Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Paul Holmes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

It is almost as though my hon. Friend had read a further section of my speech. That is exactly what we need to do in this country to unlock some of those sites.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Gideon Amos]

I will make a little progress, but maybe later.

[Paul Holmes]

Oh, come on—I was going to be nice to you!

[Gideon Amos]

We shall put that to the test later.

We welcome the provisions that allow compulsory acquisition—where there is a compelling case in the public interest, such as to build social housing—to go ahead on the basis of existing use value, not what the owner hopes will be the value in the future, to the detriment of the public purse. That could make a big difference. It would allow councils to assemble land more affordably, and to deliver more social homes. However, councils need to be resourced to carry out such projects. To that end, I am delighted that the proposal to abolish the cap on planning application fees that my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) brought forward in her Bill in 2023 is included in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Curtis]

That is true. Certainty is incredibly important to enable the housing sector to invest in the skills, development and modern methods of construction that will enable us to alleviate the country’s housing crisis.

Beyond housing, we must recognise that our failure to build vital infrastructure in Britain is leaving our country vulnerable. Our energy security—the foundation of our national security—depends on having infrastructure to support a modern, productive economy. We have failed to build the transport links that are needed to get goods and people moving efficiently. We have failed to build the energy infrastructure that is needed to reduce our dependence on volatile foreign oil and gas, and we have not built a single reservoir in decades, meaning that we lack the water security that is required in the face of climate change.

[Paul Holmes]

Labour Members keep using the suggestion that reservoirs have not been built in recent times as an example of why the Government are proceeding with the Bill. However, under current guidelines and legislation, a reservoir is being built down the road in my constituency, so it is not a great example to use, is it?

[Chris Curtis]

I note the length of time that that reservoir has taken to be built. It would be nice if someone on the Conservative Benches started by acknowledging their Government’s lack of ability to build the infrastructure that this country so desperately needed for decades. The barriers that they constantly put in the way of building it are one reason why we are in this situation.

Our national security is only ever as strong as our economic security. Sure, we should be investing in defence, but we can do so only if we have a strong economy. One of the biggest reasons why we have not had a growing economy or economic security is because it has become too difficult to build in Britain. I am proud to support a Bill that will get Britain building again.

I will talk briefly about the nature restoration fund, which in principle is a policy masterstroke. What is most shameful about our current nature legislation set-up, including the habitats regulations, is not just that it stops us from building the homes and infrastructure that our country needs and that it damages our economy in the meantime, but that it does not even work on its own terms. As was mentioned earlier, Britain is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world; I am told that it is second only to Singapore. Why is that? Because the money that we force builders to pay for nature projects is not being spent in the most efficient way.

Take for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) pointed out, the infamous bat tunnel, which cost us more than £120 million to protect a tiny proportion of bats, all while critical infrastructure projects were delayed or cancelled. Imagine what we could have done for nature not just with that money, but with the extra money that would have been provided to our economy by not stalling that project for so long. Although the nature restoration fund is a welcome step forward, we must ensure that it works. It is heavily reliant on Natural England bringing forward workable delivery plans in a timely fashion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support the Bill because we must do everything we can to deliver the building of more housing in this country. As the Member for Barking, I see and hear at first hand the impact of the housing crisis. Every week, I meet constituents who share their personal and desperate housing stories. To fix the housing crisis, we require political will alongside national initiatives and investment from the Government, but we must also change the policy foundations, because the national planning system is not fit for purpose.

As a former London council leader who delivered a local plan that designated land for 30,000 new homes, I know only too well that the existing planning frameworks frustrate house building and that the voices of those opposing new homes—often individuals who already own their own home—are prioritised. The truth is that our planning system relies too much on the political bravery of local councillors. Local plans for new homes are stopped by a vocal minority in too many cases. This creates a national patchwork of house building, and the planning systems are used to slow down decision making in the hope that the applicant will eventually just give up.

I welcome the fact that, through the Bill, the Government will create a national scheme of delegation. This will allow planning professionals to work more effectively, ensuring consistency across the country. Allowing planning authorities the flexibility to set their own fees and recover costs is an important step, but given that there is a £360 million deficit nationally, will the Minister reassure us all that the councils will be held responsible for ringfencing that income in their planning departments so that local authorities can improve their performance?

Transport and infrastructure form a crucial component in unlocking the potential for house building, because both private and public sector developments need clear business cases to build. Strong business cases rely on land value, which is boosted by infrastructure, including but not exclusively transport connectivity. The measures in the Bill to streamline the process for agreeing nationally important infrastructure are therefore welcome, but I would like the Government to consider whether the Bill goes far enough.

The HS2 bat tunnels are frequently mentioned in this Chamber, but there are other examples, including the Lower Thames crossing, which has been delayed for over three decades. It has become the UK’s biggest ever planning application, with over 2,000 pages and costing £800 million in planning costs. Taking applications through the national significant infrastructure projects process—a mouthful to say—is too costly and takes far too long. A large part of the problem are the statutory pre-application consultation requirements. This means that all the parties involved operate in a hyper-risk-averse manner, focusing on endless negotiations. That serves the taxpayer and our communities in no way, so I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to look again specifically at reforming the pre-application process to reduce delays and get essential infrastructure consented faster.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady rightly talks about ambition and ensuring that we get planning applications delivered quickly. Does she think that the 56% reduction and the 1,694 fewer homes that her local Labour council will have to deliver will speed up the length of time it will take for them to get through?

[Nesil Caliskan]

The hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to highlight the fact that my local authority has been building homes far faster than most local authorities across the country. The general slowing in the delivery of housing over the past two years is absolutely to do with the fact that the previous Government crashed the economy and that interest rates and inflation went through the roof. I have yet to come across a developer or local authority that does not say that all its pipeline was impacted by the economic crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady is correct to say that there were some issues with housing supply during the last economic crisis, but the numbers that I am asking her about relate to her Government’s proposals under the new scheme. Will she tell her constituents or her Labour councillors—who she does not think should make planning decisions locally—whether she supports the 1,694 fewer houses that her Government are requiring her council to deliver?

[Nesil Caliskan]

My local authority has committed to building homes and it has a good record. One barrier to being able to deliver homes at speed is the fact that we see infrastructure delayed year after year. With the Bill’s proposals to allow CPOs and land assemblies to happen far quicker, we will see homes built at pace in a way that we have not seen in a generation in this country.

I take this opportunity to thank the Ministers and their teams for their work. The Bill provides a generational opportunity for us to get house building back on track in this country. It is a welcome shake-up to the planning system. It will help to deliver the homes and infrastructure that are so desperately needed in this country. It is the first step of many that will allow us to tackle the housing crisis that my constituents in Barking and Dagenham are so badly impacted by every single day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

I put on record my strong support for the Bill. I want to focus much of my contribution today on two aspects—nature recovery and electricity infrastructure. Net zero and nature are two sides of the same coin, and it would be a coin with no value if we had one without the other.

The proposed environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund are positive steps that could transform nature’s recovery. In Suffolk, we have seen how that idea can work well. The Wildlife Trusts’ biodiversity net gain service has helped to establish new nature reserves, such as Martlesham Wilds on the River Deben. However, more can be done to ensure that nature and development sit happily alongside each other.

First, we must make it explicit that there are firm timeframes for the delivery of conservation measures set out in an EDP. Secondly, we must have higher expectations of developers. Nature-rich open spaces, nature highways and solar panels on new builds are incredibly simple things to implement, but they will make a world of difference to our communities and to nature.

I turn to the electricity infrastructure aspects of the Bill and why they are so important in Suffolk Coastal, where we have four nationally significant energy infrastructure projects planned with Sizewell C, National Grid, National Grid Ventures and ScottishPower Renewables. It is often said that up to 25% of the UK’s energy will be either made in or transported through my constituency. We are home to some of the most important biodiverse sites in the UK, with 36 sites of special scientific interest in the constituency, and more than 50% of Suffolk Coastal is designated as a natural landscape.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady is quite rightly outlining how the environment should be protected, which I believe is part of the aim of the Bill. How does she defend to her constituents the fact that under Ministers’ proposals, her housing targets will be uplifted by 82%?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman rolls out that line to every Member. I am actually talking about the SSSIs and the energy infrastructure, rather than housing. The sites that I speak of—the SSSIs and the natural landscapes—are not only recognised by but critical for this Government if we are to deliver on our ambitions to improve biodiversity.

There has been much talk in the press of late about nimbyism, but I ask the Minister: are people nimbys if they ask why nature-rich marshlands and the RSPB’s nature reserves are picked as the best place for National Grid’s energy infrastructure to make landfall? Are people nimbys if they question why the four projects I have mentioned are being brought forward in isolation from each other and with no co-ordination? Are people nimbys if they fully support our country’s push to net zero, but they ask if they can do more to protect nature? If we listened more to some of those fair and valid questions, we could do more to protect nature and progress with net zero.

The previous Government totally vacated the space of leadership in our country’s energy and biodiversity planning. That void was filled by energy developers, which were left to take the lead and bring forward proposals that were totally unsuitable in our landscapes, all because it was cheaper than taking projects to brownfield sites. We have been left with a series of unco-ordinated, whack-a-mole projects on the east coast of England. The much-welcomed land use framework should be extended to create a land and sea use framework to allow for better leadership and co-ordination of energy infrastructure projects. First and foremost, it is critical we ensure that energy developers that are working in the same area work with communities to plan for the cumulative impact of these vast projects.

The community often has the answers to problems that the developers do not. For instance, farmers have told me that it should be a requirement to bury network cables to a minimum of 1.8 metres on arable farming land. That is the minimum legal standard required for arable farmers to continue to use their land for farming. It seems common sense to make that a requirement.

I do not have time today to go into detail on the need for community benefits to deliver for communities who host infrastructure, but while I welcome the Government’s recent announcements, which mean that communities such as mine that may be set to host substations should benefit, we can be far more ambitious. We can and should expect more from private firms that profit so vastly from the great green energy revolution. I urge the Government to consider those aspects of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I appreciate being able to make this point of order. I would like to seek your guidance on the speech from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), in which she defended developers and also solicitors. Did she have to declare her interest as a practising solicitor, for which privilege she was paid £7,500 this quarter?

[Rachel Taylor]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I no longer have a practising certificate as a solicitor, and I gave up practising as soon as I came into this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—and British—

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

We agree; the Government do not.

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

[Joe Morris]

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

[Paul Holmes]

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

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

[Wendy Morton]

On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that one way of helping to deliver homes would be to ensure that those that have planning permission are built out first, thus saving the green belt and some of our suburban areas and rural areas, sooner rather than later? [Interruption.]

[Paul Holmes]

Labour Members shout from a sedentary position to ask why we never did it. This is one of the largest planning Bills to come before the House in a number of years, and nowhere have the Government mentioned that they would force developers to build houses that have already been given planning permission. We have a Government who have reduced housing targets in urban areas, where it is easier to build due to existing infrastructure, population density and the availability of brownfield sites.

Instead, Labour’s reforms to the NPPF and their proposals in this Bill have resulted in top-down targets that will silence local voices. The Government have chosen to prioritise building in rural areas and on the green belt rather than focusing where the demand for housing is greatest, in our cities and urban centres. By only allowing councillors to debate and discuss the proposals that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Government define as large development, local people’s voices within the planning system will be eroded, taking away the discretion that planning committees can use to resolve small applications that come down to very nuanced decisions.

The principle of environmental delivery plans is certainly welcome, and we know they have been looked on favourably by proponents of sustainable development. It is vital that nature recovery is incorporated into building plans. It is concerning, however, as the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) said, that Natural England will have its workload dramatically increased, amid uncertainty about whether it has the budget and authority and whether it can bear the burden of those additional responsibilities. Can the Minister outline any assessment his Department has done on the budgetary increases that would be required for Natural England to take on the additional responsibilities envisaged in the Bill?

Furthermore, and most concerning, the Government seek to overhaul the compulsory purchase process, allowing land to be acquired for projects deemed to be in the public interest, and will change the process to allow faster land acquisition. Farmers may be forced to sell the land for its current value, rather than its potential worth if developed, but farmers deserve a fair price if they choose to sell their land, rather than below market price. They are already being hammered over inheritance tax and the suspension of the sustainable farming incentive; the proposed changes to CPOs will introduce a further power imbalance that threatens to override their legitimate right to a fair deal.

The Countryside Alliance warns that

“giving councils more power to reduce the value of land is a step too far, especially in the context of such a challenging outlook for farmers and the inheritance tax fiasco. This is not about people blocking development, it’s about the state paying the market price for land. We need more houses and more economic development, but not at the cost of basic principles.”

Although it is true that tenant farmers will get an increase on any CPO purchases, landowning farmers who already face unsustainable pressure will once again be short-changed by this Government’s plans.

While the Government say that they want to deliver more homes, increase affordability, streamline the system and deliver the homes we need, nobody accepts that they can do it. They give with one hand, but have overwhelmingly taken away with the other, through destroying this country’s economy, the ability of developers and people to build the housing we need. As we have outlined, their plans, as with any rushed piece of work, threaten to overwhelm the system, in some cases threaten to erode the safeguards in place to encourage sustainable and vital development, and remove local voices from local people. I look forward to Labour MPs explaining to the Labour leaders of their councils why their Labour Deputy Prime Minister took away their local rights as councillors to represent their local communities.

We will always stand up against excessive Government centralisation, and in favour of local representatives who know their communities best. We have a duty to do so. We have a duty to defend farmers who, as stewards of the land, must have their land rights respected; to defend local democracy and the role of local councils, which disagree with their power being taken away; and to defend the people out there who want new housing, but want local choices for local people. It is clear that the Government cannot deliver on that challenge. We will amend and improve the Bill to ensure that it delivers for local councillors and local people; the Government simply have not done so.

Coastal Communities

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to wind up, on behalf of the official Opposition, this debate on the importance of our coastal communities, of which my own constituency is a proud one. Those communities are rich in history, industry and natural beauty, but they face significant challenges. They are home to thriving tourism, fisheries and local businesses, but they continue to struggle with economic inequality, housing pressures and environmental concerns. It is our duty to ensure that coastal communities receive the attention they deserve. In that spirit, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing the debate. His opening speech showed clearly that he is committed to his constituency and cares deeply for the people he represents.

Many hon. Members touched on the unique and impressive heritage of their respective coastal communities, from their evolution as trade hubs, shipbuilding harbours, bases for fishing fleets and tourist destinations, to the modern and diverse settlements of today. I hope hon. Members and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will permit me a minor indulgence as I add my homage to my coastal constituency.

Straddling the Hamble river, from which my constituency gets its name, the communities that line this strip of the Hampshire coastline are as venerable as they are beautiful, snaking down from charming Curbridge, past beautiful Burseldon and stunning Swanwick, all the way down to Hill Head into the Solent past scenic marinas and yacht clubs and many wonderful pubs, which, as the weather warms up and the sun comes out, I will be pleased—as I am sure all Members across the House will be—to visit more and more often. It is a hard life being the MP for Hamble Valley, but someone has to live it.

However, it is not all blue skies and calm waters all the time. As Members have said, there are challenges facing coastal communities, and we cannot ignore their impacts. As in my constituency, coastal towns and villages struggle with restricted accessibility from poor transport links and increasing environmental risks, higher than average unemployment compounded by seasonal job instability, disparities in housing income, lower educational attainment and the upward mobility of skilled workers causing a brain drain that further exacerbates all those issues.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that there is currently no national strategy for coastal areas. Coastal towns are usually low-population areas and are often conflated with rural areas, which obscures their unique challenges. As we have touched on, coastal communities are already grappling with economic inequality, yet this Government continue to burden them further. Average annual pay in coastal towns is £4,700 lower than in the rest of Great Britain, and their national growth rates are much lower despite the historical industrial and commercial strengths they exhibited in the past. Now they face tax increases, declining support for high streets and rising employment costs, which threaten to undo years of progress in just a matter of months.

Instead of fostering economic growth, we are seeing policies that stifle local businesses and weaken our high streets. For example, with the Government’s hike in employer national insurance contributions to 15%, we can see the fallout that poor economic choices deliver. Businesses I have spoken to, including pubs and restaurants in my constituency which rely on seasonal tourism and are already struggling with high costs, are now having to make difficult decisions about laying off staff, not taking on more staff, and, in extreme circumstances, closing venues. That is the exact opposite of what our local businesses need. The Government say that their first priority is delivering growth, yet the policies they have chosen to implement will bring about yet more economic uncertainty, financial worry and labour market instability in coastal communities.

With the Government’s recent housing algorithm changes, we are also seeing dramatic increases in housing targets in coastal communities. In coastal communities near Hamble Valley, such as New Forest, Fareham and Gosport, we are seeing targets rise by up to 105%. Cornwall, Dorset, Somerset and North Yorkshire are all being tasked with delivering thousands of new homes, yet infrastructure and public services are not keeping pace.

Many of our coastal communities depend on a strong and sustainable fishing industry. The previous Government worked hard to strip EU-imposed quotas that constrained our fishing fleets. However, this Government’s continued pursuit of closer alignment with the EU raises serious concerns about access to UK waters post-2026.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I do not have time, I am afraid.

The previous Government made significant investment in our coastal communities. Through the coastal communities fund, £229 million was invested across 369 projects, creating over 7,000 jobs and bringing more than 3 million visitors to our coastal area. Furthermore, the future high streets fund, town deals, the levelling-up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund provided much-needed support to local economies. These initiatives renewed town centres, safeguarded businesses and created thousands of training opportunities, but we see no commitment to continuing them today. The Government have already announced that there will be no new funding for the towns fund, which I think is a betrayal of the commitments made to our coastal communities.

Coastal communities are an integral part of our national identity, and yet they continue to be overlooked by this Government. Instead of supporting local businesses, they raise taxes; instead of investing in our high streets, they cut funding; instead of protecting our fishing industry, they seek closer ties with the EU that threaten our independence. It is time for this Government to change course. We must ensure fair housing policies, sustained economic investment, a strong and independent fishing industry and robust flood defences. Our coastal communities deserve better, and I urge this House to take action to protect their future.

Housing Development Planning: Water Companies

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on her speech on issues that all hon. Members in this House can share concerns about. As MPs, we often get the same casework, and there are issues in my constituency similar to those in hers. This debate is particularly timely. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on some charming revisionism of his party’s record in government. I will tackle comments made by some of the contributors in this debate and then make some general remarks about this Government’s current policy.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire highlighted the genuine hell of her constituents who live in homes that were built many years ago and which are now surrounded by a housing development that has not been properly connected to sewer or drainage systems. That is a particular issue in old villages. In Botley, in my constituency, around 3,000 houses have been built in the Botley-Curbridge corridor. In sections of the Boorley Green development we have a housing estate that cannot be used because the developers did not put in adequate infrastructure. Those houses cannot be sold because backed-up sewage is coming out of the drainage systems. I understand the frustration that the hon. Lady has faced, as a Member of Parliament, in trying to go to the right organisation, and through the right channels of communication, to get those things sorted. I have gone through that and know how challenging it is.

This is genuinely not a criticism of the hon. Lady, but her remarks—and many of the contributions this afternoon —targeted water companies for not doing enough. I agree with those remarks, but there are examples, in my constituency and across the country, where water companies have tried in vain to sound the alert about their frustrations regarding building infrastructure, or to convey their concern about a development. For example, water companies have made it very clear that they are very worried that they have not been listened to in the planning process in connection with One Horton Heath, a large-scale development in my old constituency of Eastleigh, which borders my new constituency. Their concerns about the land that the development is being built on, and where it is to be situated, and their descriptions of the infrastructure that they want provided, have not been heard.

The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) is a local hero in my constituency because she has a history of speaking on issues such as this, although I hope she does not become too much of a hero in the northern villages of my constituency. She will know that our constituencies are sharing infrastructure investment from Southern Water and Portsmouth Water in the water for life scheme. Like her, I have serious concerns about transparency, and some of the plans going forward. She was absolutely right to mention some of the infrastructure that will be built to try and deal with the overall issue that the hon. Member for North Shropshire described, but I remain concerned that this is a lot of money for a short-term project with Southern Water—a company that has shown that, quite frankly, it could not run a bath properly. I deeply share her concern to ensure that it manages the project properly. I hope we can work together to ensure that that project is fully looked at.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) mentioned a large-scale development in the village of Cranbrook, which is being expanded, where South West Water has not made good on the promise that it made. He made an interesting point about the 1.5 million homes; he is clear that the Government need to be clearer on reform. As we go through the parliamentary stages of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—the Minister will be delighted that I will be sitting opposite him for many months to come unless the leader says otherwise—I am hoping that the Government will make that reform clearer. My hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East will know that many people have challenged whether the 1.5 million homes are achievable.

As a party, we have always made it clear that home ownership should be made a reality for many hard-working families, and we do generally support the 1.5 million new homes. However, I must stress an essential caveat: the new homes must be the right homes and be delivered in the right places, as I have said to the Minister. Development must be sensitive to local needs, sustainable in its approach, and guided by the voices of the communities that it serves—including water services. This is important in rural communities, where water supply concerns pose significant challenges. Water demand in rural areas fluctuates due to climate change, tourism, and agricultural needs. Despite that, the Government’s new housing targets fail to account for those systemic pressures, leading to a dramatic increase in required housing numbers—106% in New Forest, 199% in North Yorkshire and a staggering 487% in Westmorland and Furness.

Rural voices must be heard, particularly in discussions surrounding water infrastructure and the continued lack of a statutory footing for water companies. To mitigate these challenges, early collaboration between strategic policy-making authorities and water companies is essential. I know the Minister will agree. Last December, the updated national planning policy framework acknowledged this need, continuing the previous Government’s commitment to aligning water infrastructure with development. While water companies are not statutory consultees, and we agree that they should be in the later stages of the process, good practice dictates that their involvement in the planning process should be encouraged from the outset.

Simply put, we cannot afford to ignore the critical role of sustainable water management in housing development. That is why the last Government implemented the “Plan for Water”, focusing on reducing demand, halving leakage rates, developing new infrastructure and ensuring drought resilience. We set clear, legally binding targets, including a 20% reduction in public water supply usage by 2038 and significant cuts to leakage rates. The previous Government’s record is clear. In 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored; under our leadership, we ensured that 100% are now monitored. We fast-tracked £180 million of investment to prevent over 8,000 sewage spills and secured £60 billion from water companies over the next 25 years for the largest infrastructure upgrade in history. However, the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 does not adequately address the root causes of water pollution. Environmental groups like River Action have criticised the Bill, arguing that “one-off actions” will not resolve systemic pollution issues. The truth is simple: the current system does not ensure that water demand and environmental protection are balanced. There is no real oversight, no accountability, and no sense of urgency to fix the problem.

We also face a major disconnect between planning and water management. Water companies create water resource management plans to project future demand, but these plans do not always account for real-time pressures from new housing developments. Similarly, drainage and wastewater management plans are meant to assess waste water capacity, yet they lack the detail needed to align with local planning. What is worse—as has been outlined by the hon. Member for North Shropshire and many other Liberal Democrat colleagues—water companies are not statutory consultees in the late stages of the planning process when detailed applications go before local authorities. That means that local councils approve new developments without properly assessing whether there is enough water supply or sewage treatment capacity. Under the law, water companies are forced to connect new developments, even when they know they lack the resources to do so sustainably.

Only the Secretary of State can make changes to the list of statutory consultees through secondary legislation. During the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, the Government at the time committed to consulting on whether water companies should become statutory consultees on individual planning applications, and if so, how this could be facilitated. Will the Minister outline where we are with that review and whether the evidence is still with his Department? He may not be able to tell us this afternoon, in which case he may write to me and concerned parties. It may be that Members have to propose amendments in the forthcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill to see that these changes are necessary for water companies.

We call on the Government to publish the review of the statutory consultee system, which I have just mentioned, and look to include the views of water companies on supply and treatment capacity before local authorities grant planning permission. That would enable water companies to input into the planning process effectively and better align investment plans with local development needs.

To conclude, the stakes are clear. We need a housing policy that is ambitious but also realistic. We also need more water infrastructure that is sustainable and resilient. Most importantly, however, we need a Government who listen to local communities, rather than a Government who impose top-down and unachievable targets and remove statutory consultees from the national planning policy framework and other systems. I urge the Government to build upon the solid foundation laid by their predecessors —as they would expect me to say—to deliver on the “Plan for Water” and to ensure that home ownership remains within reach for hard-working families without compromising the integrity of our national resources.

Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 General Committees

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As I welcome him to his place, the Minister can be reassured that, although I like a challenge, we will not divide the Committee this morning given the number of Government Members on the other side. However, as he would expect, we have some questions to follow up on some of the points that he made in his concise speech.

We are here because the Government have announced a hike in fees for householder development applications, applications for prior approval, and applications for the approval of details reserved by condition. The increase is a further blow, we would argue, to homeowners, who already face the complexities and red tape of the planning system. I understand that new burdens are also being introduced: applications for prior approval and for the approval of details reserved by condition, to approve details not fully described in planning permission, now face added layers of paperwork, all of which will add to the burden on ordinary people trying to make improvements to their homes.

Let us be clear about the context. When increases in fees were necessary in the past, the last Government always took care to ensure that they were fair and kept as low as possible. That is why, as the Minister outlined, in December 2023 the last Government increased planning application fees by 35% for major developments and 25% for all other applications. We understood that householders already contribute to local authorities’ budgets, primarily through council tax.

Now, fees will jump by 105%—from £258 to £528—for single dwelling house improvements and other alterations. For two or more dwelling houses, the increase is also an eye-watering 105%, from £509 to £1,043. We remain concerned that the measure means that people simply trying to make improvements to their homes, in line with local planning policies and national regulations, are being burdened with ever higher fees. As a result of Labour’s local government finance settlement, councils are already having to raise council tax by 5%—the maximum they can raise without going to a referendum. Those councils represent people already dealing with the tax hikes imposed by this Government; now those people must navigate these increased costs just to make small improvements to their properties.

We are concerned because there is no evidence that the rises will deliver a better service for local people who are going through the planning system for simple changes and low-level planning alterations. Nowhere in the impact assessment is there conclusive proof that the money will go back into restaffing planning departments or helping with the efficiency of planning decisions—as we know, those take far too long for far too many people. Meanwhile, costs increase on people already suffering the brunt of the Government’s fiscal decisions.

The Minister hinted at an expectation that local authorities would keep the extra revenues within planning departments, but I would be grateful if he outlined what monitoring mechanism he will personally put in place to see whether the increases deliver better services and planning decisions for local people. If the improvement in efficiency that we expect does not take place, what mechanisms will he put in place to bring the increases back down?

The Local Government Association has identified a £1.7 billion shortfall, directly resulting from the Government’s national insurance contribution hikes. This is not a hypothetical problem; it is a real issue impacting local services, including planning authorities. As I said, there is no guarantee that that extra burden will result in quicker planning decisions. Furthermore, local authorities across the country are facing cuts that go beyond planning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has pointed out, millions of pounds are being cut from crucial funding schemes, such as the new homes bonus and the rural services delivery grant. Those cuts, combined with the national insurance hike and this increase, are pushing councils further into financial crisis.

There is a clear case for treating householders differently from large developers, as the last Government did. Home improvements, however small, are a right of homeowners, in line with local and national planning policies. They are not there to be priced out of reach for ordinary homeowners. Improvements to homes, under schemes as described, free up the market and help to create sustainable communities and local supply chains. I urge the Government to reconsider these fee increases and the impact that they will have on ordinary households across the country. I cannot see that there will be better services at the end of this proposal.

As I mentioned, we will not divide the Committee, but I hope the Minister will take onboard some of these comments and outline to the Committee how he expects efficiencies to improve. We need a fairer, more balanced approach to funding planning authorities—one that does not target hard-working homeowners. It is time for the Government to rethink their approach to planning and local funding, and stand up for the people who matter most: the citizens who contribute to their communities and the local economy.

Proportional Representation: General Elections

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel]

I am coming to that exact point shortly, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it.

The 2024 general election was a stark illustration of the problems with our voting system, and it is important to understand that it was not a one-off. These problems have been getting worse for decades, and that is set to continue if we keep the system as it is. We have gone from 97% of people voting for Labour or the Conservative party in the 1950s, to just 58% doing so in 2024—a record low. In the first-past-the-post system, that produces hugely volatile and erratic results—electoral chaos theory, as Professor Rob Ford has called it.

Back in the mid-20th century, parties needed close to 50% of the vote to win a majority of seats, but that threshold has been falling to new lows for decades— 39% in 1974, 35% in 2005 and, as I said, one third last year. There is every reason to think that this trend will continue. That a party, even an extreme one, can win a huge majority with less than a third of the vote is not just senseless but dangerous. If we do not address this now, I fear that election results will become even less representative. Governments and MPs will be elected with lower support than ever, and there will be increasingly chaotic and random results. That will drive trust and engagement still lower. That is unsustainable, and I think the Government know it.

Labour’s official policy on first past the post is set out in the final national policy forum document that the party produced in the previous Parliament, which set the policy platform for our manifesto. It stated:

“The flaws in the current voting system are contributing to the distrust and alienation we see in politics.”

I agree, as do almost all the parties on the Opposition Benches. We know that the public agrees—two thirds want the flaws in the voting system to be addressed before the next general election, according to Survation. The long-running British attitudes survey found record majority support for changing to PR, with those who trust politics least the most likely to support change. Are they not the people we need to engage? Just this month, YouGov found that support for PR hit an all-time high, with support for first past the post at an all-time low.

Every single MP in Great Britain has been contacted by constituents in recent days asking them to support PR in this debate. I have received hundreds of emails, even though my name is on the debate. The Prime Minister has made it clear that restoring trust in politics is a key priority, calling the fight for trust

“the battle that defines our age”.

If the Government are to win the battle, they must address our flawed voting system—one they know is driving distrust and alienation in politics, which means that millions of people’s votes do not count, and which most people do not want to continue with. That is why I urge the Government to take this first step by establishing a national commission for electoral reform, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which I chair.

The Government have said that there is no consensus on a new system, but that is exactly why there is a great opportunity to set up a process that begins to build consensus: a national commission to examine the issues that first past the post is causing, and to recommend a fair and democratic alternative.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good case, though one that I fundamentally disagree with, as he will hear later. He has just outlined his own Government’s position on proportional representation. We have already had an answer on that, so where can he go now? On 2 December 2024, when asked by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), the Deputy Prime Minister said that this Government would not set up a national commission and would not examine proportional representation any further. What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do to make the Government change their mind?

[Alex Sobel]

I have just said that the first step would be for the Government to set up a national commission. This debate is the first step for the APPG to try to persuade the Government to set up that national commission. We are on a journey. Not everything the Government announced at the start of the Parliament is what they are still announcing. Change is possible.

The commission could draw insights from the experience of devolved bodies and other democracies. It could allow citizens, as well as experts, to contribute to evaluating the options and finding a way forward that would command public trust and confidence. None of this need distract from Government’s core mission of delivering their manifesto priorities, but it would demonstrate beyond doubt that they are serious about giving a stronger voice to millions of people who feel increasingly excluded from British politics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Race]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

As I was about to say, whether it be the inequity of allowing the older person’s bus pass to be used as ID but not the young person’s bus pass, or leaving out entirely the ability to use a veteran’s ID card or a train driver’s licence, the Act was largely unnecessary and introduced many retrograde measures designed to restrict access to our democracy, rather than to encourage participation.

[Paul Holmes]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman. He says that the Elections Act restricted people’s ability to vote. Can I therefore ask him what measures he would put in place to stop the restricting of genuine voters from voting when their vote is taken away by fraud?

[Steve Race]

As has already been pointed out, the level of voter fraud in this country was minuscule—

[Paul Holmes]

So that’s okay then.

[Steve Race]

It is not that it is okay, but we have introduced legislation that has essentially restricted many, many more people from voting than otherwise would have happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

Yes, exactly. I am describing the different kinds of work that different kinds of Members in the additional member system can do and how that benefits equality and representation. I am not making a party political point at all. I think members from other parties in the London Assembly can give examples of ways in which they have reached out and heard from people in different parts of London who have brought issues to prominence in the Assembly. In the case of the Green party, we can talk about council estate residents, private renters, young people, disabled people and older people, and the way that bringing their voices into the Assembly had a positive influence on the London Mayor’s policies and made him a positive advocate for helping to reduce the number of demolitions, for rent controls, for toilets on the London tube, and for youth services. That is very positive.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Siân Berry]

I will press on, because I have one more point to make.

That shows a contrast with the current system for general elections, where people believe that the national politics conversation does not necessarily involve them. We find that millions of people around the country are never canvassed or courted on the doorstep at all. They are taken for granted, and that is really poor. As the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley said, the Members for those seats are called to other parts of the country, when they would prefer to be knocking on doors in their own.

On solutions, we urgently need an independent national commission on electoral reform. I want that done by the Government as soon as possible. The commission should look at how local councils and other bodies can be elected, too. We have an opportunity, presented by imminent local government reorganisation—the creation of combined authorities and potentially very large councils—to shift to a more proportional system, potentially using multi-member wards and the single transferable vote. That is the system used in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. It is incredibly simple for voters to cast their preferences. The election counts are extremely exciting—almost like the final stages of “Strictly”—and it delivers remarkably proportional results. It delivers candidates based on consensus, not division. Importantly, it delivers for many people: not only hardworking representatives in the administration but people whose job it is to listen and represent them from opposition parties. That could help with the potential remoteness of the uber councils that are being talked about. That should be looked at by the commission as well. I will end there.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

I want to start by putting on record that I am a long-standing advocate of a more proportional electoral system for our general elections. My belief is that any system to replace first past the post needs to balance two core features: to preserve the vital link between a Member of Parliament and a constituency; and to consider a top-up mechanism, whereby additional seats are allocated in direct proportion to votes cast.

No model is perfect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) said, there is a lot of merit in the additional member system used in Holyrood. I do not want to focus my remarks today on the intricacies of alternative systems, or even the principled argument for reform in too much detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) and others have already made that case with conviction and I suspect that others will do so later. I want to focus on how we could build consensus for electoral reform, and what timeframe is both desirable and realistic.

One thing we must avoid is the spectacle of a new Westminster Government winning power and then legislating quickly to change to the system if they believe it to be in their self-interest. We saw a version of that in the last Parliament. The Conservative Government had a minority of MPs in London, but legislated through the Elections Act of 2022 to change the London mayoral system back to first past the post, a system that they believed would suit them well. For Westminster elections, nothing would do more damage to trust than if something similar were to happen. Any suggestion that the winner gets to set the rules of the next contest would be dangerous.

Where does that lead us? I am afraid, inevitably, it leads to a referendum. Speaking as someone who voted yes to AV in 2011 and remain in 2016, it is fair to say that I make the case with some trepidation, but I believe it must be made. If we are to change an electoral system that has been in place for over 100 years, it would require a national conversation and a clear and direct mandate from the electorate. I do not believe there is a mandate for a referendum in this Parliament, but there is an opportunity to build consensus across multiple parties to be ready for the next Parliament. That could be the defining work of the independent commission which has been referenced.

The year 2031 is likely to be midway through the next Parliament. It would also be 20 years since everyone in the United Kingdom was last asked to endorse a change in the electoral system. That referendum was rushed. The alternative vote system proposed appeared to be the first choice of nobody and, I am afraid for those of us who supported it, its rejection by voters was emphatic. Much has changed in our politics since then, but all of us who support a fairer system need to learn from 2011 and seek to build a case for change in a much more considered way. I believe we have the time—the time to build consensus on the best proportional system for Westminster; time to make the case within each of our parties that a referendum is the only way to earn a mandate for meaningful electoral reform; and time to propose a date and make the case for it. It might seem distant today, but 2031 is a generation on from the last referendum and that strikes me as a fair time to ask the question again.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is giving a typically brilliant speech—we used to talk to each other in the boardroom of Clarion Housing Group, where we worked together—and his idea of a referendum is interesting. If a referendum were held and the result was 52:48 to keep the current system, would he expect the Liberal Democrats to keep asking that the question be put again and again and again?

[Andrew Lewin]

That feels like more of a question for our in-office chats from a few years ago. I will not comment on the potential reaction of another party, but I will say that I would abide by all referendum results even though that would be three in three and a pretty bad track record for me.

It is time to propose a date and stick to it. First past the post has endured for more than 100 years. If we are to convince a majority of the public that a more proportional system will better serve their interests in Westminster, as I think it will, six years is not so long to wait. Despite my track record, I remain optimistic that, if we had a referendum, third time around I could finally be on the winning side.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell]

We have record levels of investment, record rises in wages and the fastest-growing economy in Europe. The upgrades from the International Monetary Fund and the OECD speak for themselves.

The issue that we are focusing on today, fixing our democratic plumbing, matters too. The Prime Minister said that restoring trust in politics is the

“battle that defines our age”,

and I believe that we can earn that trust by ensuring that people feel heard and have a say in decisions that affect their lives.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Joe Powell]

I will make a bit of progress.

We need to ensure that the voice of the people matters. That is the foundation of my belief in electoral reform: if done right, with appropriate models for different levels of government, it can help to rebuild faith in our democratic system so that we do not end up being more polarised, with more alienation, which leads to extreme politics and populism.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) that today is not the time to go into models, but I think we can retain the constituency link and expand choice, as in the Australian model, which gives local winners a degree of preference from a majority of the voters in their district through ranked choice voting. An excellent analysis from Lewis Baston on Sam Freedman’s website explains how the Australian model could be appropriate for us. It is easily understood and encourages engagement across the spectrum, beyond the swing voters that otherwise become the predominant focus of elections.

Although I support electoral reform for Westminster elections, there is a straightforward policy change that the Government should consider immediately: restoring the ranked choice voting system for mayoral elections. That system worked perfectly well in London and other mayoralties, because it allows voters to express preferences and ensures that winners have broad support. Its removal was a regressive and self-interested step—it failed in London—by the previous Government, who actively tried to reduce voter choice and participation. I hope the Government will consider restoring that system in any future elections Bill that is being discussed.

Finally, I will briefly address another threat to our democracy that the APPG for fair elections is focusing on: the role of foreign billionaires in distorting political discourse, and the risk of overseas donations into our politics. There are still far too many loopholes in our electoral financing rules, leaving us vulnerable to foreign interference. I hope the Government will consider implementing reforms to address these serious issues in any future elections Bill, because if we are serious about defending democracy, we need transparency and safeguards against those with deep pockets who seek to warp our democratic institutions.

Our current system is failing to command public trust. That is the foundation of my belief in electoral reform. If we continue down this path, we risk losing something far greater than individual elections; we risk losing people’s faith in democracy itself. I am confident that our Government will deliver on their key missions, which will go a long way towards restoring the public’s trust and confidence, but our democratic plumbing matters too, and it is time for an upgrade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and all members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections for securing this important debate.

It has been an exciting few months for the cause of fair votes in Parliament, and I am pleased to see Members of so many political parties advocating proportional representation in today’s debate. At the end of last year, I was delighted that a Bill I had introduced to this House, calling for the establishment of proportional representation, was voted through to Second Reading. I thank every single Member who backed that Bill. It was the first time that Parliament voted in favour of PR, and I am determined that we will achieve that goal in this Parliament.

But I must also express my disappointment. Despite the Bill receiving the House’s express support on First Reading, it has not been given parliamentary time to allow it to progress through the legislative process.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Olney]

People across the country are fed up with first past the post. The 2024 election was the most disproportionate in history, with the Government winning two thirds of the seats on one third of the vote—the second biggest majority of seats for any Government since the second world war on the lowest share of the vote ever recorded for a winning party. I think we can all agree that such distorted results are not healthy for our democracy.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Olney]

It is no surprise that we are seeing record levels of disillusionment with the political process, with citizens becoming increasingly disengaged. This is reflected in the fact that turnout at the 2024 general election was the second lowest since 1918, at just under 60%. More than 40% of registered voters in the UK thought so little of the political process that they did not think it worth expressing a preference for one candidate over another.

Trust in politics will not improve if the public keep getting Parliaments that do not represent the balance of votes cast. This Parliament is the one that least represents how the country voted of any in history.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the hon. Lady now give way?

[Sarah Olney]

I will not give way.

[Paul Holmes]

Why?

[Sarah Olney]

There was no Back-Bench speech from any Member of your party, and you will have your opportunity in a minute.

[Paul Holmes]

Very democratic of you.

[Sarah Olney]

Your Back Benchers could have spoken in this debate.

There are many urgent and pressing challenges facing the UK today, but it is essential that the vast majority of its citizens actively support the mechanisms by which decisions are made to address them. Increasing levels of disengagement threaten our ability to respond both to immediate challenges and to long-term issues.

The Liberal Democrats believe, and have always believed, that a fair voting system is the essential bedrock of a functioning democracy. Democracy has proved to be the most effective and enduring of governing systems because it relies on a broad base of support across the population. A faulty voting system that delivers a majority Government on a minority vote undermines democracy and its ability to deliver effective government. In the face of growing worldwide threats to democratic Governments and institutions, the UK urgently needs to reassert the value of participative democracy as an essential component of peaceful and prosperous societies.

I am glad to know that support for electoral reform comes not only from Liberal Democrat Members but from across the House. I am pleased that Labour Members, in particular, agree that we need proportional representation, after their conference voted overwhelmingly in favour of PR two years ago. More importantly, recent polling shows that a majority of the British public is now in favour of scrapping first past the post and moving to proportional representation.

I welcome the establishment and the work of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which launched last year with the support of more than 100 MPs. Its report, “Free But Not Fair”, highlights many of the structural issues that have led to the decline of public trust in politics and engagement with elections.

I thank everybody for their contributions. The hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) is not in her place, but she made some important interventions. This issue may come under her remit as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, so I hope she will consider giving it more attention.

I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), for Hazel Grove, for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones) for their excellent contributions. I was particularly struck when my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham talked about how, in the past, we discriminated by wealth, gender and religion in selecting who could vote, whereas we now discriminate by geography. That is one of the key things we would overcome by replacing our voting system.

The Liberal Democrats share the pain of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). In 2017, we won 12 seats with 7.5% of the vote; in 2019, we won 11 seats with 12% of the vote; and in 2024, we won 72 seats with 12.2% of the vote. Just because, by some miracle of first past the post, we now have a proportion of seats that represents our proportion of votes, it does not dilute in any way our support for a more proportional voting system. I am glad we have the support of the hon. Gentleman and his Reform UK colleagues.

We must take urgent action to protect democratic processes and institutions in the UK from threats both here and abroad. We need to listen to the warning bell sounded by the general election that the citizens we seek to serve, and who must abide by the laws we pass, are becoming disenchanted with the political process. If we want to continue to be a beacon of democracy across the world, we must ensure that it serves its purpose both in giving a voice to the people and in delivering prosperity and stability. We cannot do the latter if we fail at the former.

First past the post is a broken and unfair system. Last summer, the Labour party won a landslide election victory, securing 63% of seats in the House of Commons in return for just 34% of the vote. This system leaves millions of voices unheard and creates a divisive, adversarial political climate, where collaboration is discouraged and accountability is often sidestepped. The Liberal Democrats have long championed proportional representation, advocating for a voting system where every vote truly counts. We must modernise our electoral system, creating a fairer process to engage voters, listen to the needs of constituents and rebuild trust in politics.

Winning a vote in Parliament for my Bill creates a historic precedent: for the first time, MPs have backed a proportional voting system in the Division Lobby. It would be an outrage were this Bill not given the opportunity to progress further through the House and to become law, so I urge the Minister to schedule an opportunity for the Bill to be read a Second time, in Government time, and to offer Labour MPs a free vote on the Bill.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I am grateful to Members from all parties for their thoughtful and interesting contributions to the debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important discussion and the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for introducing the debate in the way that he did.

For us as a nation, this is an important discussion to have. We may not recognise that we should be proud of the peaceful and democratic way that we govern ourselves, despite our various, often heated, disagreements, as hon. Members might have seen earlier in the debate. Unlike the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), I am not afraid—

[Rachel Gilmour]

On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will give way.

[Rachel Gilmour]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. It does at least show that he has some sense and knowledge of what democracy means.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) for that wonderful intervention. Members should know that she and I are very good friends.

Unlike the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I am not afraid to stand up for the courage of my convictions and for the arguments that I will make. Unlike Members of the Liberal Democrat party, I am prepared to take interventions and have a genuine debate,

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

May I interrupt this community lovefest, and ask my hon. Friend to reflect on the experience of Israel, where tiny religious parties are perpetually in government, exercising disproportionate influence and influencing policy in a way that is at variance with the wishes of the majority?

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend is correct that there is a vast and quite radical system that elects the Israeli Government, where a number of extreme politicians on both sides of the aisle—

[Richard Tice]

On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

No, I will not. I will finish responding to my right hon. Friend.

[Richard Tice]

I will make another intervention.

[Paul Holmes]

Well, I have not finished making my point yet and I intend to do so. The electoral system in Israel elects people from extreme wings, from both sides of the aisle, who have a disproportionate impact on the policies and outcomes of the Israeli Government.

[Luke Akehurst]

On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?

[Paul Holmes]

Not at the moment, as I will make some progress.

Over the past several hundred years, our country has undergone myriad complex and contentious reforms that have revolutionised our systems of governance. Those changes have often been made in a piecemeal fashion over many centuries, from Simon de Montfort’s Parliament of 1265, in which representatives from towns and the shires were summoned together to discuss matters of national concern, to the great Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867, permitting the expansion of suffrage, to the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928, which extended the franchise to all persons, male and female, over the age of 21. Those evolutionary changes have allowed us, as a country, to forgo frequent domestic upheaval and civil wars, which are a feature of other less stable systems.

I know I am in a minority of one this afternoon—apart from the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal)—but the Conservative party has long championed first past the post as the fairest and most effective way to elect representatives—[Interruption.]

[Sarah Olney]

Where are all the Conservative representatives?

[Paul Holmes]

I say to the hon. Lady, who intervenes from a sedentary position, that my colleagues in the Conservative parliamentary party are out in their constituencies, campaigning and standing up for their constituents, not focusing on a debate about an outdated system that will never last.

The Conservative party has championed first past the post as the fairest and most effective way to elect representatives, ensuring clear accountability, stable governance, and a direct link between elected officials and their constituents. Indeed, we continue to do that even after our historic and momentous defeats of 1997 and 2024. The party has continued to support first past the post, as evidenced by the submission to the Jenkins Commission in 1998, because we believe the way to win elections is to gain the trust of the public, not to gerrymander the system when things get tough.

Voters have already shown their preference for first past the post, as shown by the decision made by 13 million people who voted against the proposals set out in the 2011 voting system referendum. I know this is not popular among the parties in opposition, but I believe we should respect the results of referendums.

[Luke Akehurst]

On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Let me just finish this point. Some 68% of people voted no in that referendum, so the result should be respected for at least a generation, as the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) said in his thoughtful contribution. In 2011, the alternative vote was supported by a majority of voters in a mere 10 of the 440 local counting areas.

The debate raises some pertinent questions for other Members. Only seven months after they won a resounding and historical vote in a landslide victory under the first-past-the-post system, Labour MPs suddenly want to do away with the system that has provided them with their victory, and smaller parties want to gerrymander the system because they did not get as many seats as they wanted. Perhaps that is because Labour Members are already struggling at having to work directly for the constituents that put them in their places, because they are suffering from the biggest and most profound instance of buyer’s remorse since this Government took office.

I say gently to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), who outlined the possibility of a two-tier system where members can pick and choose what they focus on for their constituents, Members of this House elected under this system take on every issue for their constituents. My constituents in Hamble Valley have a direct link to me, and I will not pick and choose what issues I take up. Members in this House generally do not do that; we stand up for our constituents on all the issues that they think are important in this country and in their constituencies.

In a debate about our electoral system, the Liberal Democrats have once again shown that they are not worthy of having the word “democrat” in their name. They once again outlined that they have an opposition to voter ID, which guarantees safe and fair voting systems in this country and stops people from being able to take votes from people who are genuinely entitled to vote in this country, and they outlined that they now want to gerrymander the system to get more votes themselves.

I gently say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that she said that a lack of turnout meant the results of the election were not as valid as they should be. She is entitled to that opinion, which is perfectly reasonable, but her Bill on proportional representation passed with the votes of 62 MPs in this House, out of a total electorate of 650 MPs, by a majority of two. Taking her proposition, does that mean her Bill is less entitled to pass than other Bills because of the turnout of MPs voting on that outdated proposition?

Under proportional representation, direct accountability is often lost in the complexities of coalitions and backroom deals. Advocates of PR stress the need for the party share of the legislature to mirror the share of the popular vote, but that is the wrong test. It is more important to look at the share of the vote and the share of executive power. Over time, PR leads to a highly disproportionate relationship between votes cast and the share of executive power, which is unhealthy for democracy. First past the post ensures the brutal and efficient removal of governments when a ruling administration loses popular support, and they are rightly booted out and replaced with a new government facilitated often by a clear mandate from voters.

[Richard Tice]

On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I will now.

[Richard Tice]

That is most generous of him. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that almost all other major democratic nations across the world use PR? Does that not prove that far from being outdated, it is contemporary?

[Paul Holmes]

If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting to the House that just because other people do it, we should follow suit, then he needs to go away and think about his policy proposition again. This country —[Interruption.] Let me finish the point. This country has elected more stable Governments than most European nations have under proportional representation. That is a proud and long-standing convention of this country and of this House of Commons. I suggest to Members from across the House that that is why the Conservative party believes and this House should believe in keeping first past the post as we go forward in other general elections.

[Claire Young]

rose—

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Paul Holmes]

I am spoilt for choice and I do not have much time left. I will give way to the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and then to the hon. Member for Shipley.

[Claire Young]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman remembers how many Prime Ministers there were between the last election and the one before, and whether voters knew what they were getting at the start of 2019.

[Paul Holmes]

I think that is a relatively lazy argument about the internal machinations of the Conservative party and is not concerned with our electoral system. I give the hon. Lady the point that it was not a good time within my party, within this country and that period of office, but it concerns the way parties elect leaders and not the electoral system for the public.

In relation to proportional representation not allowing parties from different wings to be elected, if we look at an example from 2009, in European elections under the PR system, the British National party won two European Parliament seats with 6% of the vote. In the rare cases in which the BNP won local government seats, such as in Barking and Dagenham in 2006, its support represented 35% to 50% of the popular vote in the winning wards. First past the post, by contrast, acts as a safeguard against extremism in ensuring that only candidates with broad support can win. That helps preserve the political stability and moderation that are hallmarks of our parliamentary democracy.

When coalition Governments are formed, it becomes difficult for voters to hold any one party accountable for their decisions. Blame for unpopular policies can easily be shifted between coalition partners, which, given how things are going for them, I know might be appealing for Labour Members. However, that erodes trust in politics, whereas first past the post provides clarity. Voters know exactly which party is in charge and can hold it to account at the next election.

It is also the case that under a party-list PR system, which was previously the European Parliament’s system in Great Britain, there was no direct accountability, with representatives dependent on a party patronage system. How many voters actually knew the name of their European Parliament Members when we were in the European Union? I would hazard that there were only one or two well known MEPs and one of them is still close by.

I think the choice for us is clear, although I know that I am undoubtedly in the minority this afternoon. First past the post ensures strong and stable governance, clear accountability and an electoral system that is easily understood by the public. It prevents small, unrepresentative parties from wielding disproportionate influence and upholds the direct link between MPs and their constituents. The British people have spoken in favour of first past the post and we should respect that decision. Members in other Opposition parties should learn and take it from us: we know that you cannot keep asking the same question over and over and expect a different response. The first-past-the-post system has served the UK well for generations. It delivers clear outcomes, stable Governments and a direct link between voters and their representatives. If we were to move to a PR regional-based system, that link would be lost and MPs would be scrambling and fighting to take on their constituents’ casework. We can just imagine the mafioso-style turf wars such a system would generate. To scrap those sensible and time-honoured demarcations would be terrifically reckless and fundamentally unnecessary and would do our electors a disservice.

We should not trade a proven system for one that prioritises theoretical fairness over practical effectiveness. The challenges we face as a country demand strong leadership, clear accountability and a system that works for the people. Even though I do not like the result, the Labour Government won that mandate under the system we have. First past the post has provided that Government and we should stick to that, allowing the British people to have a system they fundamentally understand and fundamentally believe in.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) in his wide-ranging comments talked about the vote that was held on 3 December 2024 relating to the Elections (Proportional Representation) ten-minute rule motion. He mentioned rightly that the ayes won by two votes, but in fact, the number of votes cast were 138 ayes and 136 noes. He mentioned that only 62 votes were cast and I am sure he would like to correct the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That is a point of debate and not a point of order. I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am perfectly willing to correct the record and apologise to the House. However, that was still a minority of the 50% that would be required under the system that the Liberal Democrats are advocating.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I now call the Minister.

Rural Housing Targets

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and to respond to this debate, secured by my close constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). He is my former boss—I was his special adviser—and as you can tell from this afternoon, Ms Jardine, I was never allowed to write his speeches because he is so brilliant at orating in the Chamber. He is a doughty champion for his constituents in East Hampshire and I congratulate him on securing the debate.

In December 2024, the Government published their reforms to the national planning policy framework, which included the reintroduction of mandatory house building targets. As of March 2025, some local authorities will face an overwhelming fivefold increase in new housing targets, dictated by central Government. These targets will hit many rural areas’ councils hardest, as my right hon. Friend outlined, and they are to be imposed with little regard for local people.

We firmly believe that building more homes is a necessity. As my right hon. Friend and Members from all parties have said, for too long the dream of home ownership has felt out of reach for many hard-working families. We must make that dream a reality for as many people as possible. A property-owning democracy in which people in different areas can own a house is vital to giving maturing and succeeding generations a stake in the society in which they live. Although I am supportive of the Government’s ambitious goal to build 1.5 million new homes, I must stress that those homes must be the right homes built in the right places, by a method that ensures that the voices of local communities are listened to.

The troubling reality is that the Government’s housing targets are, frankly, unrealistic—and they know it. The chief executive of Homes England has cast doubts on whether the Government can realistically meet their goal of building those homes. In a Select Committee hearing last year, the Minister himself said that it will be hard and virtually unachievable for them to build 1.5 million homes in the lifetime of this Parliament. A recent County Councils Network survey found that nine in 10 councils cited a lack of infrastructure as the main reason why they could not support the new targets, with the delivery of new schools, doctors’ surgeries and other social infrastructure lagging behind the delivery of housing.

The targets are not just unrealistic and unpopular; the methodology behind them seems to represent a cynical gerrymandering exercise of political opportunism. For example, take east Hampshire, the New Forest and Fareham—these areas are being told to build more houses than Manchester, and the New Forest and north-east Hampshire include a national park and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Meanwhile, cities such as Labour-run Southampton, Nottingham and Coventry see their targets slashed by as much as 50%. It does not add up. The Government’s new method punishes Opposition councils for their success and rewards Labour local authorities for failure.

Why have the Government reduced housing targets in urban areas, where it is easier to build due to existing infrastructure, population density and the availability of brownfield sites? Instead, Labour reforms to the NPPF have resulted in top-down targets that will silence local voices. They have chosen to prioritise building in rural areas and on the green belt rather than on focusing where the demand for housing is greatest: in our cities and urban centres.

Under the Government’s proposals set out in the NPPF, councils and county areas will have to deliver at least an extra 64,769 homes per year, equating to 1,240 homes per week. That is seven times higher than the targets for large towns and cities governed by metropolitan authorities. It rewards city councils such as Labour-run Southampton city council, which has consistently underdelivered on its targets. Having been required to deliver 1,473 houses in the 2023-24 period, the council built a mere 261. In response, the Government have opted to ensure the council is spared further humiliation for failure by having its target cut by 12%. It is a similar story across the country. In some rural areas, housing targets will increase by 113%, while in urban settings the increase will be a mere 1%—if indeed there is an increase at all. How does that make sense?

The Minister will know that I am no fan of Liberal Democrat-run Eastleigh borough council, which is building double the number required because of its excessive borrowing and failure to run a decent council. But his policies are unfair to councils like that, too. Eastleigh is facing a 42% increase in its house building requirement, from 645 houses a year to 922, but it has consistently overdelivered on its housing targets over the last five years. Where is the retrospectivity that should be delivered to successful councils that have overdelivered on their promises and housing targets over the last period?

[Richard Foord]

Did I just hear the hon. Gentleman describe his local Liberal Democrat council as successful?

[Paul Holmes]

No. The hon. Gentleman is grasping at straws. The Liberal Democrat-run administration in Eastleigh is anything but successful if we look at value for money and the £750 million of debt that its leader has accrued for the people of Eastleigh. The council’s method of paying off that debt was to build beyond the expected targets while destroying green areas in my constituency. But it is still not fair that my local council is being asked to deliver more homes despite having delivered more than was required. That is my point. There needs to be retrospectivity for councils that have delivered on those conditions.

The issue is the same in east Hampshire where, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire noted, the target will rise by 98%, from 575 to 1,142. Fareham, which covers half of my constituency, will see a 62% rise, from 498 to 800 houses. Why are councils that have built more than their required share of housing being punished for their success, whereas the pressure has been taken off the Government’s political allies—generally Labour councils—despite their continued failures to deliver? It is beyond belief that rural areas, which are already struggling with infrastructure and a fragile environment, are being handed inflated housing targets while urban areas, with a far greater demand for housing, are seeing their targets reduced. That is not just poor planning; it is unfair.

Protecting the green belt and preserving our natural environment are non-negotiable, yet under the new policies we are seeing parts of the green belt reclassified as grey-belt land for development, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said. We cannot allow unsustainable urban sprawl to destroy what we have worked so hard to preserve, including national parks, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) outlined.

One of the most disheartening aspects of the debate is the way in which the Government have cut key programmes such as the right to buy and first-time buyers’ stamp duty relief, while simultaneously reducing the number of affordable homes for purchase. That is not the way to help people on to the property ladder, it is not the way to address the housing crisis, and it certainly should not come at the cost of rural England—and Labour MPs agree. Indeed, 14 Labour Front Benchers have campaigned against house building in their own constituencies, which contradicts the Prime Minister’s pledge to have a Government of builders, not blockers. If Labour cannot even get its own party to back its housing targets, how can it expect its Labour council leaders to do so?

[Joe Morris]

One of my first visits as a new constituency MP was to Allendale parish council, in one of the most rural areas of my constituency. The council told me that it recognises the need for housing, so it is rather cynical to say that it would be the death of rural England to build more houses.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman is right in that he should have devolution, and the Government have brought that forward. His Labour leader may want to build more houses, but the Government’s algorithm is making it easier to build huge numbers of houses in rural England, where the infrastructure is harder to deliver, while generally Labour councils in urban centres are having their targets cut. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but I have just outlined the figures that show that that is the case, including in London. The Minister really needs to go back and re-look at the algorithm, as colleagues on this side of the House have asked him to.

In conclusion—many will be pleased to know—the road ahead is challenging, but it is not insurmountable. We can build the homes we need if we listen to communities, respect local voices and commit to sustainable development. The Government should rethink their house building algorithm to depoliticise the policy, and do local authorities the courtesy of not punishing their hard work on meeting previous targets. I stand with the Minister ready to come up with an algorithm that works for rural and urban areas. If he takes up that offer, the Conservative party will be committed to helping to deliver the 1.5 million homes he has outlined. Let us work together to ensure that the dream of home ownership remains within reach for everyone, and do so in a way that respects our environment, our countryside and our way of life.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I ask him to ensure that we have two minutes at the end for the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) to wind up.

Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill

Paul Holmes Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on securing the Bill and bringing it to the House. The Bill represents an important step forward in making voting more accessible and efficient for all. The focus of the Bill is clear: to streamline and modernise the process of registering for absent voting, whether by postal vote or proxy, particularly for elections held in Scotland and Wales.

I join hon. Members in paying tribute to all electoral staff across the whole United Kingdom. We know that, as elected politicians and candidates, we put them through stress when we phone them to say, “This person hasn’t registered. Can I get them down?” or “Where’s this polling station?”. They go through a lot, and we thank them for what they do.

We welcome the Bill. The changes it would make were originally proposed under the last Conservative Government, but as hon. Members will know, the Welsh and Scottish Governments declined to provide the necessary legislative consent motions when the Elections Bill 2022 passed through the UK Parliament in 2022. That meant that all the strengthened rules on postal and proxy voting could be applied only to reserved elections. Under the current arrangements, electors must submit paper forms to apply for or to modify absent votes. The Bill seeks to align that process for devolved elections with reforms introduced in the Elections Act 2022 for reserved elections. By enabling the use of the UK digital service for online applications, it will simplify and modernise the system, ensuring greater accessibility and efficiency for voters.

I appreciate that, as a consequence of devolution, electoral law will diverge due to the policy choices of the different Governments and legislatures, but we should avoid divergence for divergence’s sake. Since some elections will remain reserved, such as those to the UK Parliament, it would make sense to facilitate the smooth administration of elections by aligning processes for electoral administrators and political parties as much as is practicable. Otherwise, it just creates more work for everyone and confuses voters, as has been outlined by Government Members.

The provisions of the Bill will allow Scottish and Welsh Ministers to implement the measures ahead of the next devolved elections in 2026. The ultimate goal is to encourage participation in the democratic process while safeguarding the integrity of our electoral system, and we must recognise the differences in turnout between general elections and elections for devolved Governments. In Wales, turnout for Senedd elections has historically lagged behind general elections, as evidenced by the turnout rates of 46.6% in 2021, compared with 56% in 2024. In Scotland, turnout for the Scottish Parliament elections is comparatively higher, but there remains room for improvement. Making voting easier and more accessible is one way to address that disparity.

It is important that online applications do not open the door to electoral fraud, as the whole point of the Elections Act 2022 was to toughen the rules and practices for electoral integrity. That is why it is essential—we will scrutinise this in Committee—that there are strict online verification checks for online absent vote applications for devolved elections, and that those are the same checks as for hard-copy applications. Fraudsters will just divert their malpractice if one venue is more lax. Electronic applications are more vulnerable to external interference, as a hostile actor can be literally anywhere in the world. If the Bill goes into Committee, I would like to see a requirement in primary legislation for the necessary checks already operational in reserved elections to be required in secondary legislation. That would help to ensure consistency across all elections, as many Members have outlined that they want.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been consulting on legislative reform orders to implement the same provisions. Will Ministers indicate how that interacts with the proposed passage of the Bill? For example, do Ministers intend to opt for a legislative reform order if the Bill does not have sufficient parliamentary time? It is worth noting that the electoral bodies, including the Electoral Commission, support these changes. The commission highlights the need for clarity and preparation to ensure that these provisions are in place by October 2025, giving electoral officers ample time to adapt, and giving voters sufficient awareness, before the 2026 elections.

In conclusion, the Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill is a pragmatic and necessary step towards improving voter access and protecting the integrity of our electoral processes, by bringing absent voting practices in devolved elections in line with the rest of the UK. It will modernise and future-proof our democracy while empowering citizens in Scotland and Wales to participate more easily in elections.

I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on the spirit with which she has brought forward this legislation: to make voting and access to voting easier for people while ensuring that voting remains secure. I hope that her Front-Bench colleagues take that same stance and change their mind on watering down voter ID, which will have the opposite effect from the aims and aspirations of this Bill.

New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill

Paul Holmes Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for bringing this important issue to the House. It is good to see the Minister in his place—I know he and Ministers in his Department have had a busy week.

Solar energy has an essential role to play in decarbonising our power sector by putting otherwise unused roof space to good use. Solar panels are an effective technology for reducing carbon emissions, and the Bill proposes a forward-looking measure that would require the installation of solar PV generation equipment on new homes. Its Second Reading offers us an opportunity to debate the merits of the proposal and its potential contribution to our shared goal of reaching net zero by 2050.

While welcoming the Bill and its aims outlined this morning, I would like to add to the debate some possible unintended consequences of the Bill in its present form. I want to be a genuinely constructive voice in ensuring that the Bill gets to Committee—I hope the hon. Member sees that—but some areas could be strengthened. I appreciated his sunny disposition in bringing the legislation to the House today. I will try to be a ray of sunshine as I get through this speech. [Interruption.] I am in danger of misleading the House there. I hope to be a sunny ray of light in Committee should the Bill get through and we table amendments to it.

The previous Government supported solar energy generation where it was appropriate. Our efforts included a £50 million fund aimed at supporting rooftop solar installations to enhance on-farm energy security. The responsibility for advancing solar and renewable energy now rests with this Government, and we wish them luck in doing so while remaining sceptical about the abilities of GB Energy to see that through. Under the last Government’s leadership, we delivered 2.5 million homes since 2010, including 1 million homes during our final term in office. That provided more people with the opportunity to own their homes and expanded options for renters.

Additionally, in November 2023, as has been outlined, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced expanded development rights, making it easier for homeowners and businesses to install rooftop solar panels without the need for planning permission in most cases. That was a positive step, and I hope to see such support continue. As the Government pledge to deliver 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, we must ask ourselves what impact the Bill would have on house building. Building costs are already high and projected to rise further. Even the chief executive of Homes England has admitted that delivering Labour’s housing target may require two parliamentary terms, not one as the Minister outlined.

I also note that the implementation date of 1 October 2026 in clause 1 provides little time for the industry to adapt to the significant challenges the Bill introduces. Given the growing pressures on the industry, it is necessary to question whether the Government have considered and worked on the potential skills shortage, as an hon. Member raised earlier, and the feasibility of implementing the standards in this well-intentioned Bill.

We know that the UK has one of the oldest housing stocks among developed countries, with a particularly complex system of housing tenure. Buildings owned by freeholders and occupied by a mix of leaseholders and tenants present ongoing challenges for successive Governments when implementing necessary updates and retrofits. Meanwhile, in the realm of housing development, where 1.4 million new units already have planning consent, developers continue to highlight issues, such as the cost of solar panels, as a significant obstacle to advancing new housing projects. We must therefore consider whether the additional costs imposed by the Bill could hinder progress in delivering housing. Could it add restrictions to house building plans, particularly when it comes into effect in 2026? We are open to the timescale that the Bill would implement.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Does my hon. Friend not accept that, while it is not remotely surprising that some developers are resistant on the grounds that the Bill will add to the costs of building property—it indubitably will—we should recognise the flipside of that coin, which is that it will enhance the value of the property and make its management and running much more affordable?

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If he will allow me, I will elaborate on that further on in my oration this morning, when I will look at the other side of the coin. While absolutely taking into account that house builders will have concerns over costs and will claim concerns over costs, as we have seen various organisations do, we also have concerns about the ongoing maintenance costs of these technologies for those who buy the properties in the first place. There is a balance to strike, which we can look at further if the Bill goes into Committee.

Maintaining solar panels, as my right hon. Friend was tempting me to say, is not without challenges. Repairs often require scaffolding, which can be expensive. We worry that an unintended consequence of the Bill could be increased costs for residents, home owners and property owners. How will we support home owners facing frequent and costly repairs?

The updates to the national planning policy framework present an opportunity to consider how such requirements can be better embedded in planning law. I recognise that administrators face a challenging task. The framework contains approximately 19 chapters of guidance, which each local authority must reflect in its local plan after public examination, ensuring full alignment with those chapters. The complexity of the process, combined with consideration of local environmental factors, such as surface water run-off, and the need for materials to align with established practices, creates a considerable challenge.

To translate the aspirations outlined by Members into real-world outcomes, we must simplify the process for local authorities to enable them to fulfil their role as community leaders. Instead of requiring lengthy and costly procedures to prove compliance with planning law, we need to ensure that the relevant standards can be implemented efficiently. The previous Government consulted on a future homes standard to ensure that all new homes would be zero carbon-ready. That included provisions for solar panels where appropriate. We must also ensure that brownfield sites are prioritised for housing development and stand-alone solar power, rather than sacrificing valuable agricultural land, as we risk seeing under the Government’s proposals. I sincerely hope that they will build on the progress we saw as a result of the previous Government’s consultation and the feedback gathered.

As we consider the Bill, it is important to recognise that not all buildings are suitable for solar panels. Factors such as structural strength, the direction and orientation of buildings and challenges with maintenance access must be taken into account. As I believe the hon. Member for Cheltenham has recognised, a one-size-fits-all mandate might lead to unintended consequences or inefficiencies. What discussions has he or the Government had and what consultations have taken place with the building industry during the drafting of this legislation? Collaboration with developers and stakeholders is critical to ensuring the successful implementation of such a policy. Consumer and local choice must also play a role in these decisions. I am concerned about the Labour Government’s apparent intent to reduce the influence of local representatives on planning committees. Local people should have a say on what is built in their area—we have heard some examples from local council leadership across the country this morning.

If this Bill receives passes its Second Reading today, we will scrutinise it thoroughly to ensure that it balances the need to build more homes with the imperative of increasing energy efficiency and production. I welcome the proposed exemptions for buildings that cannot support solar due to roof positioning or other factors. Those exemptions need further scrutiny in Committee to ensure that they are comprehensive. Sensibly, the Bill allows for other renewable energy systems to be used where solar is not feasible; that is practical. However, the list of exemptions should not allow developers to adapt their designs in order to avoid installing solar panels, so that they can avoid what they claim are increased costs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and a number of colleagues on the Labour Benches mentioned, there remains a risk that house builders or developers will identify loopholes in the legislation that they can use to say, “We can’t build solar on that, so we will do either a cheaper alternative or none at all.” However, if Members in all parts of the House work together in Committee, we can strengthen the legislation to ensure that developers put these technologies on buildings across the country.

[Caroline Voaden]

When the zero carbon homes standard was scrapped by the Conservative Government in 2015, a Government report said that scrapping that standard was designed to reduce regulations on house builders. Many people said that the Conservative party had been put under considerable pressure by house builders who were very generous to that party. Will the shadow Minister reassure me that if this Bill reaches Committee, he will be in favour of putting pressure on the house builders to comply?

[Paul Holmes]

There I was, being nice about a Liberal Democrat-proposed Bill. As the hon. Lady knows, the Liberal Democrats are the bane of my life in my constituency, but I was being nice to the Liberal Democrat Member who introduced this Bill, and the hon. Lady has come back and been quite nasty to a Conservative. [Interruption.] Thank you very much.

As my speech clearly outlines, we in the Opposition will take a pragmatic approach to legislation that comes before the House, so that people will see the right measures brought in—for developers, if necessary—for new developments across the country. I am not going to be party political and talk about donations. The last Government had a very strong track record of reducing carbon emissions and making sure we delivered the homes that we need across the country. We will continue to be a constructive voice in Parliament, as I tried to outline to the hon. Member for Cheltenham. We will be very pragmatic and constructive in making sure that the aims of this Bill are realised, should it reach Committee. The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) has my assurance on that, as the shadow Minister responsible for this policy area.

I fully support initiatives to encourage renewable energy and solar panel usage, but it is crucial to address the practical challenges we face. As has been mentioned, the national grid’s infrastructure may not be equipped to handle a significant increase in capacity from solar generation alone. A recent article outlined that £60 billion of investment in the national grid is needed to make sure that solar energy can be put back into the grid in a sustainable way.

I will conclude—many will be pleased to hear—by reaffirming the Conservative party’s strong commitment to the UK’s target of reaching net zero by 2050. I am proud to say that we have already achieved a 50% reduction in emissions between 1990 and 2022 while growing our economy by 79%. As we continue on this journey, our policies must strike a balance between ambition and realism. I look forward to hearing more about the provisions in this Bill, and hope that this debate will bring us closer to solutions that support both its practical implementation and our environmental goals. I once again congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham, and look forward to seeing him—if he is lucky—in a Committee on this legislation. At the risk of being sanctioned, I promise him that I will be a ray of sunlight when we work together to ensure that this Bill is strengthened and becomes legislation.

Draft Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 General Committees

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I wish the Minister and all Members a happy new year.

Considering the bulging numbers on the Opposition Benches, the Minister will be pleased to know that we will not challenge the regulations. But we do have some general questions. He gave a detailed explanation of the business before us but there are, as he would expect, a number of questions that the Opposition want to flag and that I would appreciate an answer to.

The Opposition completely understand the reason for the measures and for the need to enhance devolution in the existing combined authorities. We must also stress the impact of excessive borrowing on taxpayers and council tax payers. It is important that—as the Minister would expect me to note—Conservative mayors have never raised the mayoral precept that they can impose. They have either cut it or not put it in place at all, while Labour mayors such as Sadiq Khan have increased it. However, we welcome the introduction of the debt caps agreed with the Treasury.

Given his announcement on devolution plans a couple of weeks ago, the Minister would expect me to ask about the Government’s plans and mechanisms to legislate with the new authorities. Will they have to legislate en masse, or does the Minister expect to come to the House with other statutory instruments like this one, following consultations and the establishment of new mayoral combined authorities? What debt caps will feature in the future? Will there be central Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government guidance on acceptable debt caps and borrowing levels for combined authorities?

What will the Government do to keep council tax down and ensure that the temptation to borrow more—particularly in the financial situation that we find ourselves in—does not lead to increased council tax or taxes on residents? Will the Minister not only urge the East Midlands authority, and other authorities going forward, to behave responsibly, but urge caution on borrowing with the powers that will be given to new combined authorities? As we move forward, will the Minister legislate to allow borrowing against all functions, as in the changes and adaptations he has outlined today, or will he look at it on a case-by-case basis, as local authorities come forward under his devolution plans?

As we move towards devolution, another concern is about what will happen to the debt incurred by councils that choose to undergo restructuring. That is slightly outside the scope of the SI, but it is in the policy that we would have to see statutory instruments such as this one. Where will councils’ debt go when they merge into a new devolution settlement? Will councils have to have the difficult conversations on their own, and organise their own affairs, or will central Government support them as they go forward locally?

Liberal Democrat-controlled Eastleigh borough council has a debt of £500 million. I do not think it will surprise the Committee that other councils do not want that council to merge into their functions under future devolution plans. [Interruption.] It comes as a surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, but it should not. I wonder whether the Minister will facilitate plans going forward and what Government support will be given to local authorities as they go through the mergers.

I note that for the general power of competence for economic development and regeneration to be conferred on the East Midlands combined authority, a public consultation was required by law, as the Minister outlined. That is perfectly acceptable and right, and he gave a detailed review of the responses from the local public. I think it is safe to say that the feedback indicated general but not overwhelming support. What lessons will the Minister and the Government draw from the consultation mechanisms that were outlined? On reflection, how will he adapt transfers of the devolution of powers? What shape will future consultations take to encourage greater co-operation and participation by local residents when they face changes in their local authorities?

Lastly, as we enter this phase of quite disruptive top-down restructuring, I hope the Minister will outline some detail on the policy going forward, and particularly on my specific questions this morning, beyond its current embryonic nature. Overall, we support the mechanism. We believe in devolution as an Opposition and as a party—it was set up by this party originally—and we look forward to seeing locally elected mayors deliver the powers and functions that this Government want them to.

[Jim McMahon]

I thank the shadow Minister and wish him a happy new year in return. His were generally positive comments, with the exception of the standard view of the Mayor of London, who is obviously doing a fantastic job of delivering the Government’s missions—and long may that continue.

Let me answer the shadow Minister’s questions, all of which were completely legitimate. We expect all public bodies, whether they are councils or mayoral combined authorities, to exercise their borrowing powers with the restraint that the public would expect. We expect them to borrow for a purpose and honour their borrowing commitments through the repayment schedule. That is why there is a clear mechanism in place for HMT to assess borrowing caps on an individual basis, reliant on the financial status of the local or combined authority in question. The checks and balances are robust and in place, and it may well be that the powers are not used in some places.

The point is that as we move towards a new phase of devolution there has to be an assumption of trust and autonomy for local authorities to do what is right for their local communities, without them always coming cap in hand to the Government or waiting for a new Government grant scheme that they can bid into. In the end, areas will be expected to self-organise, to work with their local business community and investors, and to marshal projects for the economic wellbeing of the country. This devolution mechanism is very much about bringing the relevant areas in line with other authorities that already have those powers.

We have seen mayoral combined authorities in particular making a difference to economic growth. Greater Manchester is significantly outperforming large parts of the economy elsewhere in England. That has been in large part because of the mayor’s convening role and the activity and energy of the local authorities, but also, importantly, because they have been able to team up and label different elements of funding to make schemes stack up and bring them to market so that they can be achieved. Having that role in place, with the legal powers required, is entirely what this mechanism is all about.

I have a different view from the Opposition on the use of a mayoral precept. The reason for that is that every mayoral operation has a cost to it. We can all agree that we want them to be slim, efficient and nimble, but the idea that some mayors have a cost to them and some do not is frankly ridiculous. Every mayoral combined authority has an operating cost. The more that authority does, the higher that cost will be, reflecting the activity that has been undertaken. There are two ways to meet that cost. We can have a levy or a charge on the local authority, which is not particularly transparent and cannot be seen by the public. The public do not even get to see on their council tax bills how much has been spent on that function, so where is the democratic accountability? Alternatively, we can shine a light on it and say that the public have a right to know how much mayoral combined authorities cost. That should be transparent on the council tax bill, and the public, through the democratic voting process, will have the right to say whether they believe that money is being used to the best effect.

[Paul Holmes]

I do not want to break the spirit of consensus, but although the Minister is quite right that transparency is crucial to all local mayors and that the public must know how much the authorities cost, why is it that Labour mayors seem to be raising their precept much more than any Conversative mayor? Is he saying to the Committee that Labour mayors are inefficient and their operations cost more than those of Tory mayors?

Playgrounds

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) on securing this debate. His speech this afternoon has shown Members in the House that his half of Bournemouth are very lucky to have him. He is lucky to have them too, and I know that he works very hard for his constituents, considering that he has been a friend for a number of years.

Playgrounds are essential to the physical and mental wellbeing of our children. They are places where children exercise, build social connections and foster creativity, yet the provision of playgrounds by local authorities remains uneven across the country, with concerning disparities that demand our attention. According to the Fields in Trust group’s green space index, an alarming 2.3 million children in Britain under the age of nine—31% of the total—live more than a 10-minute walk from their nearest playground. Even more troubling is the fact that 40% of councils report that over a third of children face that challenge, with some areas seeing the figure rise as high as 65%.

That disparity reflects the struggles that local authorities face in maintaining playgrounds. Budget constraints mean that some councils have been forced to remove or repurpose play areas, depriving communities of vital green spaces. Regional variations further highlight the inequality. For example, children in Scotland enjoy access to nearly five times more public playgrounds than their peers in London. Welsh children have access to more than twice as many playgrounds as those in London.

The previous Government recognised the importance of improving access to quality green spaces, with initiatives such as the £9 million levelling up parks fund and an additional £30 million of investment focused on improving facilities for young families. The funding aimed to enhance green spaces in deprived areas, support tree planting and improve play areas, with up to £85,000 available per area. The measures were complemented by nearly £60 billion of funding for local authorities in 2024-25, which was a 9.4% increase compared with the year before, with most of the funding left un-ringfenced to promote local choice.

The Conservative party firmly believes in empowering local authorities to make decisions to best suit their communities, but central Government must also ensure that councils are equipped with sufficient resources to deliver essential services such as playgrounds. The revised national planning policy framework provides an opportunity: as hon. Members have outlined, play spaces will now be included, which I welcome, but that needs to be enforceable under the NPPF. As outlined by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), we often find that developers promise things to local people, but local authorities cannot take the enforcement action necessary to ensure that those facilities are built. I have found that within my own constituency, which has seen excessive development. I look to the Minister to enforce that action through the NPPF, and through regulatory statutory instruments if need be, so that local councils have the power to ensure that those services are provided.

Unfortunately, challenges persist. The Local Government Association has estimated that the employer national insurance contribution hike will cost councils £1.77 billion, yet only £515 million of new funding has been provided to support the increase. The shortfall puts further strain on local budgets, making it even harder to maintain and improve local playgrounds. I hope the Minister knows that I often try not to be too political, but the decision in the last Budget to scrap the charitable status of private schools means that facilities provided for local children in local areas by private schools may be taken out of service. That will affect all kinds of children who are entitled to use the many playgrounds that private schools provide.

To wind up, the provision of playgrounds is about more than just swings and slides; it is about investing in our future, fostering healthier communities and ensuring that every child has the opportunity to thrive. I say to the Minister that we are willing to work together to protect and enhance these vital spaces, recognising their role in creating a fairer and healthier society.