English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I have tabled new clause 13 to address a slight oversight in this Bill—namely, that despite its title, it does not give communities any substantially new powers. The strengthening of the tools that local people have at their disposal to purchase assets of community value is certainly very welcome—yes, it is progress—but it is not fundamentally new. New clause 13 is intended to fill in this minor, accidental absence with a requirement on the Secretary of State to report on progress towards, and set out plans to deliver, a new charter of community rights containing seven key elements: a right to a clean and healthy environment; a right to a healthy home; a right to play; a right to grow food on public sector land; a right to roam and swim; a right to participate in decisions shaping communities; and a right to challenge local decisions.

Designed to put power back in the hands of ordinary people, the charter offers a starting point to restore popular agency in our democracy. Each of the seven rights contained within it is based on clear legal proposals, and each builds on long-standing demands that stretch back into England’s history. I will briefly take them in turn. After years of scandals, with ordinary people powerless to stop sewage being pumped into local rivers or their children being poisoned by the air they breathe, the right to a clean environment would give every community the power to challenge proposals that threaten to impose pollution on them.

Similarly, the right to a healthy home would put an end to an era in which permitted development rights have been used to create the slums of the future by housing the most vulnerable in society without adequate space, security, fire safety or proper ventilation. With this right, communities could require that new housing delivers the basics of a happy, healthy life, with plenty of natural light, access to green space and comfort in all weathers.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that housing is a key determinant of public health, and that we should see a right to decent housing as a crucial part of any civilised society?

[Chris Hinchliff]

I absolutely agree.

The freedom to go out the front door and play in the street or near home is no longer part of many children’s lives, as it used to be. The right to play would reverse the trend of estates being full of signs shouting, “No” and “Do not”, with more space given to car parking than to playgrounds for kids. It would empower communities to ensure that streets are designed to be safe for children, so that they are no longer stuck indoors.

Ever since landowners in the 18th and 19th centuries privatised 7 million hectares of common land that was once shared by ordinary people, the ability to grow one’s own healthy food has been a distant dream for the millions. The right to grow food on public land would unleash the power of grassroots growers, who are currently held back by bureaucracy, to turn parcels of unloved land across our communities into oases of food and wildlife.

Similarly, while most of England is still owned by a handful of aristocrats, oligarchs and corporations, the vast majority of people are prevented from enjoying the glories of vast swathes of England’s countryside. The right to roam and swim would finally recognise that this land is our land, and give everyone the confidence to reconnect with nature by enjoying a responsible ramble or a dip in their local river.

Finally, the right to participate in and challenge decisions would level the playing field between communities, who care deeply about their local area, and the interests of profit-seeking developers. This right would ensure that the voices of ordinary people are properly heard and that they can appeal decisions, just as developers can, so that local councils always listen seriously to both sides, rather than acceding to the whims of overmighty corporations.

I hope the Minister will see that new clause 13 would help ensure that this Bill goes as far as possible in restoring power, hope and optimism to our communities. I look forward to hearing her response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is another issue that has come up in our inquiry, and I do hope that the Government are addressing the cross-border issue. I will come back briefly to that shortly.

Passengers want to know that the same standards apply across the country, but there are no common standards. In fact, in England there are 270 different licensing offices and the more than 300,000 drivers operate under about 230 different sets of conditions and standards. The Transport Committee is in the middle of an inquiry on taxis and private hire vehicles. We have heard from drivers, their unions, operators, licensing officers, the Local Government Association, disability organisations, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and others. The single most common message we have heard in our inquiry is the need for common standards across England, and not basic minimum standards, but high and absolute standards.

That is why I am delighted that the Government have brought forward new clauses 49 to 57 to be added to part 3 of the Bill. This will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe standards for granting, renewing, suspending and revoking driver and operator licences. It enables actions such as on what is included in driver training, what requires the installation of specific equipment such as CCTV and what level of background checks on drivers is used. By the way, such actions, particularly CCTV, protect drivers as well as passengers.

I welcome the fact that the Government are responding to the calls of many, and not least to the issues raised in Baroness Casey’s report. The last Government set up a task and finish group, but they only published guidance on a set of standards for taxis and private hire vehicles, and they ignored the recommendations of the group, saying only that licensing authorities should “have regard to” standards. That Government ignored the calls, but this Government are delivering.

One of the main issues raised during our Committee’s inquiry is that the current variation in standards encourages licence shopping, which refers to drivers or operators choosing to be licensed in local authorities that have the least onerous standards or the cheapest or fastest processes, even if most, if not all, of their work takes place elsewhere. That happens thanks to the 2015 deregulation brought in by the Conservative Government. According to one taxi firm that submitted evidence:

“The lack of a national standard undermines passenger safety, fair competition and public confidence in the industry.”

On the role of councillors in licensing decisions, we have been told that the councillors responsible for individual decisions on who gets, retains or loses their licence may be put under pressure to make a decision contrary to the recommendations of officers.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I welcome the opportunity this debate offers to lift our eyes to the bigger picture of what a better, fairer country might look like. New clause 13 on the charter for community rights, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), does exactly that, and it represents the sort of change my constituents in Poole are crying out for. It rests on two simple, but transformative principles: first, that communities in England deserve a real say in the places where they live, with a legally enshrined right to challenge local decisions that shape their lives; and, secondly, that people should enjoy basic rights, including the right to a clean, healthy environment and the right to a decent home.

A legal right to a quality home in a healthy environment may not sound like a lot to ask in the sixth richest country in the world, but it is a million miles from the lived reality of so many of our constituents. Poor housing, alongside access to decent healthcare, stable incomes and healthy food, is one of the core social determinants of ill health. Enshrining the rights to a healthy environment and a quality home in law would support the kind of cross-government approach we urgently need to reduce health inequalities. Those rights can be seen in the same vein as the long-awaited socioeconomic duty, which requires public authorities to consider how their policies and decisions can reduce inequalities. Properly implemented, it could help address structured, avoidable disparities in housing and health. I urge the Government to introduce that duty as a matter of urgency.

A Labour Government must raise the bar: not simply building more housing, but building better homes in decent communities at a price that people can afford. That should be our legacy to future generations and it can start now.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should be here for the wind-ups. That is a notice. I call the shadow Minister.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proper statutory protection for the internationally valuable resource that is our chalk streams is long overdue. I welcome the Minister’s words in his opening remarks, but until we see those designations we will continue to advocate for proper statutory protection for chalk streams. We urge the Minister to go further on that.

I now turn to the amendments on democratic and parliamentary accountability. The Bill does not just tinker at the edges but fundamentally concentrates power into the hands of Secretaries of State. Lords amendment 33 would ensure that if and when the Government implement their proposed regulations to remove powers from local planning committees and councillors, they must come to this House under the affirmative resolution procedure.

Clause 51 gives unlimited power to all future Secretaries of State to remove any and all decisions from planning committees—there is no limit imposed on that power. The very least that the Government should be willing to accept is a commitment to meaningful parliamentary oversight when they bring forward the regulations to remove powers from planning committees. No amount of consultation on a national scheme of delegation will change the extraordinary power in clause 51 and what it takes away from local planning committees, locally elected councillors and local communities. Lords amendment 33 offers only a small safeguard against that centralisation. For such powers to not even be affirmed by Parliament would make a mockery of the democratic process.

Similarly, Lords amendment 1 would ensure that the Government continue to be fully accountable to Parliament on their changes to national policy statements. NPSs govern the biggest projects in the land, from Hinkley Point to Sizewell, from rail freight terminals to the largest solar and wind farms in the world, and transmission lines. It is the fact NPSs are approved by Parliament that provides them with the efficacy they have in guiding decisions on such projects. In the Commons, we proposed a compromise that case law could, for example, be reflected without parliamentary processes, but policy changes on matters as significant as future plans for nuclear power stations should remain fully subject to the decisions of Parliament. We therefore oppose the Government’s attempt to remove scrutiny of national policy statements.

Amendments 2 and 3 are about protections for reservoirs, and we oppose the Government’s attempt to remove those provisions. We also oppose the Government’s intention to remove protections for assets of community value. We remain concerned about proposals for badger shooting on building sites, which remain unamended in schedule 4.

The Liberal Democrats have set out our proposals for housing and planning. Our programme for public housing, which is far more ambitious than the Government’s, is for 150,000 publicly-funded and genuinely affordable social and council rent homes per year for local people, not the 20,000 that the Government have established as their target. It is a mistake to pit development against nature and communities. On Second Reading, only the Liberal Democrats voted to stop the damaging effects on nature this Bill could have. The Government have made some changes, which we welcome, but the amendments that remain before us today could be accommodated. They are essential to ensuring that the people and nature affected by building the homes and infrastructure that we need are heard and have their place in shaping that development. We must not give up—the Liberal Democrats will not give up—on ensuring that nature and people are protected in the rush to build the homes that we need.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

This Bill has sparked a keen interest among my constituents. It is important to recognise that people who live in Poole want to protect the environment and the benefits that living in a nature-rich part of the country gives them. I welcome some of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, many of which reflect points raised by me and others on Report, including the need for a stronger overall improvement test to ensure that changes to environmental protections do not hand developers a licence to trash nature.

As we know, Britain is already one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. We have lost half of our biodiversity, one in six species is at risk of extinction and only 14% of our habitats are in good condition. That is why I urge the Government to accept amendment 40 to safeguard vulnerable habitats and species from harmful developments.

The proposed environmental delivery plans would form part of a framework for nature recovery, allowing developers to pay into a restoration fund to offset environmental harm. That may work for nutrient neutrality, water and air quality, but it simply is not suited to the complex realities of natural habitats or declining species. We risk a situation where destruction comes before detection, with new habitats created too late to replace what has been lost. That means species losing their homes, leading to wholesale extinctions. Developers of years gone by might have got their way with a brown envelope or two, but we cannot buy back lost biodiversity.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend has considered the results of the Corry review, which recognises that we have such complex nature legislation in the UK that it makes it incredibly difficult to build. Does he agree that Lords amendment 40 makes it even more complicated for people to build the homes that we desperately need?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

As several hon. Members have already mentioned, we have to find the correct balance between building the houses that we so desperately need and protecting our vulnerable nature and the habitats that we want to preserve.

The Wildlife and Countryside Link states that

“some species cannot be traded away for mitigation elsewhere. Once local populations are destroyed, they are unlikely ever to return.”

If we want the Bill to be a genuine win-win for development and for nature, and to keep our manifesto pledge to reverse nature’s decline, environmental delivery plans must be limited to where there is clear evidence they can actually work.

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend is right that there are examples of where species should not be able to be moved, but Lords amendment 40 does not relate to some cases but to all cases, and it sets out in statute that species should never be moved. Does he agree that the Government’s approach, which will prevent species from being moved in many cases, is better than setting in statute something that could block so many opportunities?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I was about to come to that very point, and how serious people feel this issue is. The Wildlife Trusts have nearly 1 million members. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more than 1 million members, and the National Trust has more than 5 million members. There is a massive base of people in this country who care deeply about nature. If we get this wrong, the risk is not just environmental, but political. People will not take it kindly if their local chalk stream is degraded, for example.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As I am sure the hon. Member knows, chalk streams are among the rarest habitats in the world. This is not the first time I have mentioned them in this Chamber. Only 11 of the more than 200 chalk streams are protected, and even those 11 are in decline. The problems are over-abstraction, significant pollution and inappropriate development caused by poor planning. Does he agree that protecting these habitats through this Bill is essential, not optional?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Absolutely. Because of the nature of the constituency I represent, I know that chalk streams are extremely important and should be protected. They are our national inheritance, and we are their custodians. I really hope that the Government will take further steps to align this Bill with a fairer and greener future for everyone.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I will speak to Lords amendment 28, which was introduced in the other place but relates specifically to my constituency. The Eskdalemuir seismic array, which is near the village of Eskdalemuir in my constituency, is a seismological monitoring station established to detect seismic signals from nuclear explosions. To a generation that grew up following the end of the cold war, the facility may seem to be little more than a historical curiosity, but it continues to be a vital asset in global monitoring, in scientific research, and, crucially, in helping to keep the United Kingdom compliant with its international obligations under the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

The Eskdalemuir seismic array has been operating since 1962, making it one of the longest-operating steerable seismic arrays in the world. The facility is geographically remote, in a low seismic noise environment, and highly calibrated and sensitive, enabling the detection of even small seismic signals at a vast distance. Over recent years, its seismometers have picked up the sonic boom from Russian jets in UK airspace, and have detected underground nuclear tests in North Korea. On one occasion, it was able to detect signals generated by the detonation of around 100 tonnes of conventional explosives in Kazakhstan. All that is clear evidence of the unique nature of the site and its capabilities.

Some might wonder what the site has to do with the Bill. What could the Bill’s impact be on the maintenance of this vital scientific facility, which is crucial to our national defence and our undertakings under international treaties? In many rural constituencies in Scotland, the march of large-scale wind farm developments continues, encouraged by the Scottish Government. The forces acting on wind turbines cause vibration in the turbine—vibrations that can travel underground for many kilometres, with obvious consequences for facilities that require seismological quiet for their effective operation.

As some Members may know, the desire of wind farm developers to push the boundaries of where their infrastructure can be located, and the boundaries of the guidance against which their applications are assessed, has led to challenges to the Ministry of Defence. A previous attempt by a developer to site a wind farm at Little Hartfell, which is in the consultation zone of the Eskdalemuir seismological monitoring station, led to judicial review proceedings against the MOD. On that occasion, the challenge did not dispute that the MOD is entitled to devise and enforce a policy to protect the array from interference with its detection capabilities—it concerned the way that proposed developments were prioritised—but the lesson is clear: developers will seek to push the boundaries of where and how their developments may be sited. Ministers must be aware of that, and willing to take measures to protect against that, where issues of national defence are at stake.

The key consideration is this: in a dangerous and difficult world, we must not water down our defence systems or let down our allies to squeeze out what, in a national context, is a small amount of extra electricity. The UK Government should robustly refuse to entertain novel technologies within the 15 km exclusion zone proposed by the Eskdalemuir working group, which would replace the existing 10 km zone. That should also apply to those applications already in the planning system that were submitted by developers who continued to pursue their projects aggressively, with full knowledge that work was ongoing to review the exclusion zone. Our national defence must come first. I am sure that most people would agree that this is an area where an abundance of caution is well justified. It would be concerning if Ministers and the MOD were pressured into going too far in the name of net zero.

I am not necessarily objective, because I am the Member of Parliament with the largest number of wind turbines in their constituency, either consented or built. I believe that industrial-scale wind farms are bad generally for the locality, but there need to be specific rules around them when national security is in question, and we have to protect our credibility with our international partners.

Any loosening of the rules on infrastructure developments around facilities like the Eskdalemuir seismic array, or passing up the opportunity to reinforce existing rules, would send entirely the wrong message, both to potential developers eager to exploit new opportunities to construct even more wind farms, and to our international partners, who rely on our ability to contribute to our own defence and our collective defence. Lords amendment 28 is an opportunity to underscore the protection needed for facilities like the Eskdalemuir seismic array, and I want this Government take those protections forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

My hon. Friend intervened on me, mentioning the Corry review, and then he cited it in his own contribution. I am sure that he would like to acknowledge that the review specifically warns about a bonfire of red tape and supports targeted changes. Does he agree that amendment 40 aims to support pragmatic reform, limiting EDPs to where they can make a positive impact, rather than where they will do harm?

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. Some months ago, I led a debate in this Chamber on the merits of a certificate of common sponsorship in relation to the social care sector. In that debate, I highlighted the unfair and precarious nature of having an employment visa linked to a single employer, rather than to the sector as a whole. I mention that because that campaign, which is ongoing, is of course linked to today’s debate on indefinite leave to remain.

Overseas workers have made, and continue to make, a massive contribution to the UK’s health and social care sector. Because of those dedicated staff, we have been able to provide much-needed care for some of our most vulnerable individuals, but the proposed changes to the ILR rules could put all that at risk. The adult social care sector is already experiencing a crisis in recruitment. In England, for example, 7% of roles are unfilled; that represented about 111,000 vacancies in March this year. These proposals will make filling those vacancies even more difficult.

I have raised before with the Government how the current sponsorship arrangements leave migrant workers open to abuse. Some are locked into unfair contracts; when they raise concerns about their working conditions, they can be threatened with deportation. Employers already have undue power over migrant care workers, because their work visa is tied to their employment status.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

That is an important point, which is related to one made earlier by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), and it is about the stability that people have in their life if they know that they have indefinite leave to remain. The industry that I have the most to do with is the fishing industry, and we have seen an increasing presence of transient workers in recent years, outwith immigration rules a lot of the time. In a handful of cases—I stress that it is just a handful—there has been egregious abuse, and that can happen because these people are forced to live in the shadows. Giving them stability allows them to have the same rights and security that we all take for granted.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Any employment status that traps workers in those conditions has to be addressed, and the proposed extension of the ILR period from five years to 10 will potentially trap those workers in what we can only describe as long-term exploitation.

The immigration White Paper also suggests sweeping changes to the skilled worker visa system. A constituent of mine, Olabanjo, wrote to me:

“If implemented, this proposed change would create unnecessary instability for thousands of families, including mine. It would prolong uncertainty, increase financial and emotional strain, and discourage people who are already working hard, paying taxes, and contributing positively to the UK. Migrants are not just statistics; we are carers, professionals, volunteers, and parents raising children who already call this country home. We want to belong, to integrate fully, and to continue giving our best to the UK. This proposal would make that harder, not easier.”

Olabanjo is right to point out that the plans to retrospectively change the settlement rules feel like a betrayal. The suggestion that we can change the rules halfway through is grossly unfair. Behind the debate about immigration are real people, and the proposed changes have caused considerable upheaval for many overseas workers who are already here. In fact, virtually all migrant workers will in some way be affected by the changes to salary thresholds and new visa conditions.

The Government have described settlement as a privilege to be earned, but that ignores the valuable contribution that these workers have already made to our country, the economy and their local communities. That is why I urge the Government to reject the negative rhetoric around immigration, retain the five-year route for ILR, scrap plans to apply extended qualifying periods retrospectively, and reform the visa system to ensure that sponsorship is sector-wide, rather than linked to an individual employer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman will know that housing is a devolved matter. When it comes to affordability, we are taking steps not only to boost housing supply significantly, as I have set out, but to ensure that more first-time buyers can get access, not least through the permanent mortgage guarantee scheme, on which the Chancellor will add more details in her Mansion House speech this week.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

T8.   The latest evidence shows that the gap between average wages and rent in my constituency of Poole is one of the widest in the country. Can the Minister explain how we will ensure that the new homes that we build will be truly affordable and not subject to excessive rent increases?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend will have noted the £39 billion allocated at the spending review to our new 10-year social and affordable homes programme, which, as the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear, we think will deliver about 300,000 affordable homes over its lifetime, with about 180,000 for social rent. He will also know that our Renters’ Rights Bill includes provisions that will empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and of course I agree. She makes an important point, and I fully support her new clause. I know she is a keen advocate for this provision in her constituency; it is about creating communities. As I have said, this Government are interested only in hitting a national target, which I and lot of experts in the industry do not think they will meet.

The Government need to think about how they are going to create the communities of the future and the places where people want to live. That means designing them to be really nice, getting developers around the table and agreeing design codes, and making sure developers really put their money where their mouth is. We should ensure we have tree-lined streets, because when we go out in our constituency, as I am sure you do in yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, a tree-lined street is absolutely beautiful to walk down. It is so much better for the people living there and everybody in the constituency if we make that a reality for lots of our residents. Rather than just focusing on building a set number of houses, we should focus on creating the communities of the future and the places where our constituents want to live.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of amendment 69 and new clause 32, which were both tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff). I commend him for his work on the Bill.

I believe the Government have got it wrong with their changes to nature protection. I appreciate that Ministers will say that they come from a genuine desire to address the housing crisis, but the Bill removes the foundations of our nature laws, including the mitigation hierarchy that requires developers to avoid harm. Nearly every major conservation group opposes the Bill and the Government watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, says that it degrades nature protections.

Amendment 69 offers practical improvements, ensuring that environmental delivery plans achieve their stated purpose of making developers pay to offset damage to nature. It ensures that plans result in an improvement to the specific feature being harmed, so that the Bill does not give a green light to degrading irreplaceable habitats.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

The Wild Justice “Lost Nature” report, which was produced by a team including my excellent constituent Sarah Postlethwaite, reveals that housing developers are frequently failing on their legally binding ecological commitments. Its survey of 42 new housing developments, including two in my constituency, shows that only half the ecological enhancements promised, including hedgehog highways, bird boxes, bat boxes and planted trees, were actually being delivered. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while trusting developers’ promises, we must take up-front steps to empower and expand Natural England and other authorities to hold them to account?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree.

Amendment 69 also mandates that improvements be delivered before harm occurs. Without that, we risk species being pushed closer to extinction before their habitats are replaced. Worst of all, the Bill still will not deliver the affordable homes we desperately need.

[Dan Tomlinson]

The explanatory statement to amendment 69 states:

“This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the…status…before development takes place in areas where Natural England”—

thinks there could be harm. How long does my hon. Friend think that that would take in the case of nutrient neutrality and a developer who wanted to build a new social home?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I do not have a specific answer to that point. I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer to that.

The Government’s own impact assessment provided no data that environmental protections are a blocker. Nature in the Bill is being scapegoated to distract from a broken developer-led model.

[Sean Woodcock]

We have heard a lot about the failure of developers to build infrastructure, protect nature and provide enough social housing. Does that not just show that the status quo is broken, and why the Bill is so important and heading in the right direction?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The current system is broken, absolutely, but I do not think that hard-pressed planning officers are the problem. I think developers are the problem, and that is the point that I am coming on to make.

Last year, less than 2% of new homes were social rents delivered through the planning system. Private developers prioritise maximum profit with high-end luxury builds, particularly in constituencies such as mine. At the current rate, we would need to build over 5 million homes to deliver just 90,000 social rent properties, yet there are over 1 million people on waiting lists. That is why I signed new clause 32 to introduce binding quotas for affordable and social rent homes. If we are serious, as I believe Labour is, about getting families out of temporary accommodation and off waiting lists, local authorities need the power and funding to lead a new generation of council house building.

We also cannot ignore the fact that the developer-led model creates conflict with nature, as under-resourced councils are forced to accept whatever sites developers propose, regardless of how suitable or unsuitable they are for sustainable development. There is no amount of killing badgers or red tape bonfires that will fix that. It is too simplistic to argue that this is a debate of builders versus blockers. The overwhelming majority of planning applications are approved, which is why we had more than a million planning permissions approved in the past decade that have yet to be built. Developers continue to drip feed developments into the system, prioritising properties that maximise profit and are far from affordable for local people.

It is time, therefore, to move away from the failed market dogma and, I believe, to return to Labour values. The post-war Labour Government built millions of homes supported by the planning system our party created, and it is time we did it again.

[Wendy Morton]

I rise to speak to new clause 84, in my name, and to add my support for new clause 51 on solar and battery energy storage systems, and new clause 39 on solar.

New clause 84 seeks to prohibit the development of battery energy storage systems on higher-quality agricultural land. In a debate on this topic in this Chamber just last week, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) that there is 78 GW of battery capacity that is either operational, awaiting construction having received planning permission or awaiting consideration, which is equal to supplying 200 million homes—10 times the number of houses we actually have. This is ludicrous.

There are numerous questions over safety, fire risk, accessibility and proximity to homes and communities, yet these storage systems are replacing land that could be used for crops and grazing for animals with metal containers, eating into our national food security at a time that we should be increasing food security and strengthening our food chains. Farmland, as we all know in this place, is irreplaceable—when it is gone, it is gone. We are seeing far too many planning applications coming forward that would risk green-belt land being trashed, with the term “grey belt” used to create a grey area that planning inspectors will take advantage of. I hope the Government are listening to this point, and those made by others on solar, as well.

In the time I have, I want to support a number of other new clauses and amendments that I know matter to my constituents, such as new clause 79, on the duty to co-operate. It is not that we do not expect to have targets in constituencies such as mine; we just do not expect to do all the heavy lifting. We do not expect to have to pick up the can and let failing authorities such as Labour-led Birmingham off the hook. The council certainly cannot manage Birmingham’s bins and it cannot manage its housing, either; three years on, none of the properties in the Commonwealth village in Perry Barr has been let.

It cannot be right that housing targets in areas like Birmingham and London are being placed on authorities such as Walsall, where our targets are being hiked up— not least when evidence points to more people wanting to live in towns and centres. Surely what we should be doing is regenerating these areas and building on our brownfield. If we do it sensibly, it will protect the green belt, protect our environment and protect the green and open spaces that we all love and enjoy.

I will also speak in support of new clause 45, on intentional unauthorised development, something that really irks some of my constituents. They write to me and come to see me about developers or individuals who flagrantly breach or ignore planning regulation or permissions, creating misery for their neighbours. How can someone simply get away with doing that sort of thing without repercussions, when others abide by the rules and are left picking up the pieces?

I have already spoken of my support for new clause 43 on preventing the merging of villages. That is crucial to constituencies like mine, which is on the edge of Birmingham, and has communities that are at risk of being consumed into its urban sprawl. Finally, there is so much I could say on Natural England. I worry that the Government are giving more powers over planning to an unelected quango, while taking power away from local authorities and councillors.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The origin of Britain’s planning system is as deeply rooted in the legacy of the post-war Labour Government as that of the national health service and the welfare state. Like those great Labour institutions, it has faced relentless underfunding, attacks and dismantling from the Conservatives, who prioritise the rights of wealthy landowners over the entitlement of working people to affordable housing and quality infrastructure.

I commend the Government for bringing forward a Bill that offers the opportunity to at last get to grips with the appalling mess made of the planning system by the parties opposite; after all, it was they who allowed more than 14,000 hectares of our best farmland to be lost to development since 2010. The reality is that while we now have substantially more homes per capita than 50 years ago—a surplus that has grown rapidly in recent years—house prices in the UK have risen by 3,878% since 1971. Whatever may be said by their lobbyists, the housing crisis is not a straightforward issue of supply, and it will not be solved by simply putting more powers in the hands of profiteering developers. Waiting for a market solution to this societal emergency would be an exercise in utterly extravagant futility.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

For the past 30 years, successive Governments have attempted to deliver affordable housing through the private sector, and they have failed. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for a publicly funded council house building programme?

Political Finance Rules

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I thank my fellow Dorset resident, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), for securing this important debate. It goes to the heart of the concern that the public have, namely that economic dominance leads to political influence. Money is used to influence politics, and politics is then used to enable those people to make more money through changes in laws or regulations. This is the issue that worries the public. We also know that civic participation diminishes if people feel that they have no influence compared to those with large amounts of money.

Public trust in our political system is at an all-time low. That flows in part from a sense that politicians are unable properly to represent those who elect them, that money in our politics exerts undue influence that is often obscured from public view, and that those who break the rules that do exist are not adequately punished. Nearly 60% of the public think that funding of political parties is not transparent, and only 30% think that political parties that break the rules will face any action. That is why Labour�s manifesto made the welcome pledge to

�establish a new independent Ethics and Integrity Commission, with its own independent Chair, to ensure probity in government.�

The commission must be empowered to challenge the corrupting influence of not only the developer lobby but other big money donors, including those from the oil and gas industry. We should also close loopholes to ensure that overseas trips for parliamentarians are funded only by trusted sources, and publish clearer guidance on the acceptance of gifts and hospitality.

It is worrying, too, that UK political parties are relying increasingly on a small number of extremely wealthy people to bankroll their election campaigns. The last Government increased national campaign spending limits from �19 million to �34 million, which has intensified the demand for donations across all our political parties. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) said earlier, Transparency International UK claims that between 2001 and May 2024, �42 million came from donors alleged or proved to have been involved in corruption, fraud or money laundering. Political parties should therefore be required by law to identify the true source of funds as part of a risk-based approach to donations, and a donation from a company should not be allowed to exceed its net profits generated in the UK within the preceding two years. A UK-registered company is permitted to make donations using money raised overseas, which is why political parties should be required to conduct checks on donations to assess and manage their risks.

There are real concerns about unincorporated associations. Such associations are not required to check that those who donate to them are permissible, which means that they could legitimately make donations using funding from otherwise impermissible sources, including from overseas. As other Members have said, the Electoral Commission should therefore be given powers to investigate candidates� compliance with the rules and to impose sanctions.

Finally, banning companies that win public contracts from making political donations would end the potential conflict of interests that this creates and the perception that political friends have received political favours.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

The independent expert taskforce, chaired by Sir Michael Lyons, will be submitting its final report to us in the summer and, as such, we have absolutely no idea which locations it will recommend to Ministers for decision. We have been clear, as I have said, that our ambition is that new towns will contribute over and above the targets produced by the standard method, but obviously we want to make sure that the right incentives are in place to support proactive local authorities, such as his, coming forward with these large-scale new communities.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

We know that future generations of older people are unlikely to have had generous pensions or even to have been homeowners during their working lives. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether housing targets will include specific reference to older people’s housing and the growing need for age-appropriate accommodation?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I would say two things to my hon. Friend. First, the older people’s housing taskforce recently reported, and we are weighing up its recommendations. We have also made clear through the national planning policy framework that we expect local authorities to take into account the types of tenure and homes that they need for their local areas, and local plans are the primary way that different types of housing for different demographic demographics should be brought forward.

High Street Rental Auctions

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jessica Toale]

Yes, these auctions are a promising step forward and could be transformational for many towns across the country. I will come on to the local authority points in a moment.

The auctions require landlords to lease properties within a certain timeframe, preventing them from leaving spaces empty for years on end. The time restriction of 365 days in a 24-month period will help to tackle the persistent problem of vacant properties, which is a huge opportunity for communities such as mine in Bournemouth West. By enabling councils to take action, we can reintegrate those spaces into our high streets and bring them back to life.

However, it is crucial that we think about the long-term sustainability of this approach. I have been assured by landlords and agents in my constituency that there is a genuine desire to fill empty commercial properties, but business rates, antisocial behaviour and even parking charges constitute barriers, so to landlords it is important to say that the approach should be a tool of last resort. It is clear that such measures should be used only once a genuinely collaborative and good-faith approach between landlords and councils has been exhausted. The auctions should be seen in the context of other measures to which this Government have committed, ranging from supporting small businesses and tackling crime and antisocial behaviour in our town centres to the long-term reform of business rates. I am pleased that we are making progress on all these issues.

High street rental auctions are not just about filling vacancies. They are about creating vibrant, sustainable environments for businesses, residents and visitors alike, so can my hon. Friend the Minister provide assurances that high street rental auctions will not see our high streets filled with more vape shops and American candy shops? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] They can often be fronts for money laundering and other criminal activity. Additionally, we need to ensure that our local authorities have the resources and capacity to manage these changes.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for securing this important debate. Our local authority, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, is part of the early adopters programme for this scheme, but when I contacted it recently to ask about the number of properties that it had identified in our area that were going to be part of the scheme, it told me that it was just one. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we need to see a more ambitious approach from local authorities for the scheme really to be worth while?

[Jessica Toale]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour from Poole for the intervention. I certainly hope that our local authority will take an ambitious approach and I am working very closely with it to help it to identify areas within Bournemouth town centre. BCP council has expressed concern about the cost of having to implement such measures, and the potential for expensive legal challenges it may face as a result. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline how we can mitigate some of those issues, and how the £1.5 million that has been set aside is intended to be used.

I underline that this is a moment for action. The powers granted to local councils are a great step forward, but we need to ensure that the changes are not simply superficial. We must think about how we can make our high streets and the commercial offering work for everyone —for businesses, our communities and the economy as a whole. I will continue to champion the revitalisation of our high streets in Parliament; by working together, we can ensure that our high streets become the thriving, vibrant centres that they were always meant to be.

It is fantastic to see my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Jo White) and for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) was meant to be here as well. Their local authorities are also early adopters of the scheme. I look forward to hearing their contributions and to continuing this important conversation. I also encourage other Members to speak to their own local authorities and push them to join this initiative.

We have a real opportunity to break the vicious cycles that I mentioned at the beginning of this speech, and to turn them into virtuous circles, where we fill our shops, increase footfall, reduce antisocial behaviour, and again build pride in our town centres and high streets across the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

The shadow Secretary of State will know that our mandatory housing targets were based on affordability and were introduced to ensure that people are able to get the houses they desperately need. His Government removed the mandatory housing targets, we saw speculative development, and they failed, year on year, to deliver the housing that this country desperately needs. We are going to deliver the houses where they failed.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

2. What steps she plans to take to reform the leasehold system.

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What steps she plans to take to reform the leasehold system.

--- Later in debate ---

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

By the end of this Parliament, this Labour Government will have finally brought the feudal leasehold system to an end. On 21 November, I made a detailed written ministerial statement setting out how the Government intend to honour that manifesto commitment, including the steps we will take to implement reforms to the system already in statute.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Every week my constituents in Poole, many of whom are retired, contact me with their concerns about the leasehold properties they live in. They are worried about excessive service charges, unfair ground rent, and exit and event fees. Can the Minister reassure them and me that the Government will tackle those problems once and for all, and will do so as a matter of priority?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I sympathise with the plight of my hon. Friend’s constituents. With regard to service charges in particular, we know that opaque and unaffordable charges are putting leaseholders and tenants across the country under immense strain. The Government are committed to improving service charge transparency and making it easier to challenge unreasonable increases. In the coming months, we intend to consult on how the provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 relating to service charges and legal costs should be enacted, with a view to bringing those measures into force as quickly as possible thereafter.