Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions
Luke Evans Excerpts(3 days, 20 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of neighbourhood plans in planning decisions.
When we come to this place as representatives of our communities, it is our job to hold the Government to account for things that really matter. I must admit that when I entered Parliament I never thought that planning would be something I would lead on, but for my community it is so important because it impacts their daily lives all the time. I do not go through a week without someone raising a planning concern with me, so I thought it would be useful to have a debate yet again on the importance of neighbourhood plans. First, I will say a little about the national context of neighbourhood plans and their roles and why they matter to me and my community.
As a country, we know we need to deliver more housing—both sides of the House believe that. The Conservatives and Labour pledged 150,000 houses in their manifestos and Liberal Democrats pledged 180,000. But the Liberal Democrats who campaigned against me locally have blamed the Government under both the Conservatives and now Labour for a build, build, build agenda, campaigning against local housing despite the figure in their manifesto being far higher. Here is where the national divides from the local, which is really important.
Before the Minister makes his prepared speech about 14 years of what the last Government could or should have done, I should say that since I was elected I have raised many planning issues, had debates on this topic and lobbied from the Back Benches to try to deliver change, because the planning system does need to change. Despite a change in Government, we are still struggling to deliver the houses—we have only to look at what the Chancellor said in her Budget speech:
“Changes to the national planning policy framework alone will help build over 1.3 million homes in the UK over the next five years, taking us within touching distance of…1.5 million homes in England in this Parliament.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 951.]
I am no mathematician, but that is 200,000 short and deals only with the UK when the Labour manifesto was to deliver in England.
On top of that, the Government have brought in changes, but they make my community feel hard done by. The national statistics and changes to the national planning policy framework show that Hinckley and Bosworth’s housing target has to rise by 59%. With the boundary changes, I take in some of north-west Leicestershire, which has to rise by 74%. We are prepared to build our fair share of houses, but it sticks in the throat when we see Leicester city dropping by 31%.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point because that is not just happening in his local community. Does he agree that we see the same thing right across the country? The same is happening in Birmingham, where the housing target is going down, yet in places such as Aldridge-Brownhills it is going up by some 27%, with no infrastructure and no brownfield remediation funding to support it.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that in the south-west the house building target for Somerset has risen by 41%, but in nearby Bristol, recently controlled by the Labour party, it has gone down by 11%?
Dr Evans
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising yet another point. I am sure we could go round the House and get examples of city areas having housing targets go down, whereas countryside areas have them go up. We know we need more houses, and everyone must take their fair share, but we have brownfield sites that need redevelopment and already have the infrastructure in place. The last Government chose to prioritise those sites for housing, because they are connected and have the amenities that the local population needs. That makes a lot of sense. I look forward to this Government explaining their decision.
Neighbourhood plans were brought in under the Localism Act 2011, to give local communities the chance to shape what their community looks like.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. Neighbourhood plans give local communities a voice. They know their areas better than anybody else. With this withdrawal of funding, the Government are basically saying that they know better. People will no longer have a voice or a say in their area, which is devastating for local communities.
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend is spot on. In the planning system, there is a constant feeling that things are being done to people, not with them. The idea of localism and neighbourhood plans was to fight that. We know that local plans deliver more housing with neighbourhood plans, because the neighbourhood chooses where it goes, so it is in keeping with what the local village or parish wants. I will come on to that, because that is the key point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I told him beforehand that I am not speaking today and will only make an intervention because neighbourhood plans specifically apply to England. In Northern Ireland, community planning partnerships bring together public services, residents and businesses, but they do not directly determine specific planning decisions. Does he agree that planning applications could be passed quicker through greater integration with the public and that we should look at a UK-wide strategy? He has lots of wisdom and knowledge, and he has explained this issue for all our benefit today. Does he agree that that might be a way forward?
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Can I check the hon. Gentleman’s wellbeing, as he is not making a speech today? Is he fine and dandy? [Laughter.]
Dr Evans
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. For someone who is not speaking, he articulates his point very well. He makes a really important point: different parts of the UK have a different approach, and there should be shared learning. Joining up community hubs is really important, especially in rural areas, where there are limited numbers of sports fields, doctors, shops and schools. The ability to bring businesses and the community together is good not only for the Government, so that they can deliver the housing, but for the local populace, to better understand and buy into what is being delivered. That is the whole point of neighbourhood plans.
At the end of March 2025, the Government were aware of 1,800 neighbourhood plans being in place. The Locality website states that over 2,400 communities have initiated neighbourhood plans and over 1,000 plans have been successful at referendum. CPRE says that 5,800 local green spaces have been designated in neighbourhood plans, showing that local communities are deciding what is best for them. That is all well and good, but why are these plans important and are they making any tangible difference? An assessment of the impact of neighbourhood plans in England for the University of Reading in May 2020 showed that
“Neighbourhood planning’s contribution to housing supply can be significant. Neighbourhood plans which are allocating housing sites are providing sites for an average additional to local plan allocation 39 units per neighbourhood plan.”
I like to think of this in terms of percentage gains, as the Sky cycling team did. These are huge percentage gains in local communities, which go on to choose to have this housing. We know that these plans will deliver about 11% more houses, and they have community buy-in, which is fundamental to getting people on board to say they will take more housing. That is why we need these plans. However, the Government announced last month that the funding is stopping.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The village of London Colney in my constituency is under siege from top-down housing targets, with a huge development being dumped on the border by the neighbouring local authority and an enormous rail freight terminal the size of 480 football pitches. My local residents in London Colney want their voice to be heard on the location and type of homes, but after three years of having access to the locality budget in developing a neighbourhood plan, the parish council has been told that there is no funding left to finish that plan. Does the hon. Member agree that where local parishes have made significant progress, funding should be reinstated so that they can complete those plans?
Dr Evans
The hon. Lady makes a vociferous defence of her area; actually, she could have been speaking about my constituency in Leicestershire, which suffers all those things. The only thing I would say is that in my constituency we fought the national rail freight hub, won and pushed it back. The population was very pleased about that, but that speaks to people’s engagement and what they can do. The concern that we have to raise with the Government is about what happens when the funding stops. As I will say later, we need to understand where the Government stand on neighbourhood plans. Do they support them? Do they want them to be taken away? Do they want to see them wither? Will they strengthen them? The Opposition’s argument is that strengthening them would deliver the housing that people want in the way they want it.
On the funding that is stopping, Locality—the membership organisation that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government commissioned to deliver support services to neighbourhood forums to prepare their neighbourhood plans—has announced that it cannot proceed with new neighbourhood planning support services from 2025, and it has until the end of March 2026 to complete all existing technical support packages agreed with MHCLG. It believes that
“it will be difficult for some groups to progress their plans…we are not able to support the Champions Network and other learning and development opportunities”.
The National Association of Local Councils said:
“We are bitterly disappointed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG) decision to stop funding for the neighbourhood planning support programme…This decision is a significant setback for localism and the highly successful neighbourhood planning initiative”.
CPRE nationally says that that it is
“concerned about the government’s decision to end support for preparing and updating neighbourhood plans, as this is likely to lead to planning decisions becoming less responsive to the needs and aspirations of local communities.”
That is the rub: it feels like a slap in the face for local communities that want to take on the responsibility of making change. That is often done by volunteers who do not have technical experience but aspire to change their area for the better. That is why it hurts.
This is not just some nebulous concept that we discuss down here in Whitehall and Westminster. My constituency is a primary example that is living this out. We do not have an up-to-date local plan under the Liberal Democrat borough council—this has been ongoing for six years—or an up-to-date five-year land supply. The Liberal Democrats’ local campaign says, “Stop building,” but the national campaign says, “We need to go even further than the Labour and Conservative pledges.”
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the housing debate is about not just the number of homes but who determines where they should be built. He continues to point to the Liberal Democrats, but I gently remind him that our policy is not just about numbers, but about having a bottom-up approach whereby local authorities work out the homes they need in their local area, in contrast to the top-down approach pursued by his former Government and the current Labour Government.
Dr Evans
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out; I hope she will get in contact with her colleagues in the Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough council to make that exact point. They could take more control if they had an up-to-date local plan and learned from their neighbours in North West Leicestershire—part of which is now in my constituency—which does have a five-year land supply and an up-to-date local plan, and is making the best of that because it is able to take in business rates and turn that into a positive. The community chooses where development goes and has control over it. The mechanism is there, and I have been raising this issue with the last Government and this Government.
I am keen to ensure that the Government are able to kick local decision making in the right direction to prevent failings. Neighbourhood plans are the protective mechanism that can deal with that. I argued with the last Government, and will argue with this Government, that neighbourhood plans should have more weight, especially where there is no up-to-date local plan, because that would do exactly what the hon. Lady is asking for. They allow communities to have infrastructure and amenities, in keeping with the their heritage and environment, without top-down speculative developments that place 100, 200, 300, 500 or 1,000 houses on top of them. Communities just will not swallow that. That is the key and why I secured this debate.
Let me continue with the example of my constituency. We now have the prospect of devolution, with 21 councils getting a legal invite to change the way in which they structure themselves. I am not sure about other Members, but if I got a “legal invite” from the court, I would not ignore it. This is being imposed on local governments. In my area, we have at least three different versions of what devolution will look like. This will have a drastic impact on planning, yet we have no idea of what the neighbourhood plans or planning authorities will look like, especially if we are divided into one, two or three different unitaries.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. On the devolved issue, which is slightly different in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of GB, there has been a planning proposal in my area for about seven years to develop a good-quality hotel close to where the Open golf championship will take place next week. That has been delayed not by problems, complaints or objections from local residents, but by a politically inspired complaint extraneous to the constituency. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to address the issue in a more holistic way, to try to get development that most people can agree with and want to see progressed as quickly and effectively as possible?
Dr Evans
The hon. Member makes a fantastic point. It is about getting that balance. There will always be nimbys, but I find that many of my constituents understand that we need more housing for the young and for older people to downsize into, and more businesses and infrastructure for jobs and creating wealth. The question is their involvement and the understanding of the community, and being plugged into decision making.
The whole idea of localism is that local communities know best. The Government cannot do everything, so we should empower the people at the bottom to make choices, and they will do. The evidence backs that up, which is why I would like to know why the Government seem to be reneging on localism. In response to parliamentary questions, the Government’s answers have been ambivalent:
“Government remains of the view that neighbourhood plans can play an important role in the planning system. Communities can continue to prepare neighbourhood plans where they consider that doing so is in their best interests.”
The Government believe:
“Support for neighbourhood planning groups should be possible without further Government funding.”
They also state:
“The Government has no target for neighbourhood plan take-up.”
This is why I secured this debate: do the Government want to scrap neighbourhood plans, or simply phase them out? If they believe in neighbourhood plans, why are they taking away the funding? How do they expect volunteers to deliver the change that the Government and the Opposition want to see, without the means to deliver it?
What protections can be put in place for villages and parishes that are using neighbourhood plans, especially when there is no up-to-date local plan? How can we hold to account local councils, such as Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, for not delivering a local plan? The plans were almost designated under the previous Government, but that would be a big step to take. Fortunately, we have seen progress in planning improved, but at the end of the day we are open to speculative development, and there does not appear to be a mechanism to hold local councils to account.
Finally, what does the Minister say in response to the thousands of plans, with likely tens of thousands of volunteers who have given hundreds of thousands of hours to deliver on a vision for their community that brings the houses that the Government need and of which local people can be proud? Westminster might write the targets, but it is our neighbourhoods that deliver the homes. If the Government cut the lifeline in neighbourhood planning, they sever the link that turns policy into places and houses into homes. We must not lose sight of their value or ignore the warning signs.
Dr Evans
That was the argument made to me when I solely represented Hinckley and Bosworth, but stepping across and taking in north-west Leicestershire, when they are able to deliver a local plan that has the five-year land supply that brings in the business rates, there is chalk and cheese to be seen. Everyone can see that. So I am not so sure that the targets are the problem. There is the local accountability. The Government need to step in to say that where councils are failing on delivery, they should be held accountable. Unfortunately, what happens is that people come to their MP to say, “What are you going to do to sort it out?”, when of course it is councils that deliver the plan. They just need to be held accountable. Does the hon. Member agree?
John Milne
Not entirely, although I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The standard method was intended as an objective way to calculate local housing targets. It is objective in the sense that it is mathematical. However, the question has to be asked: does it give appropriate targets? I would say it very much does not. The reason for the pressure on the green belt—there could be 1,000 reasons—is that the mathematical calculation does not actually calculate housing need; it is a proxy for housing need, which is completely inaccurate and has been the cause of many problems. So it is very disappointing to see that the standard method has been retained by the current Government, and in fact made even worse by another round of mathematical jiggery-pokery that has very little to do with calculating genuine housing need.
The policy of reducing house prices by sheer number of planning permissions did not work for the last Government, and it will not work for the current one. It will do irreversible damage along the way to local communities before it will inevitably be changed again. An extra layer of difficulty has been added by local government reorganisation. In many areas, such as my constituency of Horsham in West Sussex, the forthcoming abolition of district and borough planning authorities means that the local plan process will be even more remote from the community.
It really is hard to see what role, if any, remains for neighbourhood plans in future. Why would anyone bother with all that work when they do not have any obvious statutory role? Neighbourhood plans can take years to draw up, and most of that is unpaid. The only clear benefit seems to be as a way of securing the higher rate of CIL, or community infrastructure levy payments, but to me it no longer makes sense to incentivise neighbourhood plan making in this way. Perhaps the Government should simply remove that hurdle and make the higher rate automatic.
It is extraordinary to see the complete absence of any mention of neighbourhood plans and their role in the new legislation. We can draw no other conclusion than to assume that the Government’s intention is to let them wither away altogether by a gradual process of neglect. To repeat: at their best, neighbour plans are a remarkable demonstration of people power—but not the people this Government want to listen to, apparently.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the best way to get Britain building the housing infrastructure we need and bring down costs is to give local communities a real voice and a real stake. To do so we want to ensure that strategic planning authorities consult on a statement of community involvement, which guarantees the right to be heard at an examination; that the Secretary of State takes this consultation into account when deciding an application for development consent; and that parliamentary approval is required for the removal of statutory consultees from the planning process. The Liberal Democrats would also like to see planning committees retain their current powers. When we look at this alongside the emasculation of neighbourhood plans and all the measures that take away or compress local consultation, it is clear that this Government believe that local residents are just a nuisance who need to be locked out of the room while the grown-ups make all the decisions.
We are deeply disappointed by the Government’s lack of commitment to boost nature’s recovery and tackle climate change in the planning process, despite promising in their manifesto that changes to the planning system would create places that increased climate resilience and promoted nature recovery. Neighbourhood plans have played a particularly effective role in identifying and protecting existing green spaces, which often have unclear legal status—lost in the mists of time—and are now under threat from the rapacious development industry.
Overall, the sidelining of neighbourhood plans in new legislation fits into a pattern of diminishing local power and representation. The Government believe that it is a sacrifice worth making for the sake of pushing faster house building, but all it will do in practice is to pile on more unbuilt planning permissions to the 1.4 million that we already have. It has been demonstrated plainly that permissions by themselves do not bring down prices. Developers simply stop building any time prices start to fall.
Mandating an ambitious annual delivery of social housing would be a faster and more effective, environmentally friendly and, above all, consensual way to achieve results. That is why the Liberal Democrats are asking for a guaranteed 150,000 new social houses a year. Neighbourhood plans should be retained and strengthened as a key part of the drive to build consensus in development—not compulsion.
Alex Norris
I appreciate that point and share that view. I stare at a site, and probably, I will retire still staring at it—I should not make that commitment to my constituents, as they would encourage me to—in my old council ward, Johnsons dye works, that has been brownfield and vacant for three decades. The site is of complex ownership. We need those sites developed because they are a blight on the community. I completely accept that point. I think we made clear in the spending review our significant commitment as central Government to making funding available to get sites going. I hope that gives the right hon. Lady a degree of comfort about the Government’s direction.
Dr Evans
Just before he took the previous intervention, the Minister was talking about the power of neighbourhood plans and the community coming together. My worry is that, if there is no funding, why would volunteers step forward for such a big undertaking, requiring legal prowess? That is a big worry, and the Government do not seem to have explained how they have filled that void. At the end of the day, this is volunteers working hundreds of thousands of hours to deliver for their communities.
Alex Norris
I accept that point. I hope the hon. Gentleman will show a degree of forbearance, as I will come to that point shortly—I make that commitment to him and to the hon. Member for Bridgwater.
Neighbourhood planning is a well-established part of our planning system, and we want that to remain the case. Our Department is aware of more than 1,800 plans in place and 3,150 designated neighbourhood areas. I believe that in the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth’s constituency alone, there are seven made plans, with five more actively progressing, which reflects brilliantly on his constituents. I too express my admiration for those who join neighbourhood planning groups: they could be doing anything else with their lives, but they choose to put their shoes on, go out and have difficult conversations with their neighbours in the interest of the community. That is a very British and wonderful thing. I hope that, on reflection, the people of Cannington come out in their droves tomorrow to play their part in that process.
I turn now to our announcement following the spending review that we are unable to commission further funded support for neighbourhood planning groups. It was not a decision taken lightly, and I recognise the concerns it has prompted among groups, local planning authorities and hon. Members. I pay tribute to Locality, the National Association of Local Councils and other organisations that played their part in that process. I worked on it very closely with Locality, an excellent organisation that is very good at making community voice heard. We want to be clear, however, that that is not an abolition of neighbourhood planning. We believe that neighbourhood planning is an important part of the planning system.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth asked two questions. Do the Government intend to end neighbourhood planning? No, we do not. Do we intend or wish secretly for the phasing out of neighbourhood planning? No, we do not. Communities can continue to prepare neighbourhood plans where they consider doing so is in their best interests.
Alex Norris
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman succour on that point, but I hope that I can offer something in lieu. I accept that these things can become complex, but sometimes things are complex because they are complex. I do not think that we can wish that away and simplify a process in way that would mean taking away the fundamentals that require complex organisation and preparation. I think he is speaking to a wider point that also came up in the debate: complex planning matters ought to be the purview of local plans. If local plans are done properly, a lot of that complexity and difficulty will fall out and leave space for neighbourhood plans to operate as designed, rather than having to backfill the failures of local authorities.
I could not help but get the sense from the contribution of the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth that a lot of the issues are due to the absence of a local plan in his community. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire talked about speculative development. The story, as he put it, in his part of the world seemed to be developing, but that is clearly a risk until the process is finished. I cannot help but think that the issue there is the same. Similarly, the point that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made about infrastructure falls within the purview of the local plan. We have to get the balance right.
I turn to local planning authorities, which have not been a feature of this debate, but have been a feature of the public debate. The end of funding for neighbourhood planning groups has created a misconception that our commitment to funding local planning authorities for their neighbourhood planning function will be affected. I want to be clear to anybody watching and to hon. Members in the Chamber that that is not the case. That again speaks to the point about the interrelationship between the local and neighbourhood planning functions. We will make announcements about the arrangements for this financial year in due course.
I turn to where neighbourhood plans sit in decision making, because I want to address the point made by the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). It has never been the case that neighbourhood plans are determinative in every case, always. National policy is clear that an application contrary to an up-to-date neighbourhood plan should not usually be approved. I totally accept and understand the frustration that people would feel if they are approved, but we have to be honest: under the system as it stands—this does not result from any changes that we have made—when the balance of considerations in the case outweighs the neighbourhood plan, the development can take place. That is the world as it is today. In response to what the hon. Gentleman said, we are not planning to make changes to that. Again, the best thing that communities can do is have neighbourhood plans sitting underneath a local plan for their community.
Before I finish, I turn to the points that hon. Members made about local government reorganisation and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 reforms. I hold the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) in very high regard, but I know that to be in his company is to expect a degree of impudence, so I was not surprised that he trumpeted provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that his Government did not turn on. There is no point in the powers being on the statute book if they are not turned on—that does not help—so I chafe a little at the characterisation that that is somehow our failure, rather than Conservatives’. Surely, they are at least equally complicit.
I want to give clarity to colleagues and those watching that no local government reorganisation will affect the status of neighbourhood plans; they will continue to have effect and will form part of the development plan for their area.
Dr Luke Evans
The way I see it, under devolution, more powers will be devolved down to parish councils, so indirectly they will have more responsibilities by the very nature of what the Government are trying to do in creating unitaries. Do the Government really believe that a volunteer on a parish council, which will have more responsibilities under devolution, will turn their attention to neighbourhood plans, especially when there is no funding, given the responsibility that goes with them? My concern is that there are competing issues for parish councillors.
Alex Norris
There are a couple of points there. I noted this and decided not to say anything about it because it might look like I was trying to be rude, and I am not. The hon. Gentleman should not conflate local government reorganisation and devolution. Although they are, of course, related to some degree, they are different. Local government reorganisation is about changing local authorities’ boundaries so that they have the right size and heft to function. The power conversation is slightly different.
I have to say that, in my experience, parish and town councillors are generally excellent, so I believe that they are able to balance competing interests. I do not accept that planning would not be seen as a priority; that is not an option for any politician in any role. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I hope I can assure him that local government reorganisation is not likely to drive material change in this space, not least because the plans will continue unaffected. The most important thing will be, as the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire said, that the new authorities get into the local plan process to ensure they have the cover and that good organisation and order.
Neighbourhood plans can play an important part in planning decision making across the country, and we want communities to continue to prepare them if they wish to do so. We want to encourage more constructive engagement across the whole planning system. Neighbourhood planning has shown that communities are willing and eager to embrace development when given the opportunity, as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth said. I congratulate him on the case that he made and on securing this debate. I thank all colleagues for their contributions.
Dr Luke Evans
I thank the Minister. I know that this is not his brief, and that he fought eagerly to respond to this debate. I appreciate his constructive tone. He heard Members say that neighbourhood plans are not a luxury, that they are about local concern and that things should not be forced on communities. Members said that we want neighbourhoods that we want to live in, that local people should have a meaningful say, that we want scrutiny and, to the greatest extent possible, that they should be done with local residents. Those are the key sentiments behind neighbourhood plans.
Neighbourhood plans are not obstacles to progress; they are the architects of local consent. In fact, they are the granular centre of local democracy. To dismantle them is to forget that true planning begins not in Whitehall but in the beating hearts of our communities, which call these places home.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role of neighbourhood plans in planning decisions.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Evans Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
Attainment for boys is, on average, lower than for girls. This Government are determined to understand and address the drivers behind that. We are focused on driving educational excellence everywhere, for every child in every school, and my schools White Paper in the autumn will set out our vision for a system that delivers on excellence for everyone.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this area and the constructive way in which he is approaching an important topic. I, too, have looked at the research from the Centre for Social Justice, which provides some important pointers. Through the schools White Paper, we will consider all the ways we can better support boys and young men as one group. We know that the performance of free school meals-eligible white British boys is particularly low; that is something we inherited from the Conservatives.
Dr Evans
The logic behind having a Women’s Minister was the idea that women present and have different problems in society. By that logic, men and boys do, too; we know about suicide, and we have just heard about educational attainment. We hear about help-seeking opportunities, and I welcome the men’s health strategy, but is it not time we had a Minister for men and boys to look across Government and deal with education, unemployment, suicide and health, and really get to grips with the problems facing young men and boys?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Gentleman raises some important areas of concern, including health outcomes, suicide, educational outcomes and the need to better support boys, young men and men throughout their lives. He will appreciate that ministerial appointments are for the Prime Minister, so I will not get ahead of myself and make any announcements from the Dispatch Box today.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Luke Evans ExcerptsMonday 24th March 2025
(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I am pleased to lead the response on behalf of the Opposition, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes more than 30 years of business experience and interest in the property sector.
We support some of the principles, aims and ambitions of the Bill, some of which build on the work we undertook while we were in office—a time that included a record period for house building in this country. We will also highlight our concerns in a number of areas, including whether the Bill goes far enough to achieve its goals; the removal of a councillor’s ability to vote on individual applications; and the potentially toxic mix of disproportionately large increases to housing targets in rural areas, the grey belt “Trojan horse”, including the removal of any protection for villages, the move to strategic plans and of course the ambition to build 1.5 million homes. The Secretary of State is apparently keen on spotting elephants, but she seems to have missed a huge one, in that that target of 1.5 million homes is completely undeliverable.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
In chapter 2, proposed new clause 12H(3) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 mentions the draft spatial development strategy and brings in a raft of changes, including consultation with representative bodies on
“different racial, ethnic or national groups”
but also “different religious groups”. Is there a danger that we are pitting communities one against another? There is a legislative reason to do that, and I wanted to intervene to ask the Secretary of State about it, but can my hon. Friend, with his expertise, shine some light on why we are enshrining that provision into legislation?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is right to spot that requirement, and we will certainly be considering that when we table amendments to the Bill. We believe it is completely inappropriate that certain groups should get preference over other groups in consultations that might occur during the planning process.
The ambition to build 1.5 million homes is all well and good, but the Government have not yet set out exactly how they will do that. There are many questions about its deliverability, certainly in the context of the February S&P Global UK construction purchasing managers’ index, which described one of the biggest monthly falls in house building and construction on record. Indeed, the joint report from Savills, the Home Builders Federation and the National Housing Federation said that the Secretary of State would fall short of her target by 500,000 homes. The Government have not yet set out how many social or affordable homes they will deliver, or what measures they will put in place to help first-time buyers on to the housing ladder, particularly when they have scrapped Help to Buy and the stamp duty discounts, which helped 1 million young people to buy their first home.
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree that, in order to be fair to areas that include protected landscapes and national parks, that should be a consideration.
The removal of powers from councillors will only become apparent to many residents when they see a green notice on a nearby telegraph pole and contact their local councillor to express their concern, only to be told, “I’m sorry, but I no longer have the power to ask for the application to be considered and voted on by the planning committee.” The Local Government Association itself strongly opposes these changes, saying that
“The democratic role of councillors in decision-making is the backbone of the English planning system, and this should not be diminished.”
We also have concerns that the imposition of strategic planning will be used as a vehicle to force rural authorities to absorb urban housing need. This is of particular concern in many rural areas, given the disproportionately high increases in targets for rural locations. The Secretary of State has increased the national target for house building by 50%, so the average rural resident might expect that their local housing target has increased by a similar amount, but that is not the case. According to the House of Commons Library, the targets for major urban conurbations are up by 17% on average, while the targets in mainly rural areas have increased by 115%. For example, London’s target is down by 12%, Newcastle’s is down by 15%, Birmingham’s is down by 38% and Coventry’s is down by 55%, while Wyre Forest and New Forest’s targets are up by 100% and Westmorland’s is up by almost 500%.
Dr Luke Evans
Leicestershire is a prime example of where these things are happening. The target for Leicester city—where the infrastructure and plenty of brownfield sites are—is reducing by 31%, yet places such as Hinckley and Bosworth and North West Leicestershire are going up by 59% and 75% respectively. That sticks in the throats of people who want to see houses, when such areas are suffering. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is simply not right?
English Devolution and Local Government
Luke Evans Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner
As I have said, we will work with all local authorities to deliver devolution. I understand that some areas will be disappointed that we did not take it forward in this priority scheme, but we continue to be committed, and the Minister for Local Government is happy to take that forward. As I said, we will write to local authorities and continue to work with them, so that Warwickshire and her constituents can benefit from that. It would be remiss of me to comment other than to say that a lot more areas came forward to ask for delays to their elections. I am not speculating on the reasons. I have been very clear and narrow in setting a high bar for the cancellation of those elections within a short period of time. That is the right thing to do to go forward and deliver for those local areas.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
What a mess this whole consultation has been. Let’s face it: the councils were going to have to jump or be pushed. As she said in her own statement:
“I will be issuing a legal invitation to all 21 two-tier”
authorities. In the spirit of working with local leaders, would she accept my legal invitation to meet all the borough leaders—cross-party—the MPs and the Leicestershire county council leadership to discuss what our shape would look like when it comes to devolution?
Angela Rayner
I have said time and again that we are happy to meet local leaders. We will continue that consultation exercise and we will meet local MPs. The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, who is sitting next to me, is always open to those conversations. This is not about telling people what to do from the top down; it is about the direction of travel, which we have made absolutely clear and which the hon. Gentleman’s party was taking in government. We have seen benefits in parts of England. We want to expand that to other areas, working with local leaders and Members, and we are happy to meet on that basis.
Community Engagement Principles and Extremism Definition
Luke Evans Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Norris
On the development of the strategy, I do not want to pre-empt the Home Secretary because I am conscious that she is making the next statement. On Cabinet Office resourcing and secondments, our commitment, as the House would expect, is that fundamentally we are one Government and we must find internal ways to work effectively. Come what may, we will not hide behind that as an excuse for why things are not effective. Instead, when Ministers ask questions, we will address them in the spirit of one Government.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I commend both sides of the House on how they have respectfully approached this statement, because that is really important. The Minister talked about the robustness of this topic, and I am keen to pick him up on that, because one tenet in the UK is all about safety and the other is freedom of speech. Can the Government rule out changing any definitions that could lead, intentionally or unintentionally, towards blasphemy laws, because free speech is really important?
Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill
Luke Evans ExcerptsWednesday 15th January 2025
(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024-26 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 15 January 2025 - (15 Jan 2025)
Vikki Slade
Business rates reform is long overdue. It is frequently cited by my constituents as the biggest concern for their businesses’ survival and one of the most direct inhibitors to their growth.
I was contacted this week by a constituent from a local business in Three Legged Cross, right on the edge of my constituency. He has been running it for over 40 years, and the cliff edge created by the small business rate relief means that his rates bill will go from £2,800 to £8,500 per year. The only thing that will save this microbusiness is systemic change as proposed by the Lib Dems in our manifesto, not a tax based on an arbitrary valuation that bears no relationship to the activity taking place inside his building.
High streets are trying to redefine themselves, moving from the heart of goods purchasing to literal shop windows as they struggle to compete against online competitors that do not have their overheads. It would be wrong to think that the solution is to try to return to the perfect high street of the past, as if such a thing exists.
I am old enough to remember C&A being the place me and my friends browsed for the latest fashions, and there was a Blockbuster video store and pic ’n’ mix from Woolies. Where are they now? It is dangerous and self-defeating to be caught up in toxic nostalgia, trying to reclaim the past as some kind of perfect place. Parliament must enact legislation that supports the society of tomorrow and towns that will work for a technological and multicultural age—indeed, an age in which people can no longer afford the stuff that we used to buy on a Saturday afternoon, or are choosing, as I do now, to buy their stuff from second-hand stores.
The dangerous gap between the slashing of retail hospitality and leisure relief by almost half, and a regime that brings in as yet undefined new multipliers, brings real risk. Our new clause 1 would require a review of the impact of clauses 1 to 4 on businesses, on high streets and on the real prize of economic growth that the Government mention so often. There has been a lot of talk in recent months about decisions being made without clear impact assessments. As we move through a period of reform, enshrining such an assessment in law, rather than questioning later whether it has been done, would save us all a lot of trouble and demonstrate that the Government genuinely want to make improvements.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
One issue that the hon. Lady has not yet mentioned is the impact of the Employment Rights Bill, which will create further red tape for our high street businesses when it comes into play. Do the Liberal Democrats think that the Government should consider that? Changing taxes and rates is one thing, but creating red tape at the very same time, constraining business growth, is another.
Sarah Bool
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I would not dare say that about you.
If the Government are intent on punishing my constituents’ aspiration for the future of their children, the least they could do is grant the concessions that the Conservatives are asking for in all our amendments, and specifically those in amendments 7 and 10. Amendment 7 would exempt private schools that wholly or partially provide education for children with special educational needs and disabilities who have not yet obtained an education, health and care plan, or whose needs are established but not so severe as to require one. SEND support in schools helps pupils with a level of need below that of an EHC plan. Restricting relief only to those settings that provide for the most severe needs is out of step with the rest of our education system. Many families, on not being successful in applying for an EHC plan, or indeed enduring huge waiting times for the local authority to put one in place, opt to send their children to a private school. We should not punish families who choose to do what is in the best interests of their children.
Amendment 10 would delay the introduction of this tax hike for a further year to allow schools to plan their finances accordingly. That is just plain common sense. It would mean fewer schools like Carrdus having to make the unenviable choice to close their doors.
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: there is a timing issue. The Labour Government were explicit and up front on this tax rise in their manifesto, but they claim that they care about children’s education and welfare. If so, why would they implement the change halfway through an academic year? The hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) just turned around and said, “Well, it doesn’t matter because it’s 120 kids in the Member’s constituency.” Actually, it really does matter, because every single child’s education matters. Does my hon. Friend agree that even if those are small amounts at the margin, it is completely justifiable to delay the measure as the schools, the experts and the parents have asked for?
Sarah Bool
I totally concur with my hon. Friend, who made the point powerfully. The impact goes beyond the 120 individual students to their parents’ arrangements and how they work. The headteacher of the school has a husband who was also a teacher, and they face a huge impact in respect of what they will do with their children and whether they can manage to make new school place arrangements. This policy is terribly misguided. We really need to think about what we are doing. It is a travesty that we will lose a school.
Damian Hinds
There are problems with all taxes, which is why we end up with a blend of taxes. For businesses, there is tax on payroll, sales, profits and property. However, business rates are a particularly difficult and unpopular tax because they represent a fixed cost on the business that does not vary when the economy goes up or down, or according to the particular company’s success or growth, or a contraction in its sales or profits.
Over the years, I have heard many times from businesses in Alton, Petersfield, Horndean, Clanfield, Liss and elsewhere in East Hampshire about a desire for business rates reform. I am sure that a lot of small business owners were very attracted to what they heard from the Labour party—that it would to scrap business rates altogether. The Labour Government do not say that any more, but they still want us to believe that they are undertaking some great reform and cutting rates for our high street businesses. I am afraid it is all smoke and mirrors, because for those businesses, including the ones name-checked by the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), the big effect that they feel right now is the cut in the relief for retail and hospitality business—not a small one, but from 75% to 40%.
It would be bad enough if that was all businesses faced, but it is not. They have to cope with all sorts of difficulties the whole time. We have rising labour costs—we support the increase in the national living wage over time, but not a hike in employer national insurance contributions at the same time. Because of what is happening to the threshold, there will be a massive effect on part-time workers. That will be very difficult for retail and hospitality businesses to swallow.
In and of themselves, the cuts to the multiplier for high street businesses are welcome, but we must remember that they are balanced by increases elsewhere in the system. Sometimes, Government Members talk about big businesses and corporations as some unwelcome part of our economy, but they are the biggest employers in the country and are fundamental to our economy. In the Red Book, these changes involve increases of hundreds of millions of pounds in business rates. Who will the increased rates affect? They will affect large supermarkets—a sector that is one of the biggest employers in the country—and hotels, which are a really important employer, as well as being fundamental to travel and tourism. Will the Minister also say a word about the expected effect on the national health service?
The blurb on the Budget says, “We are going to attack distribution centres, including those used by online retailers.” The word “including” does a lot of work in that sentence, because high street retailers also have distribution centres, and the changes will add to their costs, fuelling inflation on food and everyday consumer goods.
Dr Luke Evans
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent observation on the impact of these costs. We know from the surveys that 75% of businesses will pass on the costs to the very people who use them. They will have an inflationary impact on the public. Does he agree that it is imperative that we think about that?
Damian Hinds
As ever, my hon. Friend is spot on. In the end, there is no such thing as a tax on business—you cannot tax a business; you can only tax people. Any tax on business is ultimately a tax on its employees, its customers or its owners. Before somebody jumps up and starts talking about the owners, the owners are often pension funds who are then paying out the pensions for our mums and dads.
My point is that these business rate increases will mean higher costs for bricks-and-mortar companies as well, which come on top of all the other changes, in particular the hike in employer national insurance contributions. And this from a Government who yet again this week keep talking about their growth agenda. It makes me wonder what is actually written in that growth agenda.
Overall, the effect of all these changes—we need only look at the Budget Red Book—is that the revenue from business rates is projected to increase from £32 billion this financial year to almost £40 billion in five years’ time. It is a massive further tax raid on business, and a brake on employment and economic growth.
Mr Sewards
I heard the right hon. Gentleman put that question to the Minister in last Monday’s Westminster Hall debate but, just to go back to his original point—I will come to the 6,500 new teachers—we are deliberately taking these decisions in order to increase the amount of money that state schools have to teach the 94% of students who enjoy state school education.
As a basic principle, all Members of this House can get behind the idea that it is a basic function of the state to provide a well-funded, excellent state school place for all students, whether or not parents choose to take advantage of it. That is exactly what we are doing with this Bill and the other measures we have announced.
Dr Luke Evans
Talking of basic principles, does the hon. Gentleman therefore believe it is right to tax education—yes or no?
Dr Luke Evans
We have heard categorically from Labour that private schools are businesses. They see themselves as part of the community and as charities. Now that they are seen as businesses, they will act as businesses and will have to look to raise revenue from all their sports facilities and anything else that they willingly gave away to the state system. Private schools work with the state system and ensure that there is support for the state system—that is the community basis of what schooling is about. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that defining them as businesses will be a big problem?
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend highlights a point that many of us will have heard from our local state schools: the fact that they are in sharing arrangements with private schools to access facilities. They are concerned that, as the cost drivers introduced by the Government and the Budget increase the pressure on those schools, they may lose the free or low-cost access they have.
Draft Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Luke Evans Excerpts(6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim McMahon
I do not want to say who has the largest number of mayors, but I do not think the shadow Minister needs me to remind him that there is only one Conservative mayor in the whole country, and in the smallest combined authority, as he knows. This is not particularly about rights and wrongs, and I suggest that it would be best not to stray towards the finances in the Tees valley.
As a point of principle in terms of democratic accountability, taxpayers have a right to know which elected official is spending money on their behalf and to be able to make a judgment about whether that money is used to best effect. Having that transparency is an important part of this democratic devolution project. I understand why the Opposition would want to make hay out of a precept and refer to it as a new tax; I would say the public are paying one way or the other and it is far better that it is transparent. I will leave that there.
This may be straying a bit too far from the SI, but we reject entirely any suggestion that devolution or reorganisation is top-down. Today, councils across England will meet to discuss whether they want to make their own submission ahead of the deadline this Friday for local government reorganisation and/or devolution. They will decide whether it is right for them. They will decide who they want to work with and whether they want reorganisation in some places, potentially with devolution with a mayoral combined authority. Some might decide that they are not in a position to join a mayoral combined authority but want to take the first step to a foundational agreement that begins that journey. That is not top-down; that is local areas working together to self-organise, and a Government who are facilitating that devolution. In the end, if we do not get power away from this place, we will not allow every part of our country to realise its full potential. Areas will always be at the behest of the Government, and that cannot stand.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I declare an interest as a Leicestershire MP. Leicestershire looked at joining the East Midlands combined county authority but decided not to. Given what the Minister said about this Friday, if Leicestershire decided that it wanted to go into D2N2, would we need further legislation to change the borrowing that is set again, and a further SI to add that in, or is there a mechanism lined up so that county authorities can join mayoralties without the matter having to come back to Parliament?
Jim McMahon
I am not sure that I entirely understood the question, but this SI is about new member councils joining an existing combined authority. Any member council can join, but its membership would need to be confirmed by secondary legislation, not least because in some places functions are exercised by the local authority as a member of a combined authority, rather than by the combined authority directly. The whole thing needs to be reconciled taking into account its new membership. Leicestershire has huge economic and social potential, but without devolution it will not realise its full potential and will get left behind. I do not know whether Leicestershire is making a submission on Friday, but I sincerely hope that it will. I encourage the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members present to speak to their local authorities and encourage submissions.
The regulations confirm the commitment made in devolution agreements with the York and North Yorkshire combined authority, the East Midlands combined county authority and the North East mayoral combined authority to provide them with borrowing powers against their functions. Providing borrowing powers will provide all three authorities with the opportunity to invest in their services and functions to the benefit of those who live and work in their geographies.
The regulations will also ensure that the East Midlands combined county authority can operate as its devolution deal intended, by conferring the east midlands constituent councils’ general power of competence for economic development and regeneration on the combined county authority, and by ensuring that amendments are made to allow the combined county authority to operate robustly and effectively. I am confident that the regulations will give the authorities the tools to shape their futures, driving growth and higher living standards across their geographies. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Evans Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
As hon. Members will be aware, we consulted on proposed changes to the national planning policy framework and other changes to the planning system between 30 July and 24 September. My officials and I have been analysing the over 10,000 responses received, with a view to publishing a Government response before the end of the year. We also intend to bring forward the planning and infrastructure Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, early next year.
Matthew Pennycook
It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I wholeheartedly agree. The delivery of critical national infrastructure is essential for economic growth, accelerating the UK’s efforts towards clean power by 2030, and energy independence. The Bill in question will include old measures to streamline the delivery of infrastructure and new homes. Furthermore, our forthcoming 10-year infrastructure strategy will provide a strategic road map for how we plan for future needs and support our commitment by making timely decisions on national infrastructure.
Dr Evans
Under the housing targets, Hinckley and Bosworth will see a 59% increase in housing. North West Leicestershire will see it go up by 74%, but Leicester city, where there is brownfield and infrastructure, will see it fall by 31%. That is compounded by the fact that the Liberal Democrat-run borough council in Hinckley and Bosworth does not have an up-to-date local plan. Given that there is speculative development in Hinckley and Bosworth, will the Minister consider strengthening neighbourhood plans? We know that they deliver more housing, provide protections for people locally and have buy-in from communities, yet the council suffers without an up-to-date one.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman will know that we are leaving in place the protections on neighbourhood planning. He is mistaken if he is suggesting that we are skewing development towards rural areas. The proposed standard method, which we consulted on, significantly boosts expectations across city regions. Indeed, across mayoral combined authority areas, it would see targets grow by more than 30%. Local plans are the best way for communities to control development in their areas. I am sure that he will agree that Hinckley and Bosworth borough council needs an up-to-date local plan in place. Perhaps he can work with me to ensure that that is the case.
Representation of the People
Luke Evans Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
I thank the Government for bringing these regulations to the House more than six months before the next scheduled set of elections. It is a benchmark of good protocol and good practice in the electoral community to bring such changes forward with good notice, because of course they affect electoral administrators up and down the country. We did not see that under the last Government, with legislation often considered by the House just a couple of months before administrators were having to implement it. I therefore thank the Government for the good notice that they are giving today.
While I welcome the regulations and will support them, there are still some huge gaps in the accessibility of ID for voting. The Electoral Commission’s early research suggests that those who are unemployed, those from lower socioeconomic groups and disabled people are struggling to access ID that enables them to vote. That is reflected in the statistics we have seen from the last general election.
The Electoral Commission, which is our independent regulator, did an awful lot of good work at the general election to ensure that public awareness of the need for ID reached the vast majority of people. I believe that 87% of people were aware of the policy, but awareness fell in certain groups, particularly among young people, where it was just 71%, and those from ethnic minority backgrounds, at 76%. I call on the commission to continue to focus on the groups that are more difficult to reach, and I call on the Government to support the commission to be able to do that work so that we do not see a repeat of the general election in July, where about 16,000 people did not have the required ID to vote and were turned away at the ballot box. That is a travesty.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. I am interested in the report that has come out, which I have not had a chance to see. I believe that Northern Ireland has had voter ID since 2003—that system has been in place for two decades—so we have a direct comparison within the UK of voters in the general election, from which we can learn. Is there any evidence to suggest that Northern Ireland struggled? Given that it is two decades ahead of England in this case, would not it be interesting to see the comparative data so that the Government can take that forward and learn from Northern Ireland?
Cat Smith
The hon. Gentleman is testing my memory: I have read comparative data on Northern Ireland, but that was some time ago. I believe that it took several electoral cycles in Northern Ireland for information to be understood by the electorate and used more confidently.
The way in which the free voter ID cards are issued in Northern Ireland is different from Great Britain, and that brings me to voter authority certificates. One thing that I felt disappointed about at the last general election was the lower than expected take-up of those certificates. That might be partly because they were not made as appealing as they could be, and that was not necessarily about the application process.
I believe that in Northern Ireland people get a plastic card that can be used as ID for things other than voting, whereas the voter authority certificate in Great Britain is a piece of paper, which someone who is, for example, 19 or 20 years old will not want to take with them down to the local nightclub to try and gain access. The small plastic card, which is more durable for other purposes as well, had a higher take-up. Will the Minister respond with her thoughts about whether voter authority certificates could be expanded or developed, perhaps learning from parts of the United Kingdom where they have had higher take-up?
In the public opinion data from the general election, we learned that 4% of people who did not vote said that their decision was related to the voter ID requirement. My concern is that that research suggests there are people who are not turning up at polling stations for that reason. The data that the Government can access is from those who turn up at polling stations and are turned away, but I think that we are missing a lot of people who never left the house. Certainly my experience on polling day was of meeting voters who knew they did not have access to ID—perhaps they did not know about the voter authority certificate—and had decided to stay at home.
I approach this in a positive way and want to put recommendations and suggestions to the Minister on how we can improve access to democracy, which is incredibly important. I am pleased to hear that the Government will review the list of accepted forms of ID. I plead with the Minister to look seriously at ID that is accessible to younger voters, those with disabilities and those from ethnic minorities in addition to the veteran card, whose inclusion I very much welcome.
As the original legislation passed through Committee, one thing that was debated was whether registered voters who have ID and can prove their identity could make an attestation at the polling station on behalf of someone who does not have accepted ID, which is known as vouching. For example, we have Mr and Mrs Smith, and while Mrs Smith has a driving licence, Mr Smith does not, and neither of them have passports. They could go to the polling station together, where she could attest that her husband, who is with her, is who he says he is—the entitled voter—and use one ID to vouch for the whole household to ensure that he is not disenfranchised. I came across such a case in my constituency at the election.
As has been said, turnout at the general election fell below 60%, which was the lowest level since 2001. It was down 7.6 percentage points on the 2019 general election. That should give us all pause for thought. I believe that we have a crisis of voter participation in this country, with voters who are entitled and registered to vote choosing not to vote. The crisis is not people turning up at the polling station, pretending to be someone they are not and taking more votes than they are entitled to; it is those who are entitled to vote not voting. When turnout declines, the strength our democracy declines with it. I am pleased to hear the Government talk about strengthening participation in democracy, and I hope that the Minister will be able to say a little more about that in winding up.
May I ask the Minister whether she plans to return to the House—and if so, whether she has an idea of the timescale—to add more IDs to the list of acceptable IDs? Does she agree that to strengthen democracy we should be looking at how to increase voter participation and not placing additional barriers to people taking part?
On that point, the electoral roll continues to be deeply inaccurate. We now have the technology to look seriously at automatic voter registration, and the state knows who lives where and who is entitled to vote, so is there a way in which we can ensure that our electoral roll is far more accurate and reflects where people live so that it is easier for people to vote at a general election?
Employment Rights Bill
Luke Evans ExcerptsMonday 21st October 2024
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner
We have already been working with businesses while bringing forward the Bill, and we will continue to do that through the consultations. We have recognised probation periods, for example, but we do not think that people should not have rights two years into their employment.
We are listening, but I say to Conservative Members, who promised employment Bill after employment Bill and then never delivered them, that the people of this country deserve secure fairness at work, and this Labour Government will deliver it. Almost 9 million employees will benefit from protection against unfair dismissal from day one, 1.7 million will benefit from new policies on flexible working, and up to 2 million will receive a right to bereavement leave. Thousands of pregnant women and mothers will benefit from new maternity protections, and tens of thousands of fathers and partners will be brought into the scope of paternity leave. We will deliver a genuine living wage that matches the cost of living.
In total, more than 10 million people will benefit from Labour’s plan in every corner of this country, so if you are in casual work, unable to rely on guaranteed hours, this Labour Government are delivering for you. If you are working hard on low pay and struggling to make ends meet, this Government are delivering for you. This is a Government back in the service of working people.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Can the Deputy Prime Minister define “working people”?
Angela Rayner
The Conservatives had 14 years to support the working people of this—[Interruption.]
Angela Rayner
Will the hon. Member listen to my response? I gave way to him. For 14 years, the Tories promised employment Bills and an industrial strategy, and in 14 years they delivered the highest cost of living for the working people of this country. It will be this Labour Government who deliver for them.
This is a Government back in the service of working people, building an economy fit for the future and making work pay. For the first time ever, we have instructed the Low Pay Commission to take account of the cost of living when setting the minimum wage, because everyone deserves a proper living wage for a proper day’s work. We have already moved to protect 4 million self-employed workers from late payments with the new fair payment code, and we have already encouraged employers not to use the ineffective and failed minimum service laws, which did not stop a single day of industrial action while in force, before we repeal them for good. That is a bold start, but we are going further. The UK labour market is not delivering for workers or businesses, and it holds back the UK economy. We know that things have to change. The Bill marks a momentous opportunity to chart a new route to growth—one built from the bottom up and the middle out—alongside the £63 billion of investment into the UK that was announced last week. Higher growth, higher wages and higher productivity—a new partnership between workers and business.
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree. I was interested that the Deputy Prime Minister said that her menopause measures would be exclusive to large businesses. I welcome that, and I ask her to look at attaching the same conditions, ideally, to the entire Bill, but if not to certain parts of it. The risks for small businesses are simply catastrophic. Even one or two cases could completely sink a business.
Dr Luke Evans
When it comes to risk, is my hon. Friend concerned about the timing of this legislation if, as reported, the Budget raises national insurance for those businesses? Is that yet another risk in addition to this legislation?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is right. This morning we met representatives from UKHospitality, who said exactly that: the Bill is coming on the back of a number of changes and some difficult times during covid for industries that employ a lot of people, which will be particularly badly affected by this legislation. The Government should think twice about implementing it at this moment in time.