the Bill, but let me use a general example. There has been a trend in Government over the past 17 months of policies being introduced that have not maintained the confidence of the general public or of a number of Members. Having destroyed that confidence, we have then gone through a process of reversing the policies and, as a result, not gaining any benefit from them. We just require a bit more political nous as we consider things, issue by issue.

In this field in particular, I do not think that we have taken people with us. What has undermined confidence for people like me is that when Members honestly expressed their views, concerns and expertise, and moved amendments, they lost the Whip. Then, at a later date—within weeks—the Government adopted those amendments as part of the process in the Lords.

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, we did not.

[John McDonnell]

I am happy to take an intervention if the Minister so wishes.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am happy to intervene just to make clear that we did not adopt the amendments that were pressed on Report. There are very crucial differences between the package that we submitted and those amendments.

[John McDonnell]

The Government did not accept the amendments on Report, but the reality is that they had to negotiate with the other House and introduce amendments that were in the spirit of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff)—it is as simple as that. We need to be honest about that and admit when we make mistakes.

That is why I worry about this. If we introduce legislation of this sort, we need to take people with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South referred, in a derogatory tone, to the well-funded environmental groups. I have been working with those groups for nearly 50 years. I have never seen a breadth of unanimity across them on an issue such as this. Some of them cannot be described as anything other than mainstream. What they are asking for, in some of these amendments, is relatively limited, so it behoves us, as a listening Government, to go that one step further and see whether compromises can be reached. I congratulate the Government on doing that for clause 3, in which compromises have been reached. For some reason, however, people are digging their heels in, particularly in relation to Lords amendment 40.

Let me deal with Lords amendment 1 on national policy statements. As I said earlier, confidence must be built when dealing with huge developments. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has mentioned the third runway at Heathrow. The proposal to build a third runway will never have my constituents’ confidence because, as I said earlier, 15,000 of them will lose their homes, whole villages will be wiped off the face of the earth, and 2 million more people in London will suffer from noise and air pollution —so we will not be able to convince them, to be honest. However, on more general topics, including major infrastructure projects, the role of Select Committees has been critical, as they are able to examine those issues in depth, have Ministers before them and present reports to the House, which we can debate.

In many instances, Select Committee reports and the work those Committees have done has been of such a quality that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) demonstrated in his description of the work his Select Committee does—they have influenced Government, enabled policies to be changed and, as a result, built up confidence in the general public. I am concerned about any lessening of the role of Select Committees in this whole process. The Minister has given us some assurances, and we will see how that works out in practice, but we interfere with that democratic process of this House at our peril when we are in government, because this is how mistakes get made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), a fellow Transport Committee member. We do not have any chalk streams running through Brentford and Isleworth, but we are beside the Thames, which I know is fed by many chalk streams.

[John McDonnell]

You’ve got a canal.

[Ruth Cadbury]

We do have a canal. We also have the Thames, the River Crane and the Duke of Northumberland river, but I do not think any of them are chalk. The issues for chalk streams, particularly sewage going into them in Oxfordshire, causes us problems in the Thames as it goes past my constituency—I digress.

I welcome the many changes that the Government will make to the planning system as a result of the Bill, and I welcome the amendments that have been made during its passage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) said so eloquently, the most important thing about the Bill is that will it bring more homes. There is high demand for housing in the borough of Hounslow; people desperately need adequate, affordable and good-quality housing but cannot get on to the housing ladder. Some people can afford to rent or buy privately, but I know from door-knocking that all the flats that have been built over the past 20 years are fully occupied.

West London is desperately short of housing, for those already living in the area who want to stay close to their family and for those who want to come to live in the area to take advantage of the many job opportunities in growth sectors. Sadly, some developments that have planning permission have not yet been built, partly because of changes to designs following Grenfell, and partly because other building regulation and industry changes. I hope that those developments get on stream very quickly.

I will focus on Lords amendment 1 to clause 2. In response to my intervention on the Minister earlier, he assured me that despite the significant changes and the new national policy statements, the existing process of parliamentary scrutiny—including a role for this Chamber and the Committees—will continue, and I thank him for that.

The new procedure introduced in clause 2 applies to amendments to national policy statements that reflect policy or legislative changes, or decisions that have been through the courts. The implication is that the provision will enable the quicker implementation of light-touch amendments—those involving less material changes—to national policy statements. That concerns some of us, as the Chair of the Liaison Committee has already covered so eloquently. Some of these changes could be very significant, and they deserve proper scrutiny. As Chair of the Transport Committee, I will come later to some examples specifically relating to transport.

The Government’s changes will give

“Parliament and the relevant select committee forewarning that Government intends to follow the reflective amendment procedure to update an NPS”.

The “reflective amendment procedure” is what I would call “the reduced procedure”, but we will get forewarning—great. The Government will also have to formally announce a review of an NPS by making a statement in Parliament—great. When there is a partial review, the Government will

“informally update the Liaison Committee and the relevant Select Committee”

by writing to the relevant Select Committee at the commencement of the public consultation period on proposed changes to an NPS.

In Committee, the Minister said that

“Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the relevant Select Committee during the consultation period, so far as is practical.”––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 105.]

It is the words “so far as is practical” that have concerned the Chairs of the Select Committees.

A letter received by the Liaison Committee also stated that if a Select Committee publishes a report on proposed NPS changes within the public consultation period, then the Government will take those views into account before the updated NPS is laid before Parliament and will seek to respond to the report around the time of laying the updated NPS “wherever feasible”.

When the Minister sums up, I hope he will clarify those two phrases: “so far as is practical”, in relation to the Minister coming to the Select Committee; and “wherever feasible”, in terms of the Government responding to the Committee’s report.

As I have just said, the reflective amendment process is expected to apply to changes to national policy statements that reflect legislative decisions, Government decisions, the publication of Government policy or changes to other documents referred to in the ANPS. I have a question, which I would really like to know the answer to: by what criteria will the new process be used, and who decides? When will the full-fat version, with the involvement of Parliament, be used?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend is right: the Bill does streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. Although the changes I have just referred to relate not to homes but the regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects—big clean energy projects, water reservoirs and so forth—there are other changes in the Bill that do support a more streamlined local planning process.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

Before the Minister moves on, will he give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am going to make some progress, because I know a lot of hon. Members want to get in and there are lots of points I need to make before I can bring others in.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, new clause 55 is an appeal on the basis of fairness. My constituency has already suffered at the hands of big infrastructure—predominantly High Speed 2, but other projects too. It is about fairness. Where communities against their will have been forced to take these huge, massive infrastructure projects—my constituents will live for more than two decades in a construction site—they should be let off some of the other housing targets that are coming along. They should be let off that further unwanted development, because they have already taken enough.

[John McDonnell]

There have been many references to the housing crisis and impassioned speeches, which I have welcomed. Like every other constituency in London, we have a housing crisis on a scale not seen before, and it has largely been caused by council houses being sold off and not replaced.

What has happened in my area is a salutary lesson about infrastructure developments. Crossrail is going through and the Elizabeth line has now gone through, so land value prices have gone through the roof. In central Hayes, I have more than 4,500 properties being built. We have no lack of planning permissions—in fact, we have planning permissions coming out of our ears—but most local people cannot even think of affording what is being built. Many have tried to become leaseholders, and now they are being hit by huge increases in service charges, and some cannot even sell on their properties as a result.

With new clause 49, which no one has mentioned so far, we are asking the Government to look at how we can capture land value. There is a discussion to be had about a land value tax, and I think its time is coming. Many of those 4,500 properties are described as affordable, but they are not affordable to local people. That is why new clause 67 is so important, because we do not want affordable properties; we want social rent properties. In fact, I would like simply to give our local authorities the resources and to let them start building again, so that we can have places of a decent standard with a rent that people can afford.

Some 45 years ago, I was on the Greater London Council’s planning committee, and I was chair of finance, too. By the way, we should have some confidence in local government being able to undertake infrastructure projects, because were it not for the GLC—and me as well, actually—building the Thames barrier, most Members here would be swimming. That shows what local government can do. We decry local government too often. I dealt with developers throughout that process, and I can say that I have dealt with some good developers and also some atrocious ones. Often they do not deliver, and often they do let us down, and that is why new clause 69 is so important. It merely asks for measures to be put in place during the planning process before a development is properly allowed to go ahead: in other words, the mitigation is there. Deals have been done in my constituency, such as section 106 deals, that have not really stood up, and the developers have walked away leaving us to clear up the mess.

New clause 74, tabled by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa)—who is not in the Chamber at present—draws attention to a classic example of what almost constitutes betrayal on the part of developers who come along, develop the site, take the profits and walk away. In many instances, our local council does not even have the financial resources to challenge them legally. For that reason, I am also attracted to new clause 33, which says, “If a developer has let you down in that way, do not give them any more planning permissions.” It gives the authority the responsibility of saying, “No more: you are not going to do that to us ever again.”

In our area, we will, if we are serious, have to go for compulsory purchase orders. Amendment 68 would take “hope value” out of the CPO calculations, which is significant because in the past too many compulsory purchases have failed because developers have applied hope value, which has escalated the cost and prevented us from acquiring property.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I wish to speak about my new clauses 46 to 48.

The Bill concentrates entirely on removing perceived barriers to development. Unfortunately, in the Government’s view those turn out to be nature and the general public, and to that end the Bill proposes a huge reduction in the ability of local residents and councillors to make their voices heard, or to have any meaningful influence over outcomes. That is such a pity, because gaining consent is not an impossibility.

Neighbourhood plans were introduced under the coalition Government. Done well, they represent the best version of local knowledge and local wishes, but there is not so much as a single mention of them in the entire Bill. Nothing could reveal more effectively how far the Government’s focus is from the views of local residents, who are to be treated as “hostiles” who must on no account be allowed to have their say. For that reason I have tabled new clause 48, which would require neighbourhood plans to be taken into account in decision making. Otherwise, I am not sure why they exist at all.

I have also tabled new clauses 46 and 47, which are directed at the need for local infrastructure. New housing development comes with two key promises: that it will bring affordable homes for local people, and that the extra funds it brings will mean more civic amenities. Both these promises are routinely broken. For the last decade, the pace of house building has been rapid in my constituency. Residents have been asked to support large-scale development because, they have been told, it will bring new schools and clinics along with it. In reality, they have seen the houses built but not the services. Why does that keep happening? People usually blame greedy developers, but the real fault usually lies with the Government.

Incredibly, although a school may in good faith be written into a local plan, signed and sealed via a section 106 agreement, that guarantees nothing. When the time comes to build the school, the Department for Education will often withdraw its support, and no DfE support means no school. Similarly, an apparently solid commitment to build a new GP surgery is so many empty words if the integrated care board later decides that it does not want to staff it. As budget pressures increase year on year, Government bodies will decide that it is cheaper to cram more children into existing schools, and more patients into existing clinics, than it is to add new ones.

Unfortunately, the Bill does little to fix those problems. Every time the Government mention supporting infrastructure, it turns out that they mean big national infrastructure. That is important too, but it does not solve local problems. The Government are viewing this problem through urban eyes. Urban centres usually already have sufficient infrastructure in place, but in rural areas such as Horsham, settlements are literally doubling in size, but with the same level of services. As a former local councillor, I have experienced at first hand how hard it is to shape development to meet local needs when planning authorities lack control over so many of the essential factors. No wonder residents object to new housing, when all they see is more strain on services that are already at breaking point.

I hope the Minister will support my amendments. They are intended to improve this Bill, not to sabotage it. Local participation is not something to be feared; rather, it should be embraced.

Birmingham: Waste Collection

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I am sure that sounded a better question when it was being drafted this morning. I do not think anyone takes pride in the strike action and the waste that accumulated on the streets. This is a very serious issue. It is unacceptable that a major incident had to be declared and that public health concerns were so prevalent. That is why we took quick action. It is why the streets have been cleaned to the tune of 26,000 tonnes, and it is why there are more daily collections taking place now in terms of tonnage than there were in routine times—to make sure they catch up and do not slip back—but we recognise that, in the end, the only solution is to deal with the underlying strike action that is causing the disruption.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of Unite, and I am very proud of that; I think four generations of my family have been members. Not to rise to the provocations of Conservative Members, but there is a difference between having three military advisers and having troops on the streets. The latter would be seen as an act of provocation and a worsening of the situation. May I suggest that the Minister or the Secretary of State convenes the meetings between the council and the union to secure progress in the negotiations?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State is outlining the process by which essential infrastructure needs to be built, but she will forgive me for coming back to Heathrow expansion. I would be extremely grateful if she could set out for us—perhaps not today, but later or in writing—the exact process for considering the expansion of Heathrow under the new legislation. In addition, could she explain why those who will be affected by compulsory purchase will now be removed as consultees at the pre-application stage?

[Angela Rayner]

I will not get into the details of any particular planning process, but I will say that the Bill is about better and quality engagement. Of course, statutory consultees will continue to be engaged, but what we do not want is major infrastructure projects continually being blocked for years and years. People have been speaking about some of these projects for decades, and we still do not have the connectivity that we desperately need.

We are open to strengthening the Bill, and we will give serious consideration to proposals that further our objectives. We will continue to engage with colleagues across the House, as well as with business and communities, on what might be done about existing requirements that are not working as they should. We are clear that where once the answer was always no, to get Britain building, to drive growth and to deliver opportunity, the answer must now be yes.

The Bill is also geared towards another crucial pledge: building the new homes that we need. We will boost house building in England by streamlining planning decisions.