Grenfell Tower Annual Report
Paul Holmes Excerpts(6 days, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and join him in welcoming survivors from Grenfell who are with us today.
The events that took place on 14 June 2017 were an avoidable national tragedy that should not have robbed 72 people of their lives, and they must never be repeated. It is right that in consultation with the survivors, the bereaved and those directly impacted, a fitting and lasting memorial is put in place to remember the 72 lives lost that day and the wider Grenfell community. We welcome the new legislation that the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon.
It is right that we remember the victims, and I thank the Secretary of State for giving us the opportunity to do that while he updates the House. The victims must be at the heart of how we remember Grenfell, and the Government must work with them in as sensitive a manner as humanly possible. We will support and scrutinise how the Government proceed with the memorial to ensure that the victims are at the heart of what he has decided. We believe that this matter should be cross-party, as it goes beyond party politics and it is simply the right thing to do.
The inquiry’s findings—decades of systematic failure, dishonesty and negligence—are a damning indictment of successive Governments, regulators and industry. The Government’s response last year was to accept all 58 recommendations, which is a step forward, and we welcome the commitment to action. I am glad to hear today that action on a few of those recommendations has already taken place.
The creation of a single construction regulator, the appointment of a chief construction adviser and the consolidation of fire safety functions under one Department are long-overdue reforms. While we welcome the formation of a single construction regulator, can the Secretary of State confidently state that he believes it will be more effective and help to safely build the homes that we need? Can he confirm that we will not be left with the potential delays that we have seen under the Building Safety Regulator?
When we were in government, we took decisive action to initiate this public inquiry immediately after the tragedy to learn the lessons and prevent it from ever happening again. We strengthened the regulatory regime and implemented the inquiry’s recommendations following the report from the first phase. It was welcome that this Government also accepted the recommendations. Will the Secretary of State publish a detailed plan on how all the recommendations are being implemented and their status? He gave us the update that 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings have had cladding removed. Will he update us with a road map for when the rest will be completed?
All building owners must step up, do the right thing and fix their buildings without delay, or face the consequences of their inaction. Those who intentionally cut corners on building safety must be held to account. The Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service should continue to pursue criminal charges against the small number of developers and contractors who knowingly and fraudulently cut corners on building safety for greed and financial gain.
The Secretary of State has promised to complete all the remaining recommendations during this Parliament. Will he lay out key dates for when key parts of that will be achieved? Will he update us on what stage he is at with the Grenfell site itself and future plans for it? How is he working with the victims’ families to support them?
Those who profited from cutting corners or were criminally negligent must face consequences—not just fines, but criminal charges where the evidence allows. We will support and scrutinise the support for victims and their families that the Government are putting forward to ensure that we get this right. I know that the Secretary of State and the Building Safety Minister, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), want to get this right.
Grenfell must be a watershed with a legacy of safety, transparency and respect for every resident. Let me make clear the commitment of the Conservatives to work with the Secretary of State and the Government on a cross-party basis to meet that promise.
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and welcome the tone that he has adopted. It is quite right that we should all work cross-party on this matter to speed up the outcomes that we are all looking for and that we work together in a way that shows respect to the families and those who lost their lives in this tragedy.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the single construction regulator. The BSR became a stand-alone body, separate from the Health and Safety Executive, on 26 January. Work is progressing on bringing into the BSR all the other aspects that will allow it to function in due course as the single construction regulator, which the inquiry identified as such an important part of fixing the building safety system. Lord Roe is overseeing rapid improvement in the performance of the BSR even as I speak.
The hon. Gentleman asked about remediation. It is welcome that 91% of high-rise residential or public buildings with unsafe ACM cladding have been remediated, but we recognise that there is further to go. Further acceleration plans are available, and I am happy to write to him if he would like access to that information.
Similarly, the hon. Gentleman asked about key dates in implementing further recommendations. We will continue to publish quarterly reports so that the whole House can scrutinise the progress that the Government are making with these recommendations. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), and I are meeting regularly with the families and affected groups to ensure that we hear their concerns directly and can feed them straight into the system.
Holocaust Memorial Day
Paul Holmes Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to speak as a shadow Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister in a debate where Members across the House have been frank, honest, open and emotional. Debates such as this, about our history and our future, often bring out the best in Members, and I pay tribute to all the speeches this afternoon.
I particularly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), who opened the debate. I do not think that I am alone in saying that he is one of the most gentlemanly and honourable Members of the House in conducting his business. He gave us some beautiful words that we all must learn from, as well as a wonderful history tour. His speech brought our history closer to home, and showed what this country was intrinsically involved in. His honesty in that is admirable.
Notwithstanding the serious nature of this debate, I think that the hon. Gentleman should consider audiobooks, because his dulcet tones should be heard far and wide across the country. They are incredibly soothing. He did a tremendous job today, and I pay tribute to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) reminded us that the Holocaust was not the start or end of antisemitism. His speech was a stark reminder not just of the need to remember, but to acknowledge what is happening now in this country and the world.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) spoke in graphic detail, and he was right to do so. Having been to Auschwitz and to the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem only last month, I know that we must not become desensitised to our history. His graphic speech reminded us of the horrors of the past. He outlined some local issues to do with councillors at Leeds council, and he had every right to do so on the Floor of the House. It is a shame that the leadership of any political party did not feel the need to vet people properly or act on an incredibly serious incident. I remind the House and my right hon. Friend that Hamas is a proscribed organisation, and I hope that the police will take action following his speech to bring that person to justice. He is absolutely right that we need to call out antisemitism and challenge those who look the other way not just by making points of order, but by making substantive contributions in this Chamber, as he did this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) said that we must arm young people with knowledge about genocide, despite the dehumanisation and nationalism we have seen in the parts of the world that he mentioned. He is absolutely right. That is just a short peppering of the excellent contributions we have had from across the House today.
Holocaust Memorial Day invites us to pause, reflect and recommit ourselves to ensuring that the darkest chapter in human history is never forgotten. This year’s theme, “Bridging Generations”, is a powerful reminder that the responsibility for remembrance does not end with the survivors. It lives on through their children and their grandchildren, and through every single one of us. As a nation, we must never allow the history of the Holocaust to fade from our collective consciousness. As the events of the 1930s and 1940s move further from living memory, our duty becomes even more urgent. We must ensure that future generations know and understand the horrors, traumas and lessons of the Shoah, for remembrance is not a passive act; it is a conscious commitment to education, and to the memory of those killed in barbarous cruelty.
Holocaust Memorial Day plays a vital role in sustaining that commitment. On this day, we commemorate the genocide of 6 million Jews—men, women and children—murdered by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. We also remember the millions of others persecuted and killed: Roma and Sinti people, the disabled, gay men, political opponents, and countless others targeted by a regime built on hatred and dehumanisation. The focus on bridging generations reminds us of our collective role in ensuring that the Holocaust remains a lesson for all those in positions of influence and responsibility. We in this place have a special obligation to ensure that the stories of those who came before us continue to be told accurately, compassionately and courageously to future generations. As we reflect, we must also remember that the Holocaust was not the final genocide of the 20th century. The world has witnessed unspeakable brutality again and again. We all, in this House, send our thoughts to those affected by antisemitic terror, particularly those in Australia, whom many Members across the House mentioned.
The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust reminds us that commemorating these tragedies is not only a moral duty, but a hope that through memory we can build the vigilance needed to prevent these horrors recurring, yet remembrance alone is not enough. We must also confront the reality of antisemitism today. Any discrimination or intimidation based on religion or race is deplorable and must never be tolerated. In 2016, the United Kingdom became the first country in Europe to formally adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism—an important step, but one that we must build on with action against a rising tide of antisemitism.
I am afraid to say that data from the Community Security Trust shows deeply troubling trends. In the first half of 2025 alone, 1,521 antisemitic incidents were recorded across the UK—the second highest total ever reported over such a period. The surge in antisemitism that followed the horrific terrorist attacks of 7 October 2023, before there had been any major military response in Gaza, is a stark reminder that antisemitism remains a persistent, poisonous force. In that context, initiatives to strengthen Holocaust education and public memory are more important than ever. That is why the Holocaust Memorial Act 2026, which received Royal Assent just last week, marks a historic and meaningful milestone. It will finally bring to life the vision first announced in 2015 by Lord Cameron of a national holocaust memorial and learning centre beside Parliament, in Victoria Tower Gardens. It will serve as a lasting tribute to the 6 million Jewish victims, and to all victims of Nazi persecution. It will stand as an enduring educational resource, and a totemic reminder of the consequences of unchecked hatred and the vital importance of resisting it.
At the very moment when education is most urgently needed, we face a worrying decline. As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned, in 2023, more than 2,000 secondary schools across the UK took part in Holocaust Memorial Day commemorations, and the number had grown each year since 2019; but in the wake of the 7 October attacks, participation fell to under 1,200 in 2024, and to just 854 in 2025—a drop of nearly 60%. This is alarming, to say the least. Holocaust education should never be seen as political, nor should it be treated as contingent on world events. The Chief Rabbi expressed this with clarity and moral force when he said:
“Holocaust Memorial Day is not a platform for political debate. It is not an endorsement of any Government, perspective or conflict. It is an act of human memory. To insist that it must justify itself by reference to today’s headlines is to fundamentally misunderstand it.”
The Chief Rabbi also reminded us of another essential point:
“The Shoah was not inevitable. It was the end of a road paved with normalised scapegoating, constant disinformation, violent autocracy and a culture of the most extreme hatred. It began not in concentration camps but in classrooms, newspapers and public squares where people learned to look away.”
Holocaust education, then, is not a parochial concern, and it is right that by law children are taught about the Holocaust in the key stage 3 history curriculum. I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the Holocaust remain a compulsory topic in the reformed national curriculum, which will be required teaching in academy schools, when it is implemented. It is only through education that we can honour those who were killed. To reference the Chief Rabbi once more,
“Honouring Jewish victims of genocide does not diminish compassion for any other people. On the contrary, it enlarges it, because collective memory is not a finite resource.”
Today, as we work to bridge generations, and connect the testimonies of survivors to the responsibilities of our children and grandchildren, let us ensure that the horrors of the Holocaust are never forgotten, and most importantly, never repeated. Let us, across all generations, all parties and both sides of this Chamber, stand together in remembrance, but also united in hope.
Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands
Paul Holmes Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. She is an absolute champion for her local area, and I know how hard she has worked to secure this debate on Government support for waste collections in Birmingham and the west midlands—a debate that could have been completely avoided, had the Government done due diligence on ensuring that local authorities deliver for local communities.
A person is in a topsy-turvy world when they find themselves in utter agreement with the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), but that is the situation I find myself in this afternoon. In response to the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), I say that despite his passionate speech, he does not have a monopoly on representing working-class people. I happen to represent lots of working-class people and am working class myself. It was because I am working class that I joined the Conservative party. The hon. Member talks about the electoral oblivion of the Labour party. I suggest that it is socialist speeches of the 1980s that will destine the Labour party to electoral oblivion, not the current policies that they are putting out today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is absolutely right to bring forward this issue today. Quite frankly, it is a national embarrassment that one of our nation’s greatest cities—indeed, the second largest in the country—is facing a situation like this. As my hon. Friend said, the “squeaky blinders” are running freely down the streets and into piles of rubbish found outside hard-working people’s homes. I certainly would not want to see rats in my street, and I am sure that all Members taking part in this debate can absolutely agree with that. What is just as embarrassing is that, on a local and national level, the Government and Labour-run Birmingham city council have failed to address the situation soon enough.
As has already been mentioned here today, the waste management dispute began in March 2025, with some residents having had no collections since Christmas 2024. At the risk of stating the obvious, it is now January 2026 and the Government have stood idly by. This Government shamefully still fail to recognise the importance of this issue. On 13 January they referred to the waste dispute as a “local issue” and left it to their failing colleagues at Birmingham city council. The industrial action taking place in Birmingham has left residents without their rubbish collected for well over a year. That is simply not good enough; it is chaotic and shambolic.
The issue is much more than bins not being collected; as colleagues have highlighted, there are serious implications for public health. As the hon. Member for Leeds East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, there are commissioners in Birmingham city council, and the Government put those commissioners into the local authority. The Government have legislative cover to commission and start talks for negotiations to end the strike. So far, the political leadership of this Government have determined not to do that. That is a stain on the character of this Government, and it has caused a reduction in services for the people of the great city of Birmingham.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills outlined, the fiscal ineptitude of Birmingham city council is deeply concerning. It has allowed taxes to soar and effectively bankrupted itself through extra spending and the using up of its reserves. In other words, it has deeply let down residents in Birmingham and the west midlands. There is a clear need for Government intervention. Instead, Birmingham is set to receive one of the most generous payouts from the Government’s unfair funding review—a review designed to benefit poorly run, Labour-run urban councils. That narrative explains itself.
Wendy Morton
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something fundamentally wrong when a council like Birmingham city council has been almost rewarded in its funding settlement for failure?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend has made that point expertly. That is also on the back of a 7.5% increase in council tax after a previous 10% increase.
Finally, after that intervention, I would like to piggyback on my right hon. Friend and thank local Conservative councils, particularly Walsall, and recognise the work of Keep Britian Tidy and the individual volunteers who my right hon. Friend mentioned, who go to their communities to clear rubbish. It is great to hear that there are still individuals who take pride in what their local area looks like and who want to protect nature and work together towards a greener future. I am delighted that Aldridge-Brownhills will have a new household waste recycling centre and a waste transfer station opening next month, and that it will actively help reduce landfill waste and increase recycling.
To conclude, I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend and, it turns out this afternoon, also Members from across the House, who say that waste collections are a fundamental service. That is fact. It is paramount that the Government take decisive action to resolve the ongoing waste management saga in Birmingham and the west midlands. That has been clearly called for from all quarters—the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and independent Members, and us as the official Opposition. They all want to see leadership from the Government to control the people that they put in to control that local authority, to bring them to the table. I encourage the Minister to do that, because this problem has simply gone on for too long.
Alison McGovern
Very briefly, although I am conscious of your strictures, Ms McVey.
Paul Holmes
Will the Minister answer this question for me? Since she or even her predecessor took office, what specific advice has she sought from officials to see whether she has the cover—as a Minister of the Crown, through legislation—to get those people in a room? Does she or do the Government have that power?
Alison McGovern
I have received advice from the commissioners and others on the situation in Birmingham. I will happily set that out for the shadow Minister. He will know that the commissioners have the responsibility to produce reports and so on. The relationship between commissioners and the Government is well understood, but I will happily write to him with the detail.
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Holmes Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
With a new year often come new year’s resolutions. Will the Secretary of State make a new year’s resolution to accept the truth that the Government will not meet their 1.5 million housing target, which he set out? Will he confirm that he still thinks his job is on the line if he does not achieve that? Huge focus has been placed on rural areas with no infrastructure, but cities—often Labour cities—have been left off the hook, so will he commit to changing the formula to make it fairer and, more importantly, more deliverable?
Steve Reed
If the hon. Gentleman’s party had not scrapped house building targets around the country, we might see more of the kinds of homes that we need in every single part of the country—urban, suburban and rural. As for our targets, the judgment of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, which was set up by the previous Conservative Government, is that this Government will oversee the biggest increase in house building for 40 years. That will put the key to their own home into the hands of people who were denied it under the Conservatives.
Local Government Reorganisation
Paul Holmes Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The question many will be asking out there today is: what does this Labour Government have against democracy? Only two days ago, when asked, the Secretary of State said that all local elections were going ahead. He either hid his decision until today or has changed his mind in the past 48 hours. Which was it?
Voters will now potentially be denied the right to elect their own representatives, and not for the first time under this Labour Government. This is the second year in a row that Ministers have scrambled to postpone elections. Now, while many people gather around their screens to watch movies like “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”, we are sitting here discussing how Labour is trying to steal the elections.
There is no mandate for the Government’s botched reorganisation plan, and they have behaved as the sole actor, forcing local council leaders to reorganise, with little regard for local people and their democratic rights. Has the Electoral Commission been consulted on these latest changes, or has it been ignored once again? Just as the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission noted when mayoral elections were previously cancelled, the commission exists to protect the integrity of our electoral system, but time and again the Government seem content to brush aside its advice when it becomes inconvenient.
Do the Government still believe in the Gould principle—the long-standing agreement that election rules and practices should not be changed within the six-month period of a scheduled election—or is that expendable whenever Labour finds itself politically vulnerable? The Opposition accept that there is a precedent for a single-year delay, but that is not what we face. Do the Government accept the clear advice of the Electoral Commission that further delays are unacceptable? It said that scheduled polls should be postponed only in exceptional circumstances —what are the exceptional circumstances in this case? We know the answer: Labour’s rushed, chaotic and flawed local government reorganisation plan. It is the Government’s fault, not local leaders’ fault.
Have the Government undertaken or commissioned any up-to-date research into the costs of restructuring? Again, we know the answer, and it is a resounding no. What assessment has been made of the paralysis that the restructuring risks causing in local plan preparations? At a time when the Government claim they want to speed up planning, how does freezing governance structures help? Will this disruption not make the Government’s beleaguered 1.5 million homes target even harder to achieve? What about social care? What assessment has been made of the impacts of breaking up counties on adult and children’s social care provision? The broader narrative is clear. Yes, some councils have expressed an interest in restructuring, but Labour’s process has been rushed and deeply flawed, local residents have not been properly consulted and this Labour Government have put a gun to the heads of local council leaders.
The Opposition support council leaders who have engaged with the process, such as Kevin Bentley, the leader of Essex county council, who has stated clearly in the public domain that he will not ask for elections to be delayed in Greater Essex. I am pleased to say that my authority, Hampshire county council, does not support the move, either.
In December 2024, the Conservatives set out several clear tests; Labour has failed every single one of them. Is this a genuine choice for councils and communities, or are councils being compelled and punished if they do not comply? Will they be more accountable as a result? Will this reorganisation keep council tax down and improve services or simply add new layers of cost? Will it avoid disruption to social care at a time of immense strain? On all counts, the answer is no.
Earlier this month, Labour cancelled mayoral elections because it was worried it would not win them. Now it is doing the same with local elections, pausing the democratic process to serve its own political interests, creating for itself a true nightmare before Christmas. The process has been a mess from start to finish. It is not wanted, not in Labour’s manifesto and centrally dictated. It should be scrapped today.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. I will do my best to respond to a couple of his substantive points. He said that the Opposition are supporting local leaders who are engaging in the process in good faith, and I thank him for that, despite his other comments where he indicated that perhaps his party is not supporting the move to towards unitary councils, which we know are more efficient and effective, as I said.
On the hon. Gentleman’s important point about the Electoral Commission, the Secretary of State will take that under advisement, and will take any issues raised seriously. As I mentioned, we want to take an approach that puts local insights first. He mentioned councils that do not support a delay. As I said, that is fine; there is no problem with that at all. We want to support local leaders through what we are doing.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned planning, which is extremely important, given the desperate need to build more homes; in fact, part of the motivation for moving to unitary authorities is to get that work done effectively and efficiently. He also asked about social care, which is an extremely important area. A lot of change is going on in social care, not least through the work in the Department for Health and Social Care on changing how NHS England works. I am working closely with colleagues in that Department on that, and I am happy to engage further with him on it.
The position on elections is as it has always been. The starting point remains that elections go ahead unless there is a strong justification for them not going ahead. Today, we are writing to local leaders who have raised concerns and made justifications to us, to ask them to set those out, so that an informed decision can be taken.
Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts
Paul Holmes Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on raising this important issue for debate today. He and I—as well as our hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) —represent stunning Hampshire constituencies, with renowned countryside walking routes and picturesque towns and villages. I still reckon I have the better deal, as my constituents have the “Costa del Hamble”, but I know that my right hon. Friend would definitely say the same about his patch.
May I briefly respond to something that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), said? I do not know whether he planned it as an early Christmas present for me, but the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) walked in while he was speaking. That was a good thing to see.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has instilled in me a sense of déjà vu, which demonstrates the length of time that he has been campaigning on these issues for his constituency. We had a Westminster Hall debate before, and he is right that he cross-examined the Minister, who gave a very pithy response yesterday in the NPPF statement. I know that my right hon. Friend works very hard for his constituents, to make sure that he can get them the acquiescence that they seek from the Government.
I congratulate East Hampshire council on developing a local plan and, now, taking the responsible step of renewing it. That shows the kind of leadership that is needed. However, my right hon. Friend raised a number of important points, and I hope that the Minister will answer them. First, he asked about affordability, and about the rise in speculative development because of the lack of five-year housing supply, but the new targets have completely ripped up and undermined the plan-led approach to spatial planning, which the Government are rightly seeking and which I would argue forms the backbone of the planning system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said that planning is a huge issue in his postbag. I, too, have that issue, and I suspect that Members from across the House who made brilliant speeches this afternoon also have that issue in their constituencies. It is love of our communities and respect for their unique characters that brought us all here to the Chamber today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and I know that our constituents are not against building more homes in principle—there is a clear need to build many more houses up and down the country; that is a simple fact—but people are asking for the right houses to be built in the right places, and for community resources and infrastructure to be invested in to sustain a growing population, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made in his contribution. That is why it is so important that we properly assess the impacts of housing development. When multiple housing developments are lumped together, they overwhelm communities, stretch scarce resources and dilute the character of our towns. Over time, people begin to lose their vital sense of belonging and communities lose their identity.
The house building sector makes a substantial contribution to the economy. In 2023, new house building generated £53.3 billion in economic output across Great Britain, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs in house building firms and their contractors, as well as the wider supply chain. But economic benefit depends on stability, confidence and deliverability, and an approach that relies on unrealistic targets, rising costs and declining affordability risks undermining the very industry the Government claim to champion.
The impacts of housing developments manifest in numerous key areas. One huge concern, which I receive countless emails about from my constituents—no doubt all Members present can say the same—is the environmental impact of housing developments. The Government had the chance to address such concerns through Lords amendments 38 and 40 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which my Conservative colleagues in the other Chamber supported. However, the Government chose to ignore them, leaving unanswered questions about the environmental harm of their planning process.
We know and agree that ripping up the green belt is not the answer. Once the green belt is lost, it is lost forever, and that is why my Conservative colleagues and I have called for the swift redevelopment of brownfield sites, something that—to give the Minister credit—he did address yesterday in the NPPF update. The Campaign to Protect Rural England’s “State of Brownfield” report showed that we have more brownfield land now than in previous years. It highlighted that in a substantial number of local authorities, there is enough brownfield land with planning permission to meet the housing targets set by the Government’s standard method for calculating housing need for at least the next five years.
The Government’s plan for new homes disproportionately places the responsibility on rural communities to reach their target, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire outlined. The 2024 reforms to the national planning policy framework, introducing mandatory housing targets and a new standard method for calculating local housing need, redistributed top-down housing targets to rural areas from urban areas by Government diktat. As my right hon. Friend outlined, East Hampshire council’s targets doubled, while London’s housing allocations were cut by 11%, Birmingham’s by 38% and Coventry’s by 55%. In Eastleigh in my constituency, which has already built more than is required, the allocation is up by 42%, and in Fareham in the other half of my constituency, it is up by 62%.
That is particularly concerning given that, as my right hon. Friend outlined, many younger people whom we want to achieve and get on the housing ladder want to live in metropolitan urban centres. I am pleased that the Government listened to the calls of the Conservative Opposition on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee. We called for an incentive for densification in urban centres; it was rejected by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), but now the Government have come forward with one, which we welcome.
The point that my right hon. Friend made is that Government regulations and Government legislation are competing against each other. I hope that the Minister will answer my right hon. Friend’s challenge. The new NPPF will designate and allow urban densification, but housing targets in rural areas have massively increased, acting as a competing objective. Which is more important—the NPPF or the housing targets? If housing in towns, in which it is much easier to regenerate and to increase housing numbers, is to be increased, housing targets cannot be uplifted greatly in rural areas but reduced in urban centres.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
In my constituency we have had a 113% increase in our housing targets. A seven-year land supply has now dropped to little over three and a half years, making us susceptible to the very speculative developments that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Does he share my concern that in the circumstances in which speculative developments come forward, we lose the opportunity to plan strategically the infrastructure upgrades that a community needs, and each development brings only a small, incremental increase?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made that point, I was about to make it, and the hon. Gentleman’s Liberal Democrat colleagues also made it, so there is universal acclaim for his claim, but it is also absolutely correct. I hope the Minister addresses that.
As the amount of housing increases, community infrastructure and resources must be expanded accordingly. That means more schools, GP surgeries, train and bus stations, hospitals, paved roads, bin collections and street lighting, to name just a few of the essentials. The list goes on and on; those are just some of the things we need to consider when looking at where to build. We must get better at prioritising those vital services, while recognising that not every development is right for the area it is proposed for.
We all know that under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, local authorities can secure investment to fund new services and infrastructure in the local area, but the system is struggling to keep up with demand. Over a third of all section 106 agreements took longer than 12 months to finalise. Some 76% of local authorities reported an average timeline exceeding a year, and in over a third of councils it was over 500 days. In 2024-25, 45% of local planning authorities had agreements finalised that had taken over 1,000 days to complete. Dose the Minister agree that in order to unlock some of the housing that is needed, we need a simplified and standardised method for section 106 notices across the country? [Interruption.] He says yes from a sedentary position. I look forward to his affirming that in his comments shortly, but we would support that.
John Milne
I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the lack of infrastructure provision and with his previous comments on the failure to prioritise brownfield, but does he recognise that all those errors were inherent in the previous system under the Conservative Government? The problem is that they have not been corrected. They were always there, and that is why MPs across the country have been complaining.
Paul Holmes
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman slightly. I remember that in the last Parliament, under the Conservative Government, there absolutely was a commitment from Planning Ministers and Secretaries of State to prioritise brownfield development. That was announced during our time in government by the former Prime Minister but three, and by a number of Ministers in the MHCLG.
Paul Holmes
Well, I believe the hon. Gentleman will have watched the news. I would be the first to acknowledge that we had quite a few in the last Parliament, but there absolutely was prioritisation of brownfield sites first. We prioritised building houses where they were needed, not where they were not.
What steps do the Government plan to take to protect rural communities feeling the adverse effects of increased housing development? If the Government are serious about building homes and maintaining public confidence in the planning system, they must take cumulative impacts seriously, plan infrastructure properly and ensure that developments work with communities, not against them—something that the Liberal Democrats and my party have been very clear will be removed by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the English devolution Bill.
I have been very clear about my concerns regarding the Government’s housing targets and the credibility of the 1.5 million homes ambition, which is now being questioned by a number of experts. If the Government are serious about supporting the house building sector and securing its economic benefits, they must ensure that housing delivery is realistic, properly planned and supported by the necessary infrastructure. Crucially, this requires a far greater focus on the cumulative impact of development so that growth is sustainable, communities are supported, and the long-term economic and social benefits of house building are not undermined.
Finally, Mr Twigg, I wish you, the Clerks and staff, the Minister, and even the Liberal Democrats a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Quarries: Planning Policy
Paul Holmes Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing the debate, which is vital to me and my constituents.
Over the past six years, since being elected in 2019, I have been fighting against a proposal for an aggregate quarry down Hamble Lane in my constituency, which was recently given permission by the planning inspectorate on appeal. In the four minutes that I have to speak, I want to get across to the Minister that the planning system is fractured, disjointed and weighted against local communities. It does not take into account the true nature of quarries or the stuff that they produce; it does not take into account air quality or water run-off that will go into the River Hamble. The Planning Inspectorate is also culpable in not looking at regulations set down by locally elected planning authorities. In my case, it has been acknowledged in local planning authority notices that the Hamble Lane highway—which has one lane going in and out that 200 lorries a day will have to use—is already oversaturated and at capacity, and yet the minerals and waste authority has granted that permission.
We have a slightly strange process in Hamble that I want to outline briefly. As I said, we will have 200 lorries a day, but there has been a lack of consultation by Cemex, the company proposing the quarry. I will go as far as to say that Cemex are cowboys and bullies of local communities. There was not one physical consultation with people during covid, the company treats the community with utter disdain, and it treats the planning process as one of its personal toys that it can afford to challenge and manufacture. The Minister needs to be aware of that.
The quarry in Hamble is being proposed 50 metres from a primary school and 100 metres from a secondary school. That was not taken into account at all by the planning system. Physical highways data has not been taken account of since covid, but since then hundreds of houses have been built on Hamble Lane. That was not taken into account. Even more concerning is what happened after the regulatory committee of the minerals and waste authority refused the quarry: when 300 of my constituents turned up to attend the final meeting, the minerals and highways authority chose not to defend the reasons for refusal of democratically elected councillors without telling me or a single person in the community. That meant it went to an appeal.
My local residents group, the Hamble peninsula residents group, has done a fantastic job in raising funds to defend the appeal, but it was based on flawed data. At no time in my six years as an MP have I been consulted and no one on my local council—I have been working very closely with the Liberal Democrat administration on Eastleigh borough council—has been consulted. That is not good enough.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The hon. Member’s situation sounds very familiar to me. In my constituency, in the middle of Kingsteignton, we have a large clay quarry called Zitherixon, whose operators are trying to extend their permission for mining, even though it has been established for some 300 years and planning permissions are somewhat ancient. Does the hon. Member agree that, however the mining is permitted, whether by appeal or by planning some time ago, those doing it must be held to the most modern and best possible environmental and residential standards for local people?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. His situation sounds very similar to mine. I do not blame the Minister, as she has inherited a system that has been in place for decades, but what confidence can local people have in maintaining high standards when they are not in the guidance? What confidence can local people have in challenging the impact of quarries if the democratic body that refused permission in the first place is overturned by an unelected inspector, with the rug pulled out from under the local authority?
Will the Minister commit to meet me to discuss the circumstances of this case? There is a clear democratic deficit in the way in which this has been granted. It was handled by officers who superseded locally elected councillors. We are going to seek a statutory review, but that is now at the cost of the local community. That is not good for local people. People feel absolutely let down in Hamble, as they do across the country. I would be grateful if the Minister would commit to meet me in the coming months to discuss this case specifically.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Thank you for squeezing me in, Dr Murrison. In the limited time that I have, I want to put on record that the experiences of my constituents in Preesall are echoed by communities right across the country, as we have heard in the debate. Preesall saw a proposal for a quarry to extract sand and gravel. Thankfully, we are in a similar situation to that of the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), as the quarry application has been turned down, but we are now waiting to see whether the developer will appeal.
The community feels that it has all the necessary arguments on HGV movements on narrow country lanes and health data from the Over Wyre Medical Centre on the proportion of residents with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, who could be adversely affected. The proposed quarry site is within a kilometre of a primary school, and there is another school just 2 km away. We know that when children’s lungs are developing, they are more vulnerable to the kind of things that will be floating around in the atmosphere, with the potential health implications. The health issues combine with having HGVs on narrow country roads and the implications of unstable ground and an area historically associated with localised flooding.
Paul Holmes
It is actually worse than that, is it not? In my case, the quarry is 50 metres from a local school. Parents are already talking about taking their children out of two very successful schools, which adds to the pressure on communities and the associated infrastructure.
Cat Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point—it does have an economic impact on the area. Preesall is located in a beautiful corner of Lancashire, with the Wyre estuary on one side and Morecambe bay on the other. Who will want to visit this beauty corner of Lancashire if the landscape is littered with quarries? It will have an impact on our tourism offer.
All in all, this issue is concerning to my local residents, and I want to put those concerns on record today. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa); I know he has been pursuing this debate for a long time. When I supported his application to the Backbench Business Committee, I was unsure where my local application would end up. While I hope this is the end of it for my constituents, the reality is that we do not know. Current planning applications for quarries are not fit for purpose.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing the debate, his constituents for attending, and all hon. Members who have spoken. A number of hon. Members have raised concerns about the development of quarries and referred to specific planning applications in their constituencies. They will understand that I am unable to comment on specific cases, but I hope that the position I am about to set out will provide some reassurance.
I recognise that proposals for new or extended quarries are often controversial and unpopular locally. Once permitted, minerals extraction at individual sites can often take place over very many years, so if it is not planned for and managed in an appropriate manner, communities living nearby can be faced with the impacts associated with the development for a long time.
However, I want to reassure hon. Members that the planning system provides a robust framework to make sure that the impacts of minerals development are appropriately considered and addressed through both the plan-making and decision-making processes. Chapter 17 of the current NPPF sets out policies on facilitating the sustainable use of minerals to support that. In relation to plan making, the framework is clear that planning policy should
“set out criteria or requirements to ensure that permitted and proposed operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health, taking into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality.”
Samantha Dixon
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on.
In relation to decision making, the framework requires mineral planning authorities to
“ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety”.
The cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites or a number of sites in a locality should also be taken into account. Mineral planning authorities should also make sure that
“any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties”.
As well as policies specifically on minerals, the NPPF includes policies in relation to air quality, which was raised by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and pollution. They make it clear that both planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of air pollution.
Samantha Dixon
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on with my speech.
The NPPF further states:
“Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality…Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects…of pollution on health, living conditions”—
Samantha Dixon
I am not going to take any interventions.
The NPPF continues:
“and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development.”
That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes).
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Dr Murrison. I am desperately sorry, and I am not usually this kind of politician, but a number of Members have raised specific issues and contributed lived experiences, which relate directly to what the Minister is saying, yet she is not giving way. I seek your advice on how we can interact with the Minister and get some answers from her.
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Whether the Minister gives way is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Minister.
Samantha Dixon
I refer to my earlier comments about the consultation due to be launched on the national planning policy framework, which I hope the CPRE and all local communities will participate in.
Restoration also offers the opportunity to enhance the environment. Possible uses of land, once minerals extraction is complete, include the creation of new habitats and biodiversity, and use for agriculture, forestry and recreational activities, such as surfing centres.
I conclude by once again thanking the hon. Member for South Leicestershire and other hon. Members for participating in this debate. I want to reassure them that the Government take planning policy for quarries and the concerns that they and others have raised very seriously. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire has set out a number of issues and put a number of questions to me—
Samantha Dixon
I will just finish my sentence. I would be most grateful if the hon. Member for South Leicestershire set out his specific concerns to me in writing, so that I can make sure that a response to every point he has raised is forthcoming. Similarly, I would encourage other Members to write to set out their concerns.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for giving way. She will recall that in my speech I did not attack the Government at all, so I am not sure why her tone this morning is quite dismissive of other Members of Parliament. I think she should reflect on that. I asked specifically whether a Minister in the Department would meet with me about my case and she has not answered that. I wonder if she could, please.
Samantha Dixon
Dr Murrison, it is not my intention to offend anybody. I have previously referred to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. If he writes to me, I am sure his concerns can be addressed in the appropriate way.
The Government do take these issues seriously, as is reflected in our robust planning framework, which protects communities and the environment while enabling industry to get on with the job of providing the minerals that we need to build 1.5 million new homes and new infrastructure, and to support our growing economy.
Electoral Resilience
Paul Holmes Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. Let me begin by saying that protecting the integrity of our democratic system from foreign interference is not a partisan issue. It goes to the heart of public trust in our elections. Interference in our elections by foreign actors is something that we must all be vigilant against. I concur fully with what he said about Nathan Gill, and join the Secretary of State in giving sincere thanks to the CPS and the police. Any such crime deserves full condemnation from all Members of this House.
The Government announced their election strategy back in July, a strategy that affects all of us in this House. However, there was no consultation of political parties before the strategy was released. There has also been no formal consultation since it was announced. December marks the first time that the Government have engaged with the parliamentary parties panel. We do, however, welcome the announced independent review led by Philip Rycroft, and we wish him well in his work. Will the Minister commit to all parties being consulted during the new independent review’s work? Does he also accept the long-standing convention that Governments should not unilaterally impose changes to the law affecting political parties without proper consultation and cross-party engagement?
On electoral resilience, last week the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission noted that the commission was not consulted at all on the cancellation of the 2026 mayoral elections. Will the Secretary of State update us on whether council elections are going ahead, or will he cancel more elections at the last minute? Will he give electoral officials plenty of notice, whatever he chooses to do?
Delving into the Government’s statement, I note that the Government have signalled their intention to introduce “know your customer”-style checks on political donations, but political parties are not banks or the taxman. During the passage of the National Security Bill, the last Government committed to looking at greater powers for information sharing between relevant agencies and with political parties, precisely to identify irregular funding sources. Does the Secretary of State agree that such information sharing would help political parties to meet these new duties? I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement on cryptocurrencies, and the clarity that they will be in scope of the independent review.
The Secretary of State is absolutely right to mention Russia. The last Government legislated for a foreign influence registration scheme to stop covert foreign influence. Can the Minister explain why the Government have repeatedly refused to extend the scheme to China? What reasons are there for leaving such a gap in our national security framework, and will China be included in the scope of the independent review? Unfortunately, that decision sits uneasily alongside the Government ramming through the planning application for the Chinese embassy. How is that meant to convince Members of this House that the Government take seriously foreign interference from all malign powers across the globe?
There are clear loopholes that the Government need to address. Loopholes created by the Scottish and Welsh Governments allow Chinese residents in Scotland and Wales to make donations to UK political parties and politicians. What steps are the Government taking to close those loopholes, and to ensure that safeguarding is consistent throughout the whole United Kingdom?
Finally, protecting our democracy requires transparent cross-party discussion. Centralised power that bends the knee to the Chinese does not have the United Kingdom’s national interests as a priority. The Secretary of State now has an opportunity to set the record straight, and reassure the House of this Government’s commitment to taking seriously foreign interference by any malign influence. I hope that the concerns I have outlined are directly addressed today.
Steve Reed
I warmly welcome the hon. Member’s support for the review. I agree with him that this is way above party politics; this matters to all of us. It is about the integrity and safety of our democracy, and about ensuring that the safeguards in place to protect those precious things are sufficiently robust.
On the election strategy and the Bill that will be brought forward in the new year, we will of course engage with parties on aspects of that Bill before it is brought to the House. The hon. Member asked about the elections that are scheduled to go ahead; they will go ahead. He asked about cryptocurrency. That will be in the scope of the review, and I expect the independent reviewer to take a view on the subject. It has been raised by Members in all parts of the House, but I am sure that the hon. Member and other Members of his party will want to make their views clear to the reviewer before he comes to his conclusions. Again, the review is fully independent, but I would expect China to be fully in scope because of the questions that have been raised about the threats that China poses to national security, which are well documented.
We will engage with the devolved Administrations on applying the independent review’s findings on matters relating to elections that are within their competency.
Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor
Paul Holmes Excerpts(3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate on the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, an area of enormous potential, world-class institutions and a genuine capacity to drive innovation and national prosperity. He is a dedicated campaigner and champion for his constituency—he has been for a number of years—and that emanated from his speech this afternoon.
I would like to mention a few speeches from Members on both sides of the House who have spoken passionately on behalf of their constituencies. The first is my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), who gave us a wonderful tour of his constituency. I know that the Minister will take away, through officials, his plea for junction 13 of the M1 to be upgraded. We know that north Bedfordshire, like many areas in the community in which he serves, has had a huge expansion.
Whatever the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) had for breakfast, I would like some too, because we had a very rapid constituency tour, quite rightly explaining to us why her constituency is special. She was right about the infrastructure needs, and particularly the nature and environmental concerns. Her party and mine have been very concerned about some of the retrograde steps that the Government have taken in terms of planning and infrastructure regarding nature and the environment.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) quite rightly gave her view, as she is perfectly entitled to do, on local government reform. In this Chamber we actually heard a disagreement between two Members; I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire has strong concerns about LGR when it comes to a Milton Keynes–Bedfordshire–Luton mayor. That is something that we, again, are concerned about, where local authorities are being forced to reorganise come what may. Projects such as the one we are talking about today suffer as a result and come secondary to a needless reorganisation.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), managed to bring up Brexit in this debate, which I was slightly surprised by. I am never astounded by the tenacity of the Liberal Democrats, even if it does make me wonder why “Democrats” is in their party’s name.
The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, sometimes called the Oxford-Cambridge arc, is not a new idea, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said. Its origins go back to the early 2000s when three regional development agencies came together with an ambition
“to create one of the most successful knowledge-based economies in Europe.”
That ambition was renewed in 2016 when the National Infrastructure Commission was tasked to consider how best to maximise the potential of what is indisputably one of the most exciting, knowledge-intensive economic clusters anywhere in the world. The facts speak for themselves. Within the arc, there are at least 10 major higher education institutions, including Cranfield University, with its world-leading strengths in aerospace and automotive engineering; the Open University; and of course the globally renowned universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Those are institutions that any country would be proud to host, yet this Government’s economic policies are stifling their progress, and the progress of the corridor project.
That is the crux of the problem: the Chancellor wrote, in her foreword to the Government’s policy paper on the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, that
“Economic growth is the number one mission of this government and remains at the heart of all we do.”
If this is what it looks like when growth is at the heart of what the Government do, I dread to imagine what they would do if they decided it was not a priority. That statement is not the experience of the institutions, businesses and local communities that work tirelessly to ensure that the corridor remains a leading hub of innovation, productivity and opportunity.
We know that the Chancellor believes that the corridor could add up to £78 billion to the UK economy and we agree, but that number becomes a reality only if the Government provide the environment, the confidence and the long-term stability that private investors need. Instead, they have hiked taxes, raised business rates and plunged the markets into uncertainty. The Government’s own announcements, dropped somewhat sporadically and often without clarity, speak to their confusion. In October, Ministers published a press release promising jobs, homes and better transport links across the corridor. We heard about water infrastructure investment, a proposed new town at Tempsford, £400 million of initial funding to kick-start development in Cambridge and £15 million for the University of Cambridge innovation hub.
All of those things sound encouraging, but this Government have become experts in making announcements while failing to deliver the underlying conditions that make delivery possible. They talk of homes but their housing targets will not be achieved. They talk of infrastructure but cannot secure long-term investment. They talk of growth but have presided over an economy with its growth revised downwards again and again, meaning that long-term problems will be incurred in the progress of this much-needed project. Before the 2024 election, the Chancellor told British people that she would raise taxes by £7 billion. Instead, at last year’s autumn Budget she raised them by £40 billion and at this year’s autumn Budget by another £26.6 billion.
Economic forecasters have not been fooled. Since the Chancellor took office, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund and the CBI have all downgraded the UK’s growth prospects. The OBR’s growth forecast for 2026 fell from 1.9% to 1.4%; inflation, which stood at just 2.2% on election day, has risen to 3.8%; the unemployment rate has hit 5%; and the deficit is set to double by ’28-29. The UK now has the fastest rising tax burden in the G7. That does not encourage growth, business investment or the stability that businesses and organisations need to get this project off the ground.
In her 2025 Budget, the Chancellor invoked the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor as an example of a long-term national priority, but what message does it send to the businesses, universities and investors of the corridor when the Government cannot even be transparent about their own growth projections? In this debate, speaker after speaker has rightly emphasised the immense economic, scientific and social value of this region, but potential alone is not enough. Potential needs partnership, consistent leadership and a Government who understand the scale of the opportunity, but everything emanating from the Government has made the aspirations for the corridor more difficult. That is why this debate matters.
This corridor is not just about the south-east or the east of England; it is important to the whole country. It is a showcase for the very best of British innovation, where research excellence meets commercial opportunity, where new technologies are born and where global investment sees a home. The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. With the right leadership it could drive economic growth, technological advancement and prosperity for decades to come.
Can the Minister tell us how the Government intend to give the corridor the long-term stability, investment confidence and strategic backing it urgently needs to realise its economic potential? Will he commit to setting out a clear, accountable plan for how the Government will support the institutions, businesses and communities of the growth corridor, so that they can contribute fully to the UK’s future growth, rather than being held back by uncertainty and delay?
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Holmes Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State really needs to do better than that. With local government reform not being in the Labour party manifesto and with the Prime Minister last week refusing to rule out further cancellations of local elections, will the Secretary of State now rule out—not “intention” but rule out—cancelling the next local elections, yes or no?
Steve Reed
I am sure the hon. Member will be aware that consultations and engagement are going on with local authorities, but the Government’s intention is that all the elections scheduled for next May will go ahead next May.
Paul Holmes
Here we go again: it is the Secretary of State’s “intention”. I remind him that he actually leads his Department and can set the legislation going forward. He needs to accept that the uncertainty created by this Government in relation to local government reorganisation, on sizes and funding, has meant that leaders have scrambled to meet the ever-changing expectations, with no leadership from this Government. Will the Secretary of State put his money where his mouth is and support the Opposition’s amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill tomorrow that would ensure that local elections go ahead and that local leaders have the certainty they need?
Steve Reed
Perhaps to the Conservatives the word “consultation” means “diktat issued from the centre”, but to me it means listening carefully to the views of those who will be affected. My intention, and my preference, remains for the elections to go ahead on schedule.