Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Julia Buckley Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

HS2 will definitely have been dealt with via the full-fat process, but what if there are changes to the route of HS2, some major element of an HS2 station and so on? That deserves full scrutiny by representatives in this Chamber. Unless we can have some further reassurances from the Minister, I am concerned that by rejecting Lords amendment 1, this place will in effect have less ability to scrutinise.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a really important point about the need to use these planning processes to align our transport infrastructure plans and ensure that they align with our ambitions around housing developments. Nowhere is the lack of public transport infrastructure more important than in rural constituencies such as mine, where we have my thriving town of Shrewsbury. We have 65,000 residents, but we had no buses after 7 pm or on a Sunday, until now. Thanks to a pilot, we will now have a night bus for the month before Christmas that will run hourly between 8 pm and midnight, giving a boost to our local economy. Does she agree that we must not wait 10 years for such excellent news? We must plan ahead to align both our transport policies and our development plans.

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend is an amazing ambassador for Shrewsbury—I have learned so much about Shrewsbury since getting to know her. Although it is possibly beyond the scope of today’s debate, she is absolutely right about the need to align transport policies and networks with our wider growth and development aspirations. I know that the Government are listening, and are working hard on that very issue. The point about new towns is also a very good one, and it has been welcome to see a Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), sitting alongside the Housing and Planning Minister for quite a lot of this debate—it is a good sign that the important need to break down the silos that built up in Government over the past 15 years is being recognised. We on the Committee corridor really appreciate that.

The Transport Committee considered national networks in 2023, so we do not expect to see that national policy statement again until 2028—we will see what process is followed then, if indeed this change does go through. We published our view on the national policy statement on ports this morning, so it will be 2030 before that is due for revision again. As I said, airports is the only national policy statement that is specific to a particular development, and the Transport Committee expects to address it in the months ahead. Of course, we will be doing so following the Chancellor’s announcement that the Government wish to pursue the development of runway three.

Although we honour the power and role of the Government, I pick up on what the Minister said on Report when he was keen to assure us that the Government’s changes were

“not about eroding parliamentary scrutiny, but about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made”,

and that the Government

“recognise the value that such scrutiny brings to getting important changes right.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.]

Our constituents want to be assured that any changes that have a disproportionate impact on them will be properly scrutinised by this House. I am glad that the Minister has said that the Government will lay a statement in the House, write to the relevant Select Committee and make themselves available, but I want to pick up on the phrase “as far as is practicable”. It is good that he went on to say that

“the Government recognise the importance of Ministers attending Committee to explain the proposed changes”,

and that

“Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.],

but Parliament needs time, access to Ministers, and assurance that significant changes will be able to be properly and fully scrutinised. Where a proposed change is significant enough—where it is not a relatively minor change—we must be able to use the full process.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Julia Buckley Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for launching last week’s consultation on the fair funding review 2.0. It was a beautiful moment for those of us who represent rural constituencies such as mine in Shrewsbury, because the consultation will ask councils to put forward evidence that explains the additional costs of delivering services across a rural area—the all-important rural sparsity. What does it mean? It means that in Shropshire, we have to travel distances of up to 40 miles. Imagine every person driving for social care and every school transport driving to a special needs school. That can cost up to eight times more than under an urban council.

We must think about our demographics. On average, we are nine years older than the rest of the country. The pressure that that puts on social care means that more than 80% of our budget is already spent just on social care. I worked in local government for 25 years. My job was in local government funding at the regional and local levels, and I can say that everybody who worked with me—from every party and in every rural council—has been lobbying for 20 years for this kind of fairer funding for rurality. My plea goes out to those who are listening that they will engage with their local councils and ask them to send the evidence to this consultation, because this Labour Government are listening to rural areas and delivering for them.

Parking Regulation

Julia Buckley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. The Government were elected back in July on a mandate to put more money into working people’s pockets. However, almost as soon as that money goes in, those same pockets are being picked by the increasing costs of just living their daily lives. One of the most egregious culprits is the private parking industry. On average, 41,000 new private parking fines are issued each and every day. We are on course for more than 14 million this year alone. That is an issue that affects pretty much every motorist in the country, whether through being fined themselves or worrying that they will make a mistake and that they are at risk of being fined.

I will tell a couple of stories from my constituency just to illustrate the argument. First, we have Katie Lovett. She parked at the private car park near the railway station but was not sure how the payment machine worked, so approached someone on duty for help. This is what she said when she wrote to me, as her words are far more powerful than anything I could write:

“I received a letter from a debt company in March of this year telling me I had a parking fine of £170 for parking longer than I paid for at the London Street NCP carpark in Southport in January. I’ve never parked here before and even asked a gentleman if I paid on arrival or exit and he told me you pay on exit by putting your registration number in and paying the amount shown. This is exactly what I did although I found the whole process very complicated.”

After a lot of back and forth, she ended up paying the fine because:

“It turns out it was my fault because unbeknown to me you have to put the length of time you’ve been parked for in the machine when you pay. So I only paid for one hour and not two.”

Katie is not alone because, secondly, we have an issue with the Ocean Plaza car park near the beach. One of my residents went to the shops there a couple of months ago—parks up, does his shopping and gets a letter two weeks later to say that he had been parked for three days, four hours and 38 minutes. It was an obvious mistake, but it took the intervention of my office before the parking firm would admit it.

Even I have been caught out. I do not particularly class myself as a shrinking violet on this, nor do I think I am any less competent than the average person when it comes to dealing with these issues; but when someone like me gets a £100 fine through the post, God help the average motorist, who is just trying to navigate the complex multitude of different regimes and approaches. There needs to be standardised regulation in this area, concerning issues such as signage, grace periods, appeals processes and complaint handling. There needs to be a consideration period, so that people can make an informed judgment about whether to accept the terms and conditions.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that private parking firms are running a racket in this country by adding debt recovery fees on top of already expensive parking fines? Will he join me in urging the Minister to bring forward the new regulatory code as soon as possible and ensure that it includes the ability to prevent the addition of bailiffs’ charges on top of already expensive fines?

[Patrick Hurley]

I agree completely. The £70 uplift that the recovery firms are charging is indefensible.

For repeat offenders in the industry, there needs to be a statutory code of practice. It should include the power to remove a company’s access to the DVLA register of keepers, meaning that operators who fail to meet the standards of the code would be prevented from enforcing unpaid parking charges and would therefore effectively be unable to do business. Lastly, the Government need to stop the private operators issuing and enforcing fines due to inadequate signs, broken machines, faulty ANPR cameras and simple mistakes around dealing with the technology. I await the Minister’s remarks with interest.