Strategy for Elections

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if she will make a statement on the new policies announced in the Government’s strategy for elections.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)]

The Government have today published our strategy for modern and secure elections. When we came into power just over a year ago, the Government committed through our manifesto to bringing forward measures to strengthen our precious democracy and uphold the integrity of our elections. The strategy we have published today sets out how we will legislate and implement provisions to extend the voter franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, increase participation in our elections, tackle the inconsistencies in voter identification rules, and protect our democracy by overhauling our political finance rules.

We recognise that there is a growing and worrying trend of candidates, administrators and electors facing harassment and intimidation, which has a chilling effect on our democracy. We are bringing forward measures to tackle this issue. I thank Mr Speaker and the Speaker’s Conference for the work that is being conducted, and the report that has been published, on harassment and intimidation. We will fix the foundations of how elections operate by taking forward a range of practical measures to ensure that elections continue to be delivered successfully.

Our democracy is central to who we are as a country. We can take pride in its evolution, and in how it continues to inspire. The Government have a responsibility to protect and strengthen it. The plans we have announced today will future-proof our democracy, secure our elections and protect them against interference. We will deliver on these plans during the lifetime of this Parliament through a programme of reforms, which will include an elections Bill that will be introduced in due course. Through this strategy, we will usher in a new chapter in our democracy that reflects our principles and restores faith in our politics. I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House on this very important agenda.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes]

Yesterday, the Department gave notice of a written ministerial statement on the Government’s new strategy for elections, which is a significant policy document on changes to election law and political finance law—something that affects us all in this House. Instead of the Minister using this democratic Chamber to announce a new and wide-ranging strategy on democracy, the Government chose to announce it to the press in Monday’s No. 10 lobby briefing—typical government by press release. In fact, it has just been announced on “BBC News”. There will be no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny until September, due to the pending recess.

Why did the Minister not choose to come to the House to announce this policy, despite us having been given word through a written ministerial statement that the Government would do so? Why did she not think it right to come here of her own accord to announce it? Why has there been no consultation of political parties to date? This is contrary to the approach of the last Government, who actively consulted on changes.



This strategy has finally revealed the Government’s ambition to allow a 16-year-old to vote in an election, but not to stand in it, probably because young people are abandoning the Labour party in droves. Why do they think a 16-year-old should be able vote, but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket or an alcoholic drink, marry, go to war or even stand in the elections they are voting in? Is not the Government’s position on the age of majority just hopelessly confused?

Does the Minister agree that, while foreign donations are already illegal and should remain so, steps should be taken to tighten the law to prevent donations from those who are not properly on the electoral roll, including the funnelling of money from impermissible sources? We welcome the U-turn on not scrapping voter ID, but will using bank cards not undermine the security of the ballot box, and what security measures will she bring in now that automatic registration has been announced?

Finally, what steps will the Minister take to tackle the important issue of intimidation in public life? Will the Government still abide by the long-standing convention that the Government of the day do not unilaterally impose measures directly affecting political parties without proper engagement and discussion? And will they stop announcing constitutional policy by press release?

[Rushanara Ali]

This Government were elected on a manifesto that committed us to granting 16-year-olds the right to vote and protecting our democracy from foreign money. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party lost the general election, in the worst general election defeat for decades, so it is no wonder that the Conservatives are scared of the electorate. The truth is that young people deserve to have a stake and have a say in the future of our democracy. Young people can vote for any party they like, and it speaks volumes that he would prefer them to be silenced.

I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman’s party sat in government for 14 years, and did nothing to close the gaping loopholes allowing foreign interference and foreign money to enter our system, despite independent experts calling for change. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report exposed malign efforts to channel foreign money into UK politics. Both the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Electoral Commission have called for strengthened regulations and greater transparency in political donations, alongside modernised enforcement. We make no apologies for finally taking the tough choices, and protecting Britain’s democracy from malign foreign interference.

The real question for the hon. Gentleman is whether the Conservatives will finally end their addiction to donations from shell companies. Under the new laws, they will not have a choice, and we will not stop there, because they will finally have to update their weak due diligence checks and conduct enhanced checks. We will give the Electoral Commission the power to administer a hefty fine, of up to a maximum of £500,000, to deter bad behaviour. Instead of pointing the finger, the hon. Gentleman should be welcoming these changes, and taking the opportunity to finally clean up his party.

We have published the elections strategy, and we have laid a written statement. I have responded in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I will continue to engage with parliamentary colleagues in the coming days, over the summer recess and in the autumn.

We want to make a series of changes, and I am determined to make sure we get as much cross-party agreement as possible. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman, because I believe that there is common ground on a range of issues. He knows all too well the harassment and intimidation, and threats to our lives, that many of us have faced. It is really important that we work on these agendas together.

On moving towards automated voter registration, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we will carefully consider how we implement those changes to ensure they are done safely, and I look forward to working with colleagues on that. We have retained the voter ID changes made under the previous Government, but we recognise that certain groups of legitimate voters, particularly disabled voters, were excluded. We need to address that gap, and I know his party recognises that challenge, so we will ensure that we do not exclude legitimate voters. I look forward to working with him on issues of common interest and agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Lord knows who the Housing Minister is talking to, because time and again, developers have said that he cannot achieve his target of 1.5 million homes. As he knows, I have severe doubts about his ability to meet such unrealistic housing targets, and I suspect the Opposition will be proven right. However, if he does succeed, the quality of new homes must be maintained. Will he do what the New Homes Quality Board is calling for, and ensure mandatory board membership for developers of all shapes and sizes, and an empowered ombudsman, so that home occupiers are protected?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that question. He is absolutely right that our target of 1.5 million new homes, which is extremely stretching—we have never said anything other than that—does not entail units at any cost. The design and quality of new homes and new places are incredibly important. He rightly cites the new homes code of practice, and we are giving consideration in the round to whether that can be strengthened—for example, whether it needs to be put on a statutory footing. In general, we want to drive up the quality of new homes in the places and communities we are creating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Recent figures provided by CHAIN report a record 13,231 people sleeping rough in London—a 19% increase in the year since this Government took office, and a 63% increase since Sadiq Khan took office as Mayor of London. What conversations has the Minister had with the Mayor of London to tackle this failure in leadership, and will she commit to eliminating rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament? After a year of this Government, it has gone up.

[Rushanara Ali]

I gently remind the shadow Minister that rough sleeping has gone up by 164% since 2010, and that it was cut by two thirds by the previous Labour Government.

[Paul Holmes]

What about this one?

[Rushanara Ali]

Why does the hon. Gentleman not apologise for his party’s record of 14 years of failure? We are taking action to tackle the root causes of rough sleeping and homelessness. He should apologise for the failures of his Government.

Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate. He is a champion for his community, and I know that his constituents will be grateful to him for standing up for them.

Both my hon. Friend and I are in an unenviable position as two examples of MPs whose constituencies are set to be paved over under Labour’s new house building algorithm. He and I both have a Liberal Democrat council, and I know that his council has lacked an updated local plan since 2019. His council may not be engaged in speculative development itself, but my council has given developers a blank cheque in Hinckley and Bosworth to build at will, while nearby Labour-run Leicester city will be spared for their failures by having their brownfield site targets cut. My hon. Friend is right to pick up on what is, as I have called it in this House before, a politically gerrymandering algorithm put forward by this Government.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) said, I find it really surprising that there are no Labour Back Benchers here today. We have seen housing targets being massively increased in rural areas, but in urban centres where the infrastructure already exists, housing numbers and requirements are going down. I think that shows that colleagues in the Minister’s party who represent rural areas, as my hon. Friend said, are staying quiet because of the housing boom that they will have to explain to their constituents, while Labour MPs in urban centres are celebrating, or quite frankly embarrassed by, the reduction that this Government are allowing their councils to get away with.

I know of some of the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth has with his Lib Dem council. Like me, I am sure that he will recognise that in many Liberal Democrat “Focus” leaflets going out on people’s doorsteps there is an excuse as to why development is going forward in his constituency. But it is not the fault of the Lib Dem council, who make the decisions in the first place to grant planning permission; it is either the Tory county or the national Government at the time forcing them to make this huge sacrifice—that is why they are building across my hon. Friend’s constituency and mine.

The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), was a living embodiment of that example today by saying that it was not the national housing targets that were forcing our councils to build, and then excusing his own councils for not putting forward local plans that would stop that speculative development in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth will know that Liberal Democrat councils are in themselves speculative, which is one of the reasons they are failing their residents in planning going forward across this country.

[John Milne]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I thought that might come, so I will give way.

[John Milne]

The targets are centrally driven and set by the standard method. In many areas, they are extremely difficult to fulfil, and that is why we get pressure on the green belt or protected conservation areas. That is the fundamental cause. Across the country, many councils of many different persuasions all face the same problem. That can break councils, because they are forced to allocate housing in areas where they really do not want to. The fundamental issue is the standard method, and we will never solve the issue of building on brownfield or greenfield sites until we properly replace it.

[Paul Holmes]

Again, the Liberal Democrats need to be clear about what they are promising the country. The hon. Gentleman again says that targets are the problem and that councils have difficulty in meeting them, but in the main Chamber his party is calling for more national housing targets. With all due respect, if a Liberal council in Hinckley and Bosworth is not delivering on a local plan, that is his party’s responsibility. Doing so would protect that constituency from the very targets that Liberal Democrats are bemoaning. The Liberal Democrats need to be clear on where they stand on national targets versus delivering locally for the people they claim to represent.

[Edward Morello]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will briefly, but I must make some progress.

[Edward Morello]

Given the hon. Gentleman’s concerns over that Liberal Democrat-run council, I am sure he would welcome the opportunity to join me in applauding Liberal Democrat-run Dorset council, which is currently opening up its local plan to public consultation, so that communities can get involved in shaping the plan and we can deliver the homes that we need.

[Paul Holmes]

I am happy to congratulate any council controlled by any party if it has a local plan process going through, but the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his party spokesman, the hon. Member for Horsham, who just said that local plans cannot be delivered because of housing targets that put pressure on local councils. Dorset is an example of a Lib Dem council that has taken its responsibilities seriously, so I suggest that the Lib Dem spokesman has a meeting with the leader of that council.

[John Milne]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

Very briefly, and then I really must make some progress.

[John Milne]

That is a gross generalisation. There are local factors everywhere. The hon. Gentleman really cannot make generalisations like that.

[Paul Holmes]

We have probably exhausted this line of debate, but, again, we have an example on the record of a Liberal council, Hinckley and Bosworth, that has not delivered on a local plan. Liberal Democrats in the main Chamber are asking for more national housing targets, but here in Westminster Hall they are claiming that targets are the reason why Lib Dem administrations cannot deliver local plans. We will let the record stand.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and I were proud to serve under the previous Conservative Government, which built on the coalition’s achievements in introducing the Localism Act 2011. In that landmark legislation, we took bold and progressive steps to empower local communities. We made it a statutory requirement for local authorities to support and advise communities on neighbourhood planning. That was not just a policy, but a principle that local people should have a direct say in shaping the future of their towns, villages and neighbourhoods.

As I am sure colleagues are aware, schedule 9 to the Act created a framework through which parish and town councils, neighbourhood forums and community organisations—in other words, local voices—could lead the charge in designating local development plans, not as spectators, but as active participants in the planning system. District and county councils may hold formal planning powers—as Conservatives, we rightly believe that power should be delegated to the local level—but, if we are to build places that people are proud to live in, we must also make sure that the views of residents are heard, respected and acted on.

Parish and town councils should never be relegated to the role of rubber-stamping planning decisions; they must be central to shaping the development of their local areas. Villages know best. All my hon. Friends have talked about how villages in their constituencies want to build and want an active say in how their villages are shaped. I say to the Minister that this Government’s long-standing position has eroded planning committees, the rights of local councillors at parish, district and county level, and the ability of councillors to make decisions on behalf of local people.

I, like many others, welcomed the strengthening of neighbourhood planning in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which gave greater weight to those plans in decision making. The introduction of neighbourhood priority statements was a practical and positive step forward, giving parish councils and neighbourhood forums another mechanism to shape local policy, with a duty on local authorities to listen.

Sadly, that progress has been halted. Since taking office just over a year ago, this Government has made their mission clear: to sideline local people and centralise control. Through changes to the national planning policy framework, their smoke-and-mirrors “grey belt” policy and now the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, they are systematically removing local voices from the process. This is not reform—it is a power grab, and the message is clear: the future of our towns, villages and green spaces is being determined in Whitehall, not in our communities. That is a betrayal of the very principle of localism. When local voices are ignored and planning decisions are imposed from the centre, trust in the system is eroded and disillusionment grows.

We are becoming accustomed to disappointment when it comes to this Government, but to see, without so much as a ministerial statement, that Ministers have pulled funding for neighbourhood plans is another mark on their scorecard. This decision poses a serious setback for the principle of localism and undermines a widely celebrated initiative that has empowered more than 2,500 communities, with over 1,000 neighbourhood plans successfully passed at referendum. Parish and town councils have historically played a vital role in this process, driving forward locally led planning that reflects the needs and aspirations of their communities.

Neighbourhood plans have been a massively successful policy. Across the country, from small villages to growing towns, communities have embraced the opportunity to shape their future, but the Government’s plans threaten to undo these successes. Not only are they centralising power, but, with looming unitarisation, we will see even more erosion of these local voices, as these bigger local government councils will not have the time—nor, likely, the inclination—to bother with designating development areas, leaving already overdeveloped communities at risk of yet more reckless building.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth has been a consistent and passionate advocate for neighbourhood planning. He has highlighted the benefits of the process in this Chamber on many occasions, and rightly so. I commend him for his speech today, in which he outlined many of the problems that local councils face and the pressure they are under. This erosion of the right and responsibility of local people to have a say over local decisions must stop. We will continue to be a constructive but challenging Opposition on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I urge the Minister to speak to the Secretary of State about giving back power to local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I accept that point. I hope the hon. Gentleman will show a degree of forbearance, as I will come to that point shortly—I make that commitment to him and to the hon. Member for Bridgwater.

Neighbourhood planning is a well-established part of our planning system, and we want that to remain the case. Our Department is aware of more than 1,800 plans in place and 3,150 designated neighbourhood areas. I believe that in the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth’s constituency alone, there are seven made plans, with five more actively progressing, which reflects brilliantly on his constituents. I too express my admiration for those who join neighbourhood planning groups: they could be doing anything else with their lives, but they choose to put their shoes on, go out and have difficult conversations with their neighbours in the interest of the community. That is a very British and wonderful thing. I hope that, on reflection, the people of Cannington come out in their droves tomorrow to play their part in that process.

I turn now to our announcement following the spending review that we are unable to commission further funded support for neighbourhood planning groups. It was not a decision taken lightly, and I recognise the concerns it has prompted among groups, local planning authorities and hon. Members. I pay tribute to Locality, the National Association of Local Councils and other organisations that played their part in that process. I worked on it very closely with Locality, an excellent organisation that is very good at making community voice heard. We want to be clear, however, that that is not an abolition of neighbourhood planning. We believe that neighbourhood planning is an important part of the planning system.

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth asked two questions. Do the Government intend to end neighbourhood planning? No, we do not. Do we intend or wish secretly for the phasing out of neighbourhood planning? No, we do not. Communities can continue to prepare neighbourhood plans where they consider doing so is in their best interests.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous. From his language—he said that this was not a decision taken lightly—this is clearly another victim of the Prime Minister’s U-turn on welfare and the Chancellor now having to find money. Can he not see that there will be a problem? The simple logistics of getting together a local neighbourhood plan with no funding, including consultation—parish councils are not paid, but are often the most trusted of the councils—will mean a reduction in the number of neighbourhood plans and consultations. Does he not see that that is a bad thing for our villages across this country?

[Alex Norris]

On the point about the nation’s finances, it is the hon. Gentleman’s job to point the finger at the Government, but he and his party will continue to struggle until and unless they accept their role in that. At the end of the day, that inability to grasp the legacy of their 14 years in government will not help their fortunes in the future—but that is a matter for him, not me.

Difficult decisions have to be made. We have to weigh up where to put taxpayers’ money. Our analysis is that after more than a decade of taxpayer support, neighbourhood planning should be possible without further Government funding. Since 2013, more than £71 million of support has gone into this area. That speaks to the points made by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). There has been a significant period of work in this area. There is a network of planners and groups with skills and expertise in preparing neighbourhood plans, who can help others to do so. I hope that addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) about access.

Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 4th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on her tenacity in getting this Bill through its parliamentary stages. It is timely that the hon. Lady has today—on the first anniversary of an election that I might care to forget, but that she will definitely care to remember for the rest of her career—made such a great change to our democratic structures through our Bill. If she has achieved this much in the first 12 months, I, for one, look forward to seeing what she will achieve in the next four years. I would like to genuinely congratulate her on behalf of the official Opposition and Members across the House on the way she has conducted herself in getting this legislation on the statute books. Her constituents will also quite rightly be proud.

I also want to take this opportunity to wish Members across the House a happy first anniversary—although, technically, the anniversary is tomorrow. We were all tired in the early hours of that morning; for me, it was 4.36 am, as I remember. I wish a happy anniversary to all new MPs across the House on their first anniversary of serving in this place. I look forward to working with them on a cross-party basis over the next four years, and maybe beyond.

[Adam Jogee]

rose—

[Paul Holmes]

I was just about to refer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), but I will let him go first.

[Adam Jogee]

I wish the shadow Minister a happy anniversary, too.

[Paul Holmes]

Well, I thank the hon. Gentleman—my friend—for what I know are warm and genuine congratulations. I was about to say that I even congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme a happy anniversary on his election. I am still utterly convinced that while he is the most sartorially elegant MP on the Labour Benches—[Interruption.] The Whip on duty, the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), who has not even bothered to wear a tie, is somehow shouting “Shame”. I say to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that I am still convinced that deep down, he is a secret Conservative, and we look forward to seeing his slow conversion to this side of the House over the next four years.

[Adam Jogee]

Wishful thinking is all I will say, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very proud of my Labour party membership card, thank you very much.

[Paul Holmes]

Thou doth protest too much—I think we will just keep it to the fact that the hon. Gentleman is the most sartorially elegant member of the Labour parliamentary party, and I would be grateful, after this debate, if he could tell me where he gets his ties.

By the way, I also want to say happy anniversary to those of us who survived the last election, too—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), who is sitting on the Front Bench next to me.

I welcome the Minister being in her place. The Conservatives completely agree with her remarks on the amendment that was tabled. It is perfectly straightforward, and we support it. In a rare moment of cross-party unity, we completely echo what the Minister has said, and therefore we do not need to say much more on that.

I will just pay tribute to the four Back-Bench contributors for their remarks. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has said he is making a habit of beating Conservatives, but let us just see what happens in four years’ time—I will not predict what will happen at the next election. As I said earlier, he is a genuine friend, and I genuinely like his engaging contributions to many debates in this House; they are always backed up by the principled aims he has in any area of policy in this House—long may that continue.

The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) gave a great speech. She set out the full scope of the Bill clearly and how it will make a tangible change to many people who live in Scotland. I congratulate her on that.

Even though the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) is from a rival city down the Solent from me, I thought she made an excellent contribution. She made important points on the changes to the legislation to ensure that veterans cards can be used as official ID for voting. I represent many veterans in my community, particularly naval veterans—as I know the hon. Lady does, with the home of the Royal Navy in Portsmouth North—and I know that that is a vital change that is being made. It was a commitment of the previous Government; I think it is fair to say that parliamentary time ran out, so we were unable to do that, so I am pleased that that the new Government took that forward.

The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) was right to share his expertise on devolution, and gave fascinating historical context for this Bill. I remember being in the Stag’s Head pub on the University of Southampton’s campus in 2006, when he was chairman of the university’s Labour Society and I was chairman of its Conservative Association. For transparency, I will declare that it was a lot smaller than the Labour Society. I am not sure whether he ever imagined that we would share a Chamber today. As we saw from his speech, he is a fierce defender of democracy, a fierce supporter of devolution, and a passionate defender of his beliefs and principles. I wish him well going forward.

[Peter Lamb]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his kind remarks. Given that we are talking about democratic engagement and encouraging greater participation, does he agree that there are few better ways of encouraging people to engage with the system than getting them into student politics at university?

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) just said that he could not think of anything worse, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I saw something very special in him when we battled together. He was in the year above me, though hon. Members might not think so from looking at him. I absolutely agree that universities can be at the forefront and heart of early democratic engagement, and can shape people’s views and political compass. I am perfectly willing to say in this House that my politics 15, 16 or 17 years ago were very different from my politics today. That is down to the genuinely open nature of debates in this Chamber and, most importantly, on university campuses.

I am feeling a bit left out, because the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) regularly intervened on others but has not intervened on me. He gave a staunch defence of the Bill in some particularly pertinent areas, and talked about other areas that are maybe not so pertinent. I will watch him over the next four years. I wonder how many schools in his constituency he has mentioned in his first 12 months in this House.

[John Grady]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

As if I could not.

[John Grady]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. Having spent a lot of time with him on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, I know that the charming way in which he presents his submissions would enhance people’s trust in politics, including those voting at Calton Parkhead parish church hall. I am obliged.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman never lets me down. I hope he does not say that within earshot of the Leader of the Opposition, but I can promise her on the Floor of the House that she has nothing to worry about from me. Like him, I will carry on engaging in debates in this House. Where we do not agree, we can do so in a nice, polite and respectful way. We are talking about enhancing democracy for the people of Scotland through this legislation; the way that Members have conducted themselves today serves as a lesson on how people should conduct themselves. I am not talking about any specific parties.

The Bill is welcome, and makes the necessary provisions to ensure that where there is divergence, the whole of Great Britain’s shared democratic values are brought into closer practical alignment. It supports the unity of our democratic system while respecting the devolved nations’ identities. The Conservative party will always look to bridge the gaps between the constituent national communities that make our country so vibrant.

In my role on the Opposition Front Bench, I spend much of my time fighting against what I perceive to be the Government’s repeated attempts to strip local people of their agency and voice. I have had disagreements with the hon. Member for Glasgow East on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but this Bill is refreshing. Frankly, it is a relief to be able to support the work of the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, who has brought forward a Bill that empowers, rather than undermines, our citizens. Specifically, we welcome the provisions that make it easier for people across Scotland and Wales to participate in elections. This Bill honours the principle that democracy should be accessible to all, not a privilege for the few. That is a principle that we on the Conservative Benches will always defend, as I know the Minister does through her role.

Accessibility is vital, but so too is security. Protecting the integrity of our elections and guarding against fraud or interference is a core responsibility of any Government. Ministers must take decisive and proactive steps, while modernising and reforming our system, to prevent malign influence, whether domestic or foreign.

We do not have to look for long to see instances of electoral interference from foreign state and non-state actors. Indeed, most recently, it was reported that dozens of anonymous pro Scottish independence X accounts allegedly operated by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have gone silent since Israel launched strikes on Iranian military and cyber targets on 12 June. The accounts, which seemed to use fake Scottish identities to spread anti-UK sentiment, were identified by Clemson University researchers as being part of a suspected foreign influence campaign.

That example is one among many, and it illustrates an important point that we all must take seriously. That is why I welcome the Government’s stated commitment to working closely with the Electoral Commission and others to protect the integrity, security and effectiveness of UK elections and referendums. I urge them to ensure that this is not just rhetoric but reality.

It is right to note that the Bill builds on work by the previous Government, including the Elections Act 2022, which took important steps to strengthen the security of our democratic processes, introducing requirements such as digital imprints on online campaign materials and enhancing transparency in political funding. Those were much-needed reforms, and it was a shame that legislative consent was not given to those measures in 2022. The Bill now mitigates the effect of that decision.

As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith said, the inclusion of identity verification for postal and proxy vote applications is another necessary measure to close off vulnerabilities in our system. There must not be a mismatch between how people register by post and how they do so digitally. These are technical details, but their impact on the integrity of our electoral process is profound. We must not allow inconsistent standards to become weak spots in our democracy, because we can be sure that our adversaries abroad would use those to divide us and cause chaos in any way they can.

This Bill represents a sensible and timely move to enhance voter access and uphold the integrity of our electoral system. By aligning absent voting procedures in devolved elections with those across the rest of the United Kingdom, it helps to modernise and safeguard our democratic processes for the future. Crucially, it also empowers voters in Scotland and Wales by making participation in elections simpler and more accessible.

I must reiterate what I said on Second Reading: I urge the Government to abandon their plans to water down voter ID requirements. They have found it within themselves to make U-turns in other areas. Today we are legislating to make voting easier for people while maintaining adequate security, but we cannot also have the Government watering down voter ID requirements, which would reduce security in our voting system.

On that rare note of disharmony during an afternoon of unity, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith again on the constructive and inclusive approach that she has taken. I look forward to seeing this legislation on the statute book. Let us see whether she brings more legislation forward over the next four years to make a real difference in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I am flanked by the two ladies—the Chancellor and the Home Secretary—who have ensured that those things happen. The Chancellor has guaranteed funding to accelerate projects like Peterborough’s new sports quarter, which will include a new Olympic-sized swimming pool. I can also confirm today that, subject to the business case approval, we will provide nearly £48 million of funding for a new city centre quarter and a refurbished eastern station building.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Q14. A small family business in my constituency was recently burgled by a prolific offender serving an eight-month suspended sentence. The man was caught, arrested, charged and appeared in court, where he was given another eight-month suspended sentence and was released. The business was offered £200 in compensation. Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that that is justice served, or is this Government now soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

First of all, I am sorry to hear about that. Hard-working businesspeople who spend a lot of their time building up a business should expect the full force of the law to protect their property and their interests. Also, while I have the opportunity, can I congratulate the hon. Member on running Hamble Valley’s very first pub competition this year? I hope that I will get an invite. He is absolutely right that we have to have increased police numbers and ensure that they are responsive to people’s concerns. We are doing that; his Government let people down.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader). He was very generous in congratulating many Members on their amendments and very constructive when he outlined his position on this piece of legislation.

I know that Members across the Chamber will be devastated to hear that this will be my last contribution on the Bill before the shadow Secretary of State makes his Third Reading speech. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I know! I wish to thank the Minister for his hard work, all the Members who contributed to our discussions, and the Clerks and the staff who gave us such amazing support throughout what I thought was a long, challenging and often frustrating Bill Committee. As a Committee, we all lived through the emotional journey of whether Charlton—a team that the Minister passionately supports—would be promoted. As I said to him during the Committee, he is welcome down to the Den for Charlton’s next match against Millwall. I will even let him sit on our side of the stadium.

As I have said, I wish to thank all members of the Bill Committee for their contributions. I also congratulate those, such as the hon. Member for Northampton South, who have tabled amendments to the Bill—we have had a weird, wonderful and varied number of new clauses and amendments. As the hon. Member said, finding them to be in scope of the legislation was quite challenging at times, but I trusted the Clerks to make the right decision and therefore most of them stood.

I look forward to briefly outlining the position of the Opposition on some of the new clauses and amendments before the House this afternoon. Only a small part of the Bill will be discussed this afternoon. The majority of mainstream clauses that we are opposed to were in the frustrating and rather emotive session last night. I look forward to challenging the Minister, who might, I think, look slightly less grumpy than he did last night, and to pleading with him to accept some of our amendments. Then again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I may be dreaming in that regard.

It is clear that the Minister and the Government have a driving mission in this legislation. The Opposition recognise that, but he knows that we have many disagreements on how to achieve the ambitions he has outlined. We have been very clear throughout the passage of the Bill—through the Bill Committee, Second Reading, Report and, later this afternoon, Third Reading— that we have many core, fundamental and principled disagreements with some of the measures the Minister has proposed. Although we agree that we need to build more houses, that we need to see an infrastructure-first approach and that we need to unlock some development, we have a fundamental disagreement with the centralising zeal of both the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to get us to where they want us to go. We also believe that the Minister could have looked more favourably on some of the new clauses and amendments that were tabled not just by my party, but by other parties in the House and by some of his own Back Benchers, who have proposed well-intentioned and well-meaning measures.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Like others, I sat in the Chamber yesterday listening to the Government voting down so many amendments. We had an opportunity to do something really good with this Bill, and we have missed it. Does the shadow Minister agree that, if we are not careful, we will end up with a piece of legislation that will drive a coach and horses through our communities and our green belt and that does nothing for nature, for farmers, for communities and for the very people who want those things?

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend, not uncharacterist-ically, has made an excellent point and I entirely agree with her. As I said yesterday, the Minister has had a unique opportunity with this Bill—a detailed and potentially groundbreaking Bill—to fundamentally change the planning processes in this country for the better. He told us many times on the Bill Committee that he was reflecting on some of the genuine points and key concerns that Members from across the House brought to him. However, those reflections amounted to nothing. He consistently said that he would reflect on the genuine principles that we brought forward, but we have seen no changes in the legislation. We have seen no acceptance of our thoughts and no efforts to change this legislation to reflect the genuine concerns that so many of us brought to this place.

The Liberal Democrats tabled many amendments and new clauses. As the Minister knows, I very rarely praise the Liberal Democrats on the Floor of the House or in my constituency of Hamble Valley, and I am not likely to do so going forward. However, what I would say is that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and his colleague, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), tabled some really good and principled amendments that would have this improved this legislation, particularly on chalk streams and on some of our other concerns.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that Governments of all stripes tend not to accept amendments in this House, enormously to the frustration of colleagues from across the Chamber who put them forward. Will he join me in encouraging the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to take the opportunity to think again on some of the amendments if the Bill is delayed in the other place? All of us want to see more houses built, but in a way that works with communities. As my hon. Friend said, there is an opportunity here to do something historic, so let us make sure that when the Bill goes to the House of Lords—if that is what is required—the Government listen and act.

[Paul Holmes]

I have put it on the record, both here and in the Public Bill Committee, that I think this is a principled Minister who knows his stuff. Therefore, he should not be afraid to open his arms and embrace collective responsibility across the House to make sure that this legislation is better, and that it serves everybody in this country. He needs to make sure that the key principles that he wants to achieve are actually achievable. I say very strongly, as I did yesterday, that the key things that he wants to achieve, such as these housing numbers, will not be achieved through this legislation. He still has the opportunity to work with Members of all parties to make sure that this is a really important piece of legislation.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Emeritus Professor Sarah Nield, the chairman of the New Forest Association, writes:

“The current planning and environmental frameworks have played a crucial role in protecting the New Forest’s special qualities. However, the proposed changes in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, particularly those aimed at streamlining planning approvals, accelerating infrastructure projects and weakening environmental safeguards, would seriously undermine those protections.”

This is not a political statement; it is a statement of concern for our most delicate and valuable rural areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The expert he quotes is from Hampshire, so as a Hampshire MP I am bound to say that she is spot on. My right hon. Friend is spot on too.

Many Members made contributions yesterday in which they raised concern about the Minister’s response to some of the environmental concerns that were raised, particularly by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), but also by the Liberal Democrats and Conservative Back Benchers. There are concerns that environmental protections will be diminished under this legislation. The Minister seemed, quite frankly, to not take those seriously. The quote my right hon. Friend read out is a very good example of why there are many people who are experts through their professions and who day to day live their ambitions to ensure that the environment is improved.

I note that the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal), has said, “When did you start caring about the environment?”. [Interruption.] She can intervene on me if she wants to, or if she wants to contribute to the debate she might want to bob.

As I said, Members across the House have made very well-intentioned appeals to the Minister. I hope that between now and when he winds up he will open up his arms and ensure that he looks seriously at the amendments, not just from my party but from all parties, that seek to strengthen this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that where CPO powers already exist, there is a massive lack of trust between landowners and the acquiring authority? All too often a proposal will be put on the table, and an agreement will be reached, but then the legal agreement that actually comes along is totally different. Does he agree that there needs to be a CPO code of practice that gives landowners much greater protection?

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is right. I would also say that there needs to be a code of practice for our tenant farmers. Two of our amendments, which I will speak to shortly, seek to meet the challenges that our farming and agricultural communities face with CPO. I will elaborate on that later, and my hon. Friend is welcome to intervene on me then if he does not find my explanation satisfactory.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I totally agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has just said. So many of our constituents, particularly those in the farming community, are already feeling totally let down by this Government, and they feel that this is a further steamroller on their assets. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government might want to show our farming community, who they are already putting under immense pressure, that they are on their side on some of these issues, and probably for the first time in a very long time? So much has already been done to this community—and it does feel like things are being done to them rather than that they are being listened to as part of any process?

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pleaded with the Minister at the beginning of my remarks to meet the concerns of not only Conservative Members or the Green party or Liberal Democrats but key people who have communicated through consultations on this legislation that this will harm their livelihoods and make their lives worse.

New clause 85, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), would deliver a fairer, more just system of compensation for individuals who are forced to give up their homes or land through compulsory purchase. The current framework under the Land Compensation Act 1973 sets arbitrary caps and percentages on home loss and occupier’s loss payments, which often fail to reflect the true value of what is being lost. By aligning compensation more closely with the full market value of a person’s interest in their property, the new clause acknowledges the deep emotional, financial and practical disruption that compulsory purchase can cause. It would ensure that those displaced by development were not left worse off or unfairly penalised. In doing so, it would uphold the principle that the burden of public interest projects should not fall disproportionately on individual homeowners or landowners, helping to maintain trust and fairness in the planning system. The Minister could easily get behind that, as could other parties. Given some of the real challenges we have talked about that CPOs bring to people, the Minister should be slightly more open to amendments to the Bill that would make their lives easier.

I turn briefly to new clause 42, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), which would align compensation payments more fairly and transparently for occupiers affected by compulsory purchase by amending the Land Compensation Act 1973. It would increase occupier’s loss payments for agricultural and other land from 2.5% to 7.5%, bringing them more in line with basic loss payments. Additionally, it would remove arbitrary caps and fixed percentages on home loss payments and instead base compensation on the full market value of the interest in the dwelling. The change would ensure that those displaced or impacted by compulsory purchase would receive equitable and just compensation reflecting the true value of their property and losses. By modernising and standardising compensation provisions, we would argue that the new clause would support fairness for land-owners and occupiers, making the compulsory purchase process more balanced and respectful of individual rights, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) rightly mentioned in his intervention.

I turn briefly to other new clauses. New clause 114, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would require development corporations to provide or facilitate the provision of green spaces in their developments, including a variety of green areas such as

“private gardens, balconies, and community gardens”.

Furthermore, it would impose a duty on development corporations to ensure the ongoing care and maintenance of such green spaces. I hope that the hon. Member realises that I am doing him a favour by reading out his new clause.

The Opposition recognise the well-intentioned motivation behind the new clause, but I gently say to the Lib Dem spokesman, who yesterday rightly—this is no criticism—made a big play about the role of local authorities, elected councillors and local plans, that we believe that this area should be dealt with purely by our local government colleagues, councillors and planning committees. We should continue to give them the power to serve and react to our constituents’ wishes. We are keen that local authorities such as mine in Fareham and Eastleigh as well as those across the whole of the country have the power to do that for the people they serve. That was a key disagreement between us and the Government—the Liberal Democrats agreed with us—on that provision in the legislation. The Opposition believe that new clause 114 is not required in the legislation because local authorities can provide for that themselves.

I turn briefly to new clause 22 tabled by the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). Although it is a well-intentioned new clause to promote active travel infrastructure, it risks weakening the careful balance that compulsory purchase powers must maintain between public benefit and individual property rights. By pre-emptively deeming such projects to be in the public interest and lowering the evidential threshold for route justification, the new clause could enable the use of compulsory purchase orders without sufficient scrutiny or community consent, which raises legitimate concerns about fairness, proportionality and transparency, particularly in cases where landowners could lose property without rigorous demonstration that the chosen route was necessary and the best option available. Given the Conservatives’ long-held position on CPOs and the overreaching powers that the Secretary of State and the Minister want to award themselves in terms of CPOs, we do not think it would be right to give those same powers to local authorities or some of the new authorities outlined in the legislation.

[Freddie van Mierlo]

Is the shadow Minister in favour of using CPOs for road projects? The new clause would simply equalise the opportunity to use CPOs to deliver active travel with their use for road projects.

[Paul Holmes]

I understand, and I say this with respect to the hon. Gentleman: I think the new clause is well intentioned, but roads are absolutely necessary. Sometimes, on the CPO powers currently allocated in existing legislation, even though we disagree with some of the overreach that the Minister wants to put forward, we believe fundamentally in the rights and responsibilities of local government to decide how they want to allocate routes in localities. We agree that in some cases, as in my constituency, which covers half of Fareham and half of Eastleigh, there needs to be better co-ordination between local authorities. However, we fundamentally disagree with the extension and provision of powers, which we do not believe should be allocated, in new clause 22.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Will the shadow Minister explain why the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 created vast new powers for development corporations, if he believes that all such powers should be discharged by local authorities?

[Paul Holmes]

I knew that was coming from the hon. Gentleman. The last Government put forward many things in legislation that we are looking at again. We have been very clear about that, and I have been clear about what this new Conservative party stands for. We said throughout the Committee stage that we do not support the extension of powers within CPOs.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware that you are looking at me to move on. I will do so and restrict the number of interventions I take, as I am about to wind up. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I knew I would bring universal acclaim once again, including from my Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). I thank him.

We have had a robust debate in this House on this groundbreaking piece of legislation. As I have said repeatedly, much to the Minister’s embarrassment— I hope he takes this in the genuine spirit in which it is said—even though we have fundamental disagreements on the measures that he is taking to get what he wants later on, we know that he has a well-intentioned and principled approach. The Labour party won the election and we know that. However, that will not stop us having principled and robust arguments around our disagreements with the methods by which he wants to get there.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) indicated in her intervention, the Minister had—and still has—a chance to listen to some of the well-intentioned, educated and intellectual amendments and new clauses that have been proposed by all parties to strengthen the legislation and make it better.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will briefly, but he will let me finish this point. The proposals have been put forward by all parties to ensure that the legislation is better and more efficient, but fundamentally serves the people who send us here and who want to see differences in the way in which their country is run. We argue that this legislation does not do that, we argue that this is a massive centralising overreach advocated by the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and we stand fundamentally against it.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

rose—

[Paul Holmes]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) first because he is a sparring partner from the Public Bill Committee—I hope he does not have another quote—and then I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Luke Murphy]

Unfortunately, I have another quote, which is from yesterday. With regard to the Opposition’s amendments, can the shadow Minister point to a single measure that would increase the number of homes? All the changes directed at the Bill seem to be designed to impede development. I also want to ask him what he meant yesterday in his opening remarks, when he said,

“The last Government built the largest number of houses in history.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 693.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It might be helpful if I emphasised that we are not here to relitigate yesterday’s debate; we are here to debate the amendments that have been tabled today. I am sure the hon. Member will restrict his comments to that.

[Paul Holmes]

I was expecting so much from the hon. Gentleman, given how he intervened on me consistently in Committee with an encyclopaedic knowledge of my previous quotes. I did not know that he took such an interest in my career up until this point. I know, as a county neighbour, that he is a dedicated and assiduous Member of Parliament who genuinely stands up for his constituents. I will say to him that my comments yesterday were absolutely accurate. Over 1 million homes were approved, and many more first-time buyers were given the chance of owning a home, under the last Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady will have the opportunity to contribute later. Interventions really do need to be shorter than this.

[Paul Holmes]

I know that many of my hon. Friends were concerned to hear about my generosity in the Tea Room. It was simply that we were very tired and I bought an espresso for the Minister, just once. I did offer one to the Lib Dem spokesman, but I have not delivered on that promise—

[Gideon Amos]

Shocking.

[Paul Holmes]

I expect to see a “Focus” leaflet—or whatever the Lib Dems put out in Hamble Valley—saying that is a Tory broken promise, but when did we ever take notice of the accuracy of Lib Dem literature? But I will buy him one, I promise. With regard to looking in the mirror and not liking what we see, I wake up daily basis and consider how much weight I have gained in this House over the past four years.

What I will say to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) is that in Committee the Minister consistently said that he would reflect, so she is right; she has accepted the premise of my argument on this. However, not once in this legislation has the Minister made any attempt to take into account our serious concerns. He has not changed this piece of legislation once. This is a parliamentary democracy and there is not a monopoly on brilliant ideas, despite the fact that the Minister likes to think he has one.

If the Minister wanted to make the Bill better, he could look openly at some of our amendments and accept them. I know that when he stands up to make his winding-up remarks, he will not accept them and that this legislation will therefore not be able to be supported by all parties in this House. If he had made some changes that could have delivered to the people of this country, we would have been able to support it. This is a shame, because some of his genuine and well-intentioned attempts to change the housing market in this country will now not be achievable because of the Labour Government’s intransigence.

As I have said, the Minister could have made some decent changes to the Bill. We and the Green party and the Lib Dems had serious concerns on environmental standards—[Interruption.] I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary for a very long time, and I thought that PPSs were supposed to sit and ferry notes for their Minister, and not to contribute to the debate. I am having real difficulty with this consistent heckling from the two PPSs. They are aspiring to high office and I really do not think they should be carrying on in this way; I never did—then again, I was never a Minister, so there we go. I am a big fan of them both, of course.

I shall finish on this point. The Greens, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party had a real disagreement on environment standards, and it is still our contention that environment standards will not be improved under this legislation. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) tabled a number of amendments because experts had clearly stated their concern that environmental standards would be reduced under this legislation. The Minister did not make any concessions. On the centralisation and erosion of local powers for planning committees, we tabled a number of sensible amendments—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The shadow Minister will know that we are debating the amendments that have been selected today, on development corporations and compulsory purchase. Perhaps his final minute could be restricted to those subjects.

[Paul Holmes]

I heed your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Development corporations are an over-centralisation of the measures that the Minister is proposing, and planning committees will lose some of their powers to them. The Minister has not moved once on that. The Bill will do more harm than good to the power of local councils and our constituents, and it will diminish environmental standards.

We stand against the legislation because of the Government’s intransigence. We will continue to stand up for environmental standards and for local authorities; it is a shame that the Minister has not done so. That is why we will not support the legislation.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I am delighted to speak to this monumental piece of legislation, which is so necessary and so important. I cannot help but notice that many times in the debate a false dichotomy has been presented of a choice between nature and biodiversity net gain on the one hand and planning, infrastructure, housing and development on the other. As someone who comes from the most beautiful constituency and county in England—[Interruption.] You all know it’s true. I stress that that natural beauty is vital, but that the people of North Northumberland also want more development.

Too often the debate has been about nature versus development. I note, for example, that amendment 151 assumes that development corporations will come into conflict with the need to tackle climate change. I believe that the Bill will be good for our natural world in so far as it unlocks the “little and often” developments that will help Northumbrians to revitalise their rural communities and protect natural landscapes. As the MP for a constituency with a natural landscape, including a dozen sites of special scientific interest and half a national park, I cannot help but be awed by that beauty.

As amendment 151 acknowledges, our natural world faces an uncertain future, with climate change and other pressures. Organisations such as the Northumberland National Park Authority and the Northumberland Wildlife Trust do excellent work in stewarding Northumberland’s unique ecological inheritance. I encourage the Government to continue having a genuine dialogue with environmental groups as the Bill progresses and is implemented in due course. Our language and approach must honour our commitment to environmental stewardship, and we need to thread the needle of sustainable development together.

Perhaps the greatest threat to the ecological treasure trove that is my constituency is more straightforward: dwindling rural communities and the challenges that the next generation face in building a future for themselves in rural Britain. North Northumberland, for example, is ageing. Only 16% of its residents are children, while 30% are over 65—10% more than the national average.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella]

Yes, absolutely. We need to ensure that our new generation of young people are fit and healthy and able to cycle. That would also reduce carbon emissions in our towns. We need high-quality cycling infrastructure to ensure that all this happens.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady is making a principled speech. Can she explain to the House why she does not think the current local plan regime is adequate to ensure that we have sustainable travel routes? Bringing CPOs into such areas would be regressive to people’s rights and responsibilities.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question. Let me take the case of the disused railway in my constituency. It is not in public ownership any more, and it is fragmented. We can fund as many feasibility studies as we want to invest in cycling infrastructure, but an incidental green space is not used by landowners at all. If we compulsorily purchased such land—obviously we would offer compensation—we could have high-quality cycling infrastructure that would link up villages to the major towns, so that people can attend GP appointments, schools and so on. The paths are also off-road—away from our gridlocked roads.

Development must come with green and wild spaces, not just tarmac and bricks. That is why I strongly support new clause 114, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), which would ensure that development corporations include green space provision in all new developments. Green spaces are not a luxury; they are essential for mental health, biodiversity, wildlife, flood prevention and community cohesion. Like green spaces, playing fields and recreational facilities are fundamental for the development of grassroots sports and for youth opportunities, and therefore I support amendments 88 and 89 of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).

We also need serious, measurable action on climate. Development corporations are being handed significant powers, yet the Bill fails to guarantee that they are delivering in line with the UK’s climate targets. That is why amendment 151 is so important. It would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes a report on whether development corporations are meeting their legal duties on sustainable development and climate change. With so much at stake, we need transparency and accountability built into the system.

Finally, we need new homes that are genuinely affordable, warm and built to high standards. In Stratford, many families and young people are priced out of their own community. It is not enough to build houses; we must build the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, green spaces and recreational and sports facilities that create communities.

I urge the Government to back these amendments and take this opportunity to deliver a planning system that is fair, sustainable and community led.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

If the hon. Lady will let me develop my argument a little, I am more than happy to give way to her in due course.

As such, I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. First, some have claimed that the nature restoration fund is driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment and that the Government are creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute—a “cash to trash” model, as some have dubbed it.

In reality, the nature restoration fund will do the precise opposite. I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not—and need not—come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest that the nature restoration fund would allow developers simply to pay Government and then wantonly harm nature. Instead, it takes payments from developers and hands them to Natural England, a public body with regulatory duties to conserve and enhance our natural environment, to develop environmental delivery plans, setting out how various conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to demonstrate how they will improve the conservation status of the environmental feature.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Minister is making a strong case for the legislation, on which he has worked very hard. However, does he accept that many concerns were raised in Committee, on which we both served, about Natural England’s ability to undertake the duties that he is asking it to undertake, and that he was unable to give an answer about the extra funding that may be needed for that to happen? Will he elaborate on that?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The shadow Minister’s memory is different from mine: I did provide those assurances. We have already allocated £14 million in the Budget to support the delivery of the nature restoration fund, and through measures set out in the Bill, we will move to a system of full cost recovery so that Natural England has the resources it needs to carry out those functions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes]

I thought I just spoke once at the end.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

You just wish to speak at the end—marvellous. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Actually, I will say a few words. Why resist the temptation to say a few things?

I thank the Minister for his hard work in leading the Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee and all Members who served on that Committee over the past few weeks. He spent a long time in Committee saying that he would reflect on a number of really important points that hon. Members across the political divide had made, but he has done no such thing. He said that he has reflected and that he will also reflect after the events of today and tomorrow, but he has made no substantive changes to the Bill based on the real and genuine environmental concerns of many Members across the House.

I do not intend to detain the House too long, because I know that I have a winding-up speech, but we are worried about the centralising zeal of this Government when it comes to planning, as I said on Second Reading. We are worried about the erosion of the powers of locally elected, democratic politicians to make decisions about their local areas, serving their local people.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that local communities should have much more control over what happens to the housing stock in their areas. Will he reflect on his party’s opposition so far to the proposal from the Liberal Democrats for a different category of planning use for both short-term lets and second homes, given that communities such as mine are ravaged by so many homes being unavailable to local people? Will he change his party’s position and show that if the Minister is not listening, he is?

[Paul Holmes]

The Conservative party has always believed in the rights of locally elected councillors and planning committees to make decisions for the people they serve; we have said that consistently through the passage of this Bill. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) has tabled new clause 1 to ensure that planning committees have their current powers reinstated under the Government’s proposals. The Minister is saying this afternoon, as he will say tomorrow, that he does not trust any planning committee or any Labour-controlled council to make decisions based on the wishes of the constituents in their local areas. We think that that is a disgrace.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our constituents expect to have their voice heard on a local planning committee? Provided that councils are well-trained, the system that we have is working quite well.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

Oh, is it?

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman says, “Is it?” from a sedentary position, but I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Very few planning applications are refused by planning committees, and very few planning applications do not go through because of the actions of planning committees. We on the Opposition Benches happen to trust our locally elected councillors and local leaders to make decisions for our constituents. It is quite clear that Government Members do not trust them, as they are vesting more power into the hands of the Minister and the Secretary of State.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that was in power for the last 14 years. The result of that 14-year period is that we are a nation with a housing crisis and huge numbers of people in inadequate accommodation or no accommodation at all, and that we are the most nature-depleted nation on earth, so the system clearly is not working. Does he have any real sense that there needs to be change, or is he saying that we can carry on with the system that we have?

[Paul Holmes]

I would have more truck with the hon. Gentleman’s argument if anything that his Government proposed had the intentions that he has outlined. Just this morning, Savills has indicated, knowing what the proposed legislation will do, that the target of 1.5 million homes will not be met and that only 880,000 houses will be built by the end of this Parliament.

When it comes to the environmental protections that the Minister has outlined, it is quite clear that many of the concerns of Members across this House should be listened to. The environmental proposals made by the Minister will have a detrimental impact on local areas by shipping the problem elsewhere.

[Mr Perkins]

Does the hon. Member have any proposals?

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman asks whether I have any proposals. The last Government built the largest number of houses in history. There are many things that we agree need to be done, and there are some areas of this Bill that we agree with, but the hon. Gentleman needs to realise that taking power away from locally elected councillors is a disgrace. The Minister is saying to the hon. Gentleman and his councillors that they should not be trusted to make decisions on behalf of their local communities. I am sure he will not be happy with that when he gets to his annual general meeting in a few months’ time to be reselected as a parliamentary candidate.

There are other concerns about this legislation. As we have said, the Government have consistently said that they want to build 1.5 million homes, but the independent Office for Budget Responsibility—a body that Labour held in high regard when it was in opposition—has forecast that the Government will fail to deliver on their manifesto commitment and will fall short of that figure. As I have said, that was echoed today by Savills, which estimates that the Government will build just over half the number of houses that the Deputy Prime Minister has promised, even after coming out of her very testing meetings with the Chancellor.

The Government’s proposal to reduce the number of legal challenges available to opponents of major infrastructure developments from three to two—and in some cases just one—should alarm anyone who believes in checks and balances. Legal scrutiny is not an inconvenience; it is the backbone of our democratic system. Infrastructure projects often have far-reaching environmental, social and economic consequences, and by curtailing legal recourse, we are not removing red tape but removing the public’s right to hold power to account. In the name of speed, the Government are undermining the legal mechanisms that protect us from Government overreach.

As I have said, the clear implication of the Minister’s proposals today is that powers will be removed from locally elected planning committees. That is a disgrace, and it is in addition to a gerrymandering housing algorithm that punishes rural areas and rewards Labour councillors in urban centres for failure. We are told that the Bill will speed up planning decisions, but at what cost? Local planning authorities are indeed struggling, under-resourced and overburdened, but granting them fee-raising powers without guaranteed central support is like asking a drowning man to swim harder. More alarmingly, the shift of decision-making powers from elected councillors to unelected planning officers under the guise of efficiency diminishes local democracy. It takes key decisions out of the hands of public representatives and places them in the hands of a bureaucracy increasingly dictated by central policy.

We are also told that the Bill will make planning more strategic. That is a noble aim, but let us not forget that the strategic failure of recent years has been due not to too much local input but to too little co-ordination. The requirement for regional spatial strategies was scrapped by this Government’s predecessors. Now, the pendulum swings once again, with combined authorities being told to draft regional plans; however, those same authorities are being starved of the funding and staff required to do so. We risk repeating history, only this time with fewer safety nets and a weakened capacity to challenge flawed strategies.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I chair the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities, which is concerned that there are 6.3 million properties currently at risk of flooding—a figure that is forecast to rise to 8 million by 2050 because of climate change. However, the Bill does not really address climate change or any kind of flood resilience. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Minister to consider the amendments tabled by me and others that deal with building properties in areas that are at risk of flooding and lack flood resilience?

[Paul Holmes]

Of course. We discussed this topic at great length in Committee, and many good amendments were tabled. However, as I understand it and as I think the hon. Lady agrees, having reflected consistently the Minister has not strengthened the environmental protections or the measures to deal with flooding risks to housing that will be built in future. In fact, I would argue that those protections have been weakened. I hope the Minister will go away and look at these issues again.

Turning to environmental protections, we in the Conservative party say that they are under threat. The creation of environmental delivery plans sounds suitably wishy-washy, but this new centralised model turns bespoke ecological assessments into a bureaucratic chequebook exercise. While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask whether this is really restoration, or whether it is greenwashing.

On Natural England, I remind the Minister once again that the Bill Committee held a huge evidence session. He consistently said that he had confidence in Natural England’s ability to undertake the responsibilities he is seeking to impose on it, but time and time again he has outlined that he has allocated what I would argue is a mediocre sum of money to Natural England. He is asking that organisation to make decisions and improve environmental protections for people across this country, but he still has not outlined what funding model will be in place. The chief executive of Natural England herself stated, in very generic terms, that she was not entirely sure that she or her organisation would be able to undertake those operations going forward. The Minister should listen to the huge concerns across this House that Natural England is not the right organisation to undertake those responsibilities—rather, it should be local councils and local mayors. They should be the ones who represent their constituents and speak for local people, and who can make the changes they need on environmental protections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member recognise that only up to 1% of agricultural land could actually be dedicated to solar panels? Does he also recognise that a former president of the National Farmers Union has said that solar helps farmers to generate income?

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman says “only up to 1%”, but given the international situation, this country should be producing its own food, and that land should be protected. He may need to catch up, because I understand that the NFU now wants the Bill to go further and completely ban solar panels on high-quality land. I suggest that he speaks to the NFU again, and then comes back to this House and backs new clause 39. The NFU speaks up for our farmers, so we should listen if it is not happy with what is in the Bill. Instead of giving me a quote from a former NFU employee, the hon. Gentleman should listen to the NFU’s current leadership, and then maybe change his comments.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member believe that farmers are able to choose how best to use their land?

[Paul Holmes]

Of course I believe that farmers know how to make best use of their land, but this Government are taking power away from farmers, whether by increasing the power to issue compulsory purchase orders for land that farmers want to use to produce food, or by reducing the money that they will get from the CPOs that the Government are advocating for. Farmers see more and more agricultural land being taken out of use. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill and the measures that the Minister is bringing forward, which undermine our farmers and stop them from being able to do the job that they want to do.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Paul Holmes]

I will move on to another clause, because Madam Deputy Speaker probably wants me to sit down soon, as might many other Members. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I knew I would get universal acclaim eventually.

New clause 43 was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Villages across our country need to be protected, and the Bill simply does not do that. It eradicates the relevance of local plans and power of local people to make decisions to protect the strategic gaps around our villages. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new clause, which would provide villages with protections equivalent to those provided to towns under the national planning policy framework. It is a vital measure for protecting the character, identity and heritage of England’s villages before they are lost to unchecked sprawl.

For too long, planning policy has prioritised urban growth without giving equal attention to the unique pressures faced by rural communities. New clause 43 seeks to correct that imbalance by requiring the Secretary of State to issue or update guidance that grants villages equivalent protections to those afforded to towns under the NPPF in order to safeguard villages from being swallowed up by neighbouring developments, preserve green buffers between settlements, and protect the historic fabric and rural character that define these communities. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) for her work in bringing about the amendment, following a truly baffling planning appeal decision on green belt in her constituency. That decision would result in the merging of two settlements with completely different characters and identities, simply because one was classed as a village and one was classed as a town. Many Members will have had such problems. The Minister needs to go away and look at the protection of villages and green belt in the Bill, because it is not delivering that.

A number of amendments have been tabled that Opposition Members think would make the Bill better. New clause 82, tabled by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), relates to play areas. Many developments are not delivered with play areas, and those should be brought forward. Amendment 69, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), would require environmental delivery plans to set out a timetable for, and to report on, conservation measures, and it would require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place.

We Opposition Members believe that there need to be changes to planning policy, but the Minister has squandered a chance. He has not listened to Members who genuinely want to strengthen the Bill by making planning policy faster, while protecting our environment and enhancing the role of our locally elected councillors. As a result, he has left us unable to strengthen the Bill by working together. This is a wasted opportunity. He will not deliver his housing numbers. He will take powers away from local communities and stifle the planning process. We Opposition Members will always stand up for our locally elected councillors. It is a shame that this Government simply have not done that.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I thank my hon. Friend for championing the need for social and council rent homes, which is exactly what the Liberal Democrats are doing. We welcome the £2 billion commitment that the Government have made to social housing, and we are listening carefully to what they are saying about the spending review, but there is still no target for new social homes in either this Bill or any of the relevant Government policy. That absence needs to be put right.

[Paul Holmes]

We agree with many of the amendments that the hon. Gentleman’s party has put forward. He outlines a target for new social homes. How would he afford that, and where would the money come from?

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman leads me on to the next part of my speech. Our amendment 15, which would support the delivery of 150,000 new social homes per year, would be funded by the taxation proposal set out in our costed manifesto. That would provide an extra £6 billion per year, on top of the existing affordable housing programme and section 106 contributions. According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research, that would be enough to enable us to deliver 150,000 social homes per year by the end of the Parliament.

On the rights of communities, more people engage with their local councils on planning than on almost any other area, but far too often that engagement becomes a dawning recognition that all the key powers and levers on planning have been taken away from local areas by successive Governments, leaving local communities and the elected councillors who represent them increasingly powerless over the development that takes place around them. Housing numbers are set by a formula made in Whitehall and dictated not by population, but by demand and supply ratios, even though studies show that that has never yet reduced the price of a single house. Private builders will quite reasonably act to sustain the price of their product, and adding consents in this context is only likely to unleash development in inappropriate areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I agree with those points. It would also make it virtually impossible to meet our manifesto commitment, on which we were elected, to build the 1.5 million homes that we need over this Parliament.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Member knows that I am a big fan of his. He makes a speech about our and other amendments blocking the delivery of homes. Will he therefore criticise his Government, who have reduced the number of homes required in his constituency through reducing the number of houses being built in London under his mayor?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I expect the hon. Member knows that the housing targets have been reduced in London because of the additional premium that was put on by the previous Government just to make life more difficult for the Mayor of London, which we all know Conservatives love to do. We are trying to be reasonable and proportionate in the location of the new homes.

As I was saying, it is important for us to do all we can to ensure that we can hit our target of 1.5 million new homes. As much as I respect my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and his work in this space, I hope his amendment will not command the support of the House today.

I know my hon. Friend and Members on both sides of the House are strong supporters of social housing, but without the unamended changes in the Bill, we will not get the social homes that we need to be built. People have spoken movingly about those living in temporary accommodation. I spent four years or so as a child living in emergency and temporary accommodation. I was homeless for a number of years. Back then—15 or 20 years ago—there were not that many young children who were homeless and in temporary accommodation. There are now 160,000 children—one in 21 children in London, one in every single class—in temporary accommodation. We cannot allow a system that fails both nature and those children to persist. I implore any colleagues thinking of voting for the amendment to think of those children and the vital homes that could be built, and built quickly and at pace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Those green spaces on the edge of and between towns are at risk. It is not just the fields that are at risk but people’s access to green space, which is vital for mental health and wellbeing.

[Paul Holmes]

In relation to new clause 44, which my hon. Friend supports, does he agree that the Government could very easily accept it because it enables and encompasses an existing piece of legislation and could make a vast difference to many of the developments proposed? Why does he think the Minister will not accept it?

[Blake Stephenson]

The shadow Minister makes the case for me, so I do not think I need to. I absolutely support new clause 44.

I will make a final point so that we can hear from another speaker. I am proud to support new clause 81 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford). Communities such as Wixams in Mid Bedfordshire too often find that the housing-first, infrastructure-second approach that our planning system prefers mean that they get all of the housing but none of the infrastructure—that is just not right. It is not right that, nearly two decades on from the first shovel going into the ground, it is still not clear when Wixams will get its long-promised GP surgery, while more and more houses are planned around it. We must end that cycle and ensure that where infrastructure is promised, infrastructure is delivered. That is what the new clause will do.

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a planning systems that turns blockers into builders. We must do better than this Bill, which I fear will only build more blockers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Member for his further point of order. If I do not call the Member to move his amendment, and it is not my intention to do so, there will be no separate decision.

[Paul Holmes]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I am entitled to raise a point of order.

I appreciate your ruling on this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I ask for clarification because it is my understanding that if we have been informed that an amendment is for separate decision, the Chair asks the Member whose amendment it is whether they want to withdraw it, with the leave of the House, and I have never seen that question not being put on the Floor of the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. It is simply not the case that it has to be withdrawn on the Floor of the House; this has happened on numerous occasions.

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Had he been in the Chamber earlier, he would have heard several earlier points of order on this question. He would also have heard me say that a decision on the new clause would be at the discretion of the Chair, and Mr Speaker indicated earlier that there would be a separate decision. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), who tabled new clause 82, indicated that he wished to withdraw it. A decision on it is at the discretion of the Chair. If the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) wishes to question that further, he is at liberty to do so.

[Paul Holmes]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Labour Members may chunter, but I have a right to raise a point of order on process in this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask for your guidance? I am a relatively new Member, but it is my—[Interruption.] I want to raise a point of order, and it is not up to them to say I cannot.

New clause 82 has been signed by over 60 Members of this House. Through the usual channels, I was told, as shadow Minister, as were others, that the Speaker’s Office had selected the new clause for a separate decision. Over 60 Members have signed the new clause, and my understanding of precedent in this House is that any Member who has signed it can move it. It is a new and dangerous precedent if Members can indicate before the debate that they wish to withdraw a new clause, and other Members who have signed it are not given the choice to move it. May I seek your clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker? It seems highly unusual that over 60 Members have signed the new clause but none of them can move it, especially when we were given an indication that it would be subject to a separate decision on the Floor of the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his further point of order on this subject. I have provided the clarity for which he asks. The decision is at the discretion of the Chair.

New Clause 43

Protection of villages

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages.

(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—

(a) preventing villages from merging into one another,

(b) preventing villages merging into towns, and

(c) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages.”—(Paul Holmes.)

This new clause would provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the NPPF.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The last Government passed the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, supported by the then Opposition. Labour said in the King’s Speech that it would go further with reform and quickly. Then, the Minister said that would take the whole of this Parliament. Now, the secondary legislation needed, as well as the consultation pending, mean that leaseholders are unlikely to see any reform quickly. Last week, the Government said that primary legislation may now be needed without implementing the law already passed. Is that not just another example of the Government promising one thing but now flailing around, delaying and breaking key promises they made, while leaseholders across the country suffer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Deputy Prime Minister has repeatedly stuck to her commitment that 1.5 million homes, including social homes, will be built over the lifetime of this Parliament despite everybody knowing that she will not achieve it. And today, the latest people to say she will not are Savills, who have forecast that the true number she will build over this Parliament is just 840,000, and that means fewer social homes too. Now that she has emerged from the dark rooms of the Treasury to capitulate to the Chancellor, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that more social homes and 1.5 million new homes will be built by the end of this Parliament: yes or no?

[Angela Rayner]

The Opposition cannot have it both ways: one way they are saying we are failing to build the homes; and the other way they are saying we are concreting over the green belt. We said that planning reforms alone will not deliver our ambitions, which is why we have committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. And I say to the hon. Member, as I have said to many people in my life, underestimate me at your peril.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), and I remind colleagues that I am the Member for North Herefordshire—always a cause for confusion. I will also speak to six other new clauses, three of which are intended to dissuade developers from engaging in land banking, and three to ensure that affordable housing targets are met.

New clause 1 would give the planning authority the power to decline future planning applications from a developer that had failed to use, or at least to make sufficient progress on, planning permission that they had already been given. This is designed to stop the practice whereby developers purchase land, get planning permission on it and do nothing with it. I think we all agree, on both sides of the Committee, that we need to expedite the building of affordable housing, so this is a proportionate and clear measure to support that. It relates to new clause 55, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. If such land is not built on, the land should transfer to the local authority, so that it can get on with doing the job instead.

New clause 61, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, suggests extending business rates for developers that do not build. Each new clause is designed to prevent the practice of land banking, to encourage developers to get on and build when they have been given planning permission.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I completely understand why the new clause has been tabled, and we support the premise behind it, but can I ask the hon. Lady for clarification? She may not know, and that is perfectly acceptable. Say an application went in for a nursing home, but the business went bust before the initial build out was delivered. If the developer wanted to change the application to allow it to build a block of flats, how would the new clause prevent that from happening? It is a genuine question, and I do not know what the answer is.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his genuine question. He highlights a case that arguably represents complexities that the Government employ lots of lawyers to fix. I do not think it would prevent a new clause such as this from progressing. The intention is to prevent land banking, and if lawyers need to tweak the language a little bit, so be it.

I will move on briefly to new clauses 15, 25 and 60, which are all about ensuring that affordable housing is actually built. New clause 60 would set a lower bound on the amount of affordable housing that was due to be constructed. New clauses 15 and 25 are intended to ensure that the affordable housing commitments that developers make in their initial applications are not subsequently chipped away at or eroded by arguments about viability.

Fundamentally, if there are issues around viability, the Government and local authorities should prioritise the building of affordable housing, not the safeguarding of developer profits. The new clauses are therefore intended to ensure that when developers commit during the planning process to building affordable houses, they stick to those commitments. I commend the new clauses to the Committee, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I would like to speak to new clause 76, which is in my name.

This new clause seeks to probe the Minister’s thoughts about the success of local authorities in tackling and challenging the unauthorised development that has gone on. As he will know, the last Government made intentional unauthorised development a material consideration, meaning that planning permission could be refused, and there is a presumption that it should be refused, when development has taken place without consent.

I think it is safe to say that we do not think—many of us see this in our constituencies—that that is being enforced uniformly. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), has an open case at the moment, and I am sure all of us, as elected MPs, have had such cases in the past. There is also an issue with unauthorised encampments. The new clause goes a step further by saying that if development has taken place without authorisation, the planning authority should not grant consent. This is a probing amendment because such provisions already exist, but there are many examples across the country of enforcement not taking place.

New clause 76 requires that no planning permission is to be granted in cases of intentional unauthorised development. It would provide a power to the local planning authority not to grant consent for development

“where there has been intentional unauthorised development in respect of the land or properties which are to be subject to that development.”

It gives further detail about the meaning of “intentional unauthorised development”, which

“(a) includes any development of land undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission”,

but

“(b) does not include any unintentional, minor or trivial works undertaken without having obtained the relevant permission.”

We have put in paragraph (b) to take account of householders who have undertaken small modifications—for instance, small extensions, walls or garden sheds—that in certain circumstances would need planning permission. We do not want to persecute or make the law come down hard on those who have made a genuine mistake. This is about larger unauthorised development. The reason for tabling the new clause is that we think the Bill should go further in restricting unauthorised development, and that we want local planning authorities to be able to enforce the powers they have through the legislative changes made by the last Government.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, particularly in the context of our earlier debate about hope value, it is important that this issue is addressed? For law-abiding citizens, nothing is more frustrating than someone carrying out an unauthorised development, potentially on a site in the green belt, as we have seen on a number of occasions, and then being able to regularise that by obtaining retrospective planning permission, when, had they applied lawfully to begin with, it would have been refused. That is an injustice in the planning system that needs to be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is right; I think that we have all seen that happen as Members of Parliament. It makes a mockery of the planning system when people—they know exactly what they are doing—retrospectively apply for permission and still reap the benefits. There was an example of this in my old constituency that involved removing trees that had tree preservation orders, in order to build on some land. Doing so destroyed that area of land, and it went completely against what should have happened. When the developer went to the local authority, it retrospectively granted planning permission, and the local villagers were outraged.

My hon. Friend is right: the new clause is meant to tackle those who know how to play the system. However, if someone has made unintentional changes to a house that could be covered under permitted development rights, but may go slightly beyond them, we would give local planning authorities the jurisdiction and authority to use their own minds in such cases.

I hope that the Minister understands why we are trying to probe him to see whether he can strengthen the Bill in relation to unauthorised development. He may have to write to me after the Committee—I am sorry to the officials for asking for another letter—about whether the last Government’s measures to give local authorities that power has worked and, if not, how we could work together to ensure that unauthorised development is stopped. We do not want to stop developments, but we think that there needs to be fairness in the planning system. People, who may not be well off, who want to make a planning application for their own home often find it a difficult experience when, just down the road, people are doing it willy-nilly whenever they want to. I look forward to clarification from the Minister. If he needs to write to me, that is absolutely fine.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak first to new clause 1, which seems to me, as someone who has worked closely with developers, ill thought out. It does not address the need to build more social and affordable homes.

Permissions that are granted, particularly on brownfield sites, often contain any number of conditions that are extremely difficult for developers to achieve—discharging conditions around environmental remediation and, for example, looking after bats or newts, which are common where I practise. There is also a lack of local authority staff competent to deal with section 106 agreements. Permissions are often granted to developers before they own the land, and there may be suitable tax reasons why people do not wish to sell the land until the following tax year. It is easy for those things to stretch over way more than three years, and sometimes up to five years. I am in favour of building more social homes, but the new clause would not achieve that objective. It also does not take into account the massive shortage of workers in the construction sector, the skills that we need or the shortage of materials, which has become even more acute in the past couple of years.

I also want to talk about new clause 76. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley has entertained us for most of the day with minor matters, but his new clause would have an effect that he has perhaps not thought about. The majority of unauthorised planning that I saw in my practice was carried out by farmers who were not able to make enough money from farming their land, so very often diversified their large warehouse-type structures and started using them for small businesses—perhaps renting them out to local engineering firms and so on. After a period of 10 years, somebody would complain in the local village and they would then apply for an authorised use certificate, and nine times out of 10, it would be granted.

The impact of new clause 76—that unauthorised change of use—would prevent those people from developing new homes on their site or opening up more opportunities for new businesses. It needs more thought and attention, because the very people who would be impacted are those who the Opposition say that they stand up for. Very often, they will be farmers who are looking to diversify their property.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Member tempts me into commenting on hypotheticals. I will instead say the following. There are two things happening here. We have to be aware of the ability for some existing mechanisms—section 73 applications are a good example—to be gamed in terms of viability to drive down the amount of public gain. I am aware of that, and I have been very candid about it. On the other hand, and correspondingly, if a permission such as the one he hypothetically mentioned is in place, I think that is testament to why it is so important that we bring forward measures on build-out transparency and have the powers to be able to say to developers, as the Government are saying to all developers, “If you’ve got a consent, then get on and build.”

The Government are making a variety of reforms to the planning system, which in any number of ways will provide for a more rules-based system, more certainty and will drive down development costs. We are firming up planning policy guidance and expectations. We are making it clearer and easier for developers to put in an application and we should reduce costs as well. Correspondingly, we can ask for more. We are bringing forward measures in fairly short order on build-out and we will turn on the LURA provisions that I have mentioned. On that basis, I ask for the new clauses to be withdrawn.

New clause 76, tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, seeks to prevent those who have deliberately undertaken unauthorised development from obtaining planning permission retrospectively. The Government do not condone unauthorised development and are clear that anyone seeking to undertake development should first obtain planning permission where it is required. I therefore very much appreciate the sentiment behind his new clause. I recall debating with a shadow Secretary of State this particular matter in relation to Gypsy and Traveller camps, and I appreciate that across the House there is concern about the use of unauthorised developments.

However, the Government’s view is that there may be circumstances—I am happy to set this out in writing to the shadow Minister—in which unauthorised development, even if it is intentional, may be acceptable in planning terms or may be made so by the imposition of planning conditions. I say that only to make the point that we believe that there is a need for some pragmatism here and that such developments should be considered by the local planning authority. It is already the case that intentional unauthorised development, as he said, is a material consideration. It must be weighed in the balance when determining planning applications and appeals. That approach retains local decision making.

The Government obviously keep this matter under review. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the shadow Minister about the Government’s view as to whether the enforcement powers available to local planning authorities—they have a wide range of powers, with strong penalties for non-compliance—are being used, and if not, why not. I am also more than happy to share with him our understanding of how local planning authorities and inspectors are treating unauthorised development as a material consideration, as they are now required to do. I hope that, on that basis, I have provided him with some reassurance.

[Paul Holmes]

I appreciate the Minister’s being so open and genuinely—I wouldn’t say I didn’t believe him before—promising to go away and look at this issue. We would like to take him up on that; we will not press our new clause today, but there are conversations to be had further down the line on this topic. Will he just confirm whether his Department holds any statistics on how many unauthorised developments we are talking about? Is there is a reporting structure for local authorities, which may be held by the Planning Inspectorate? We would like to know how his Department is monitoring the number of unauthorised developments that are using the powers that were given to local authorities, if that makes sense.

[Matthew Pennycook]

What I can commit to—I feel the glares from my officials on me now—is this. If we have the information, I am more than happy to have a conversation with the shadow Minister to give him a sense of, across the country, how local authorities are using their existing enforcement powers and the extent to which, although I think this will be difficult information for Government to track, local planning authorities and inspectors are relying on unauthorised development as a material consideration. I am thinking, for example, of inspectors allowing things on appeal that are unauthorised. If we have that information, I am more than happy to share it and to have that conversation with the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I think some of this will become evident in the fullness of time. There has been an implicit criticism of the Government at several points in Committee that we are entirely reliant on a market-led approach, and are happy with an entirely developer-led, market-led approach. That is not the case. We think that targeted reforms to the planning system are necessary, but we also absolutely believe that reform of our broken house building model is required. I have said on many occasions that we are overly reliant on a speculative development model that produces bad outcomes. Hon. Members across the Committee will see before too long other measures that the Government are bringing forward to both transform and disrupt that market in ways that are beneficial.

[Paul Holmes]

Disrupt!

[Matthew Pennycook]

Well, the market does need to be disrupted, in the particular sense that we need new entrants coming forward, and small and medium-sized enterprises and community led-housing back in the game.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington said, and I think he is right, that developers have a business model, particularly volume builders. Some are changing their business model and we would encourage change to those business models, but there is a particular model that relies on very high margins. I know the academic study that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire cited. We must and will reduce our reliance on that. We also must be careful about weighing in on viability in a way that would just stop house building coming forward in lots of cases, because that would ultimately help nobody.

A final point that I think is pertinent to this debate: I always find the nimby and yimby debate incredibly reductive, but I think that some who oppose development on the basis that they only prioritise social and affordable housing discount the fact that building homes of any tenure in localities assists people trying to access social and affordable rent. It all helps and it need not be one or the other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The new clause was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, and I give the Minister notice that I am particularly keen on it. It would require any national or local housing plan to include and justify quotas for the provision of affordable and social housing.

To me, the new clause seems like a no-brainer, and a measure that we should already have, given that we have such a huge housing crisis, have had no coherent Government housing strategy over the last decade or more, and have no serious goal to end homelessness or deal with the social housing waiting list or affordability issues. I recognise that the Government are making some efforts in the legislation they are introducing. I am particularly excited by the Minister’s promise of disruptive measures to tackle some of the remaining problems in the housing market.

We absolutely have to build more homes for social rent. In the 10 years between 2014-15 and 2023-24, England built 2.2 million homes. Would anybody like to guess what percentage of them were for social rent? Only 3% of them were for social rent, which is the only tenure that is genuinely affordable to those on the lowest incomes. I recently saw stats about the changes in planning permissions in the last six months: 6% of the permissions granted in that time have been for social rented homes. It is nowhere near enough. We desperately need more homes for social rent.

[Paul Holmes]

I understand and agree that we need to build more social rented homes, but does the hon. Lady not agree that the figures she gave could be perceived as being slightly simplistic, because they do not take into account the regional variations in where housing lists and social homes are most needed? I accept that social rent made up 3% of the total, and permissions recently increased to 6%, but in areas such as Southampton, London, Basingstoke or big urban centres, the proportion will be dramatically higher.

[Ellie Chowns]

I would be more than happy to go through spreadsheets with the hon. Member, because I like a nice spreadsheet. Although the figures might be slightly higher in London, I do not think anybody would argue that there is therefore sufficient affordable housing in London, or anywhere close to sufficient.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I rise to speak to new clauses 8, 26 and 92, just to introduce briefly what they do. New clause 8 is about coming up with a more sophisticated definition of what “affordable housing” is, taking into account local needs and circumstances, while new clauses 92 and 26 are about quotas, funding and the assessment of the housing needs of an ageing and older population.

I shall keep my remarks on new clause 8 concise, because the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has made many of the points that I would otherwise have made. I agree with her that there seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance going on when those on the Government Benches express scepticism about the ability of targets for affordable and social housing to deliver progress, yet are adamant that targets for housing overall will do that. Perhaps the Minister will address that point in his remarks.

The key issue in terms of new clauses 26 and 92 is that the current definition of “affordable housing” is not considered affordable by many organisations. That particularly applies to people of an older age on a low income, who are still subject to many aspects of housing costs. It is not just me who thinks that the current definition of “affordable” is nothing of the sort. Shelter agrees, calling it

“unaffordable for those on average incomes”.

Similarly, Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have argued for affordability to be linked to local incomes, not market rates, and the Town and Country Planning Association also recommends local flexibility, stating in its housing guides that the 80% rule does not work in areas of high market distortion. Even the Labour-run Greater London Authority operates its own model, with the Mayor, Sadiq Khan, introducing a new category of “genuinely affordable” rent, which includes social rent, London living rent and shared-ownership schemes, as a way of creating a better benchmark.

As mentioned previously in this Bill Committee, house prices in constituencies such as mine still reflect a distorted market in which housing remains inordinately expensive despite enormous housing growth. Residents would certainly benefit from local authorities’ having the power to set what is meant by affordable housing, taking into account local circumstances on issues such as wages.

We also need to be more detailed and thoughtful about how we go about the issue of our ageing population. This is not just about the older old in care homes and similar facilities; it is also about people becoming old. For example, 40% of homeowners and 60% of renters aged 70 will have moved into their homes since the age of 50. Those homes may suit them when they move in, but they may not suit them as they age and will need to be adaptable. That is something that local authorities and all of us need to consider a lot more.

Equally, 50% of renters aged between 45 and 64 have no savings, and many will struggle to afford their rent in retirement. The Pensions Policy Institute estimates that if current trends continue, the cost of housing benefit for older renters will increase by 40%, or an additional £2 billion per annum.

Thinking more carefully about how we provide for an ageing population, as these new clauses propose, would benefit not just those who are affected by the cost of housing, but the public finances, given the ever-increasing housing benefit bill that we will face if we do not take serious action and change our approach. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Paul Holmes]

I rise to speak to new clauses 48, 49, 50 and 75, most of which are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—I do not know whether he intends to intervene or to speak after me, but he is more than welcome to do so, because he drafted the new clauses and can do them a lot more justice then I can.

These wide-ranging provisions would help strengthen the legislation. We tabled new clause 48 because we want to review the method for assessing local housing need. The current method does not adequately account for the type of home being built. For example, a family home can accommodate more people than a one-bedroom flat, and it should count for more because it goes further towards meeting a local area’s housing need. Under the current methodology, we often end up with the wrong stock being built and with people being displaced or having to move away from long-standing connections in their local area.

New clause 48 states:

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review the standard method for assessing local housing need…A review under this section must consider…how the method for assessing local housing need should consider different types of property”—

as we have indicated, that should be based on demographics and local housing lists—

“basing calculations on price per square metre rather than price per unit…In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult…local councils; and…any other parties the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent and eloquent speech—far more excellent and eloquent than my contribution will be. Does he agree that one of the big concerns the Bill needs to address is the sense among some constituents that new housing development is not built for them or their community? We need to make sure that this debate is about homes, and that means we need greater subtlety and nuance in housing plans and the targets we set. It is not simply about delivering units—the dark towers we see in parts of central London, whose units are not available to or occupied by the local community—but about having a housing supply that reflects the needs of a particular place.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Who can say the Conservative party is divided when we have a bromance like this? My hon. Friend and I agree with each other all the time. He says that my speech is better than his, which is untrue, but he makes a serious point. The whole point of the Bill, and of our being here, is to ensure that housing is deliverable and accountable, and that it adapts to the will and the needs of local people. We are in Parliament and we stand for election predominantly to make our areas better and to leave the world in a better place, with people feeling better.

In my constituency, we have many four-bed and five-bed family homes. We also have a huge housing waiting list. Those homes cost £250,000 each. Of course, I aspire to being able to afford a house like that myself one day, but we need to ensure that the right housing is being built for people in Eastleigh and Fareham town centres. Often, they are displaced down the road to Southampton and Portsmouth, or to other areas of the country with which they have no connection. That is simply not fair. We tabled the new clause to see, first, whether the Minister agrees with it—I suspect he will do more resisting—and secondly, whether he will try to ascertain how we genuinely improve the method for assessing local housing need.

We had a brief debate about whether housing targets were warranted and whether people think they are good or bad. The Minister knows my position: I think they have been set for a particular reason, but that was a debate on a different clause. We want new towns to contribute towards meeting housing targets. As the Minister knows, new towns do not currently do that and are not included among those that can meet housing needs in local plans. New clause 49, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner tabled, would change that to include new towns, for several reasons.

First, that would give certainty to constituents that once a local plan had been developed and proposals had gone forward for consultation, they would not be surprised by the Government’s suddenly announcing a new town. The Government are prone to doing that at the moment—I say that neutrally. When that happens, an area seems to have to take much more housing because the new town does not, on paper, contribute to the targets. I believe that, because new towns do not contribute to those targets, they suffer in terms of their services and infrastructure. The new clause would help with fairness in the system and with housing targets and planning. It is not nimbyism—I agree with the Minister that the terms yimby and nimby are reductive. To provide clarity for the consumer, as well as stability for local areas, the Government should make new towns contribute to housing targets.

The Minister should view new clause 50 as productive. If he is worth his mettle, he will see that. Its purpose is to require local authorities to have a housing plan for their areas to inform their local plans. The housing plans would cover types of home, demographics and first-time buyer homes. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides that the local housing plan

“must outline the number and type of homes…(a) required, and…(b) proposed to be built…in the authority’s area.”

That would strengthen local authorities’ and local people’s ability to have a say about what they want to be built for them in their areas.

Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and I had an interesting meeting with several house builders. The Government should embrace and look to expand retirement villages in local plans. People are getting older, and many older people prefer to stay at home, but the system is slightly broken in terms of service charges and the leasehold model. That is not working.

[David Simmonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way during a speech that is as eloquent as it is stylish. He makes a serious point. One change in the UK housing market is the collapse in the provision of small developers; something like 93% of homes are now built by very large housing providers. Particularly in pursuit of developing some of the smaller sites, in which the Minister has expressed a clear interest, we need to bring those types of development to market at scale. That is what new clause 75 seeks to do, and I hope that the Minister will—in a speech that will no doubt be equally eloquent and stylish as that of the shadow Minister—set out his thinking to ensure that that happens, so that the Bill does not become purely a charter for large developers while the huge number of smaller sites, which could deliver so much additional housing, are left undeveloped.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend raises a good point; in fact, we have tabled some amendments on targets regarding small and medium-sized enterprises. He is right that we must ensure that development is not just carried out by the usual large-scale developers; we must bring vibrancy into the sector and, more importantly, allow local authorities to make those decisions.

On retirement villages, the system does not work, but new clause 50 would allow local authorities to have the authority to focus on the demographics and first-time buyers. It would ensure that SME builders are allowed to be designated by the local authority to build those houses.

It is shameful that, for the first time in a long time, housing policy in this country does not have any incentives for first-time buyers. This point relates to the new clause, Ms Jardine. For the first time, we do not have incentives such as stamp duty relief or Help to Buy, so I hope that the Minister’s disruptive and radical solutions, which he teasingly announced, will include incentivisation. That would allow local authorities to say, “We have a lot of young people who should be entitled to be on the housing ladder; we want to put some first-time incentives into our local plans.”

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

On assistance for first-time buyers, is the lifetime ISA not still in operation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Yes, the lifetime ISA is still in operation—the last Government brought it in—but it does not deliver the real numbers that we need, as the Help to Buy and stamp duty relief systems did. We brought those in, but they have been reversed.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Holmes]

Not yet. Those have been reversed by a lot of the things that this Government have done. For the first time, the sector does not have any incentivisation.

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend has a quote.

[Paul Holmes]

If he has a quote, then I am not giving way. I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow East that the local housing plans that we are proposing must also include social housing. Local authorities need to put forward a proper housing mix.

[Luke Murphy]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and apologise to the rest of the Committee—I do not have a quote. Under its new leadership, his party is reflecting on the policies of the previous 14 years, so given that he is making an argument about first-time buyers and SME builders, why did the number of SME builders in the UK catastrophically decline over the past 14 years while the average age of the first-time buyer increased?

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman does not have a quote, but his intervention is still misguided. He fails to realise that under the past 14 years of the Conservative Government, 800,000 people bought their first home through schemes such as Help to Buy and the stamp duty relief, and 2 million homes for first-time buyers were built. This Government have not even shown that they have the aspiration to match that, because they have cut a lot of the products that turbocharged first-time buyers’ getting on to the housing ladder.

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that if he wants to, he can come for an appointment. By the way, we are under new leadership, and we are constantly reviewing our policies. We will be making announcements on the new products we will be bringing to people to fill the void that this Government have simply left for the first-time buyer.

[Ellie Chowns]

The hon. Member has issued a paean to Help to Buy, which at the time it was introduced was identified as a policy that would likely drive up housing prices and do nothing to address the real problems in the housing market. As I have repeatedly emphasised in this Committee, those problems relate particularly to affordable and social rent housing.

I have a quote for the hon. Member. A report published by the House of Lords Built Environment Committee in 2022 concluded that the

“Help to Buy scheme…inflates prices by more than its subsidy value”

and does

“not provide good value for money, which would be better spent on increasing housing supply.”

It pointed out that it cost the taxpayer £29 billion—more than £29 billion—over a decade, and that cash should have been used, as I have said, to replenish England’s falling stock of social housing.

The London School of Economics has found that Help to Buy boosted house prices in London by 8%—just that policy boosted house prices in London by 8%— and it boosted developers’ revenues by 57%. Does the hon. Member recognise that it is not a panacea for the problems in the housing market that we face, and that investing in social rent housing should be our priority?

[The Chair]

Order. Before we go on, could we keep to these new clauses, please, because we are getting a little off-track?

[Paul Holmes]

I will heed your advice, Ms Jardine, and bring this back to new clause 50.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said there should be more social homes, but that comes under the remit of local authorities to set in their housing plan. In response to what she said about Help to Buy versus social homes being a panacea, I gently say to her that I never at any stage said that Help to Buy was a panacea. I said it was part of the mix in which we could help people, if they so wished, to get on to the housing ladder for the first time.

[Ellie Chowns]

At the cost of social housing.

[Paul Holmes]

I have not finished my point, if the hon. Lady would let me do so. I feel like the Minister last week.

I am saying that Help to Buy was part of a wider mix. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to focus on building more social housing, but I have a fundamental political disagreement with her, which is that social housing is not a panacea either. There are people who want to buy and there are people who want to be helped to buy, and that is why I say that, under this Government, the incentivisation for first-time buyers in the context of that argument has been abandoned, and that happened when we left office.

[Ellie Chowns]

My point is brief: given that the Government have a limited amount of money available, should it not be spent on the things that are most effective in tackling the reality of the housing crisis? It is clear that Help to Buy was not that.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with the hon. Lady that the Government should be focusing on social housing. However, to be fair to them, they have announced a huge amount of money for it, as we discussed in the Westminster Hall debate six or seven weeks ago. I cannot remember the figure, but it was a great figure for building social housing. They have gone further than the last Government did on social housing, and I said in that Westminster Hall debate that I welcomed the Minister’s and the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to building that affordable and social housing, but we need a housing mix that also allows for first-time buyers. That is the argument I originally made, and I do not think many people in the House or out there would disagree that we need such a mix.

Briefly, new clause 75 relates to small site allocations in local plans. Currently, local planning authorities are expected to allocate 10% to small sites in local plans, unless they can provide a strong explanation why that is not possible. The Government have recognised the strength of feeling that small site policy generally is not working for both planning authorities and small and medium-sized developers, and they are strengthening the wording in the Bill. However, this new clause is designed to reverse that, and to up the percentage of small sites that should be accessible to SME developers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner outlined in his intervention. I think the Minister should be able to agree to it.

We discussed this morning how SME developers could be enabled to build more homes. There would be a requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites, and:

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development…The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.”

I hope that also shows many Members across the House that we believe in a solid and varied housing mix, built by a solid and varied housing sector. A number of these measures will help deliver just that. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts.

[The Chair]

Before we go on, let me say that the Minister is under no obligation to discuss Help to Buy in his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman’s position on the matter is very clear. We will keep under review how the taskforce’s recommendations on new towns interact with housing targets.

Although I appreciate that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is seeking, understandably, to prevent areas with a new town from taking unmet need from neighbouring areas, his new clause would have the effect of discouraging effective cross-boundary co-operation on a much wider range of matters, which could lead to issues with local plans in those areas. For that reason, I ask him not to press it.

I turn to new clause 48. In our manifesto, the Government committed to restoring mandatory housing targets and reversing the supply-negative changes introduced by the previous Government in December 2023. In December 2024, we therefore implemented a new standard method for assessing housing needs that aligns with our ambition for 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament and better directs homes to where they are most needed and where housing is least affordable. The standard method is an important tool to ensure that housing is delivered in the right places, which is critical to tackling the chronic shortages facing the country across all areas and all tenures.

We consulted extensively on our changes to the standard method. Our public consultation received more than 10,000 responses from a range of relevant parties, including 387 submissions from local authorities. Our response to the consultation sets out the evidence received and how the Government have responded to the points raised. We have also published revised guidance to support authorities utilising the standard method. Given the recent consultation exercise on the revised standard method, I do not believe that new clause 48, which seeks further consultation and procedural steps, is the right way forward. I ask the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner not to press it.

I turn to the hon. Member’s new clause 50. National planning policy—specifically paragraph 72 of the NPPF—already expects local planning authorities to prepare strategic housing land availability assessments to provide evidence on land availability within their area. Authorities should then set out, through their local plans, a sufficient supply and mix of sites that can be brought forward over the plan period. Through this existing policy, local planning authorities are already expected to make an assessment of the number and type of homes that are required and proposed to be built in the authority’s area. I note the comment that several hon. Members have made about older people’s housing. I think it fair to say that the housing and planning system has not kept pace with demographic change, but that is why the Government are exploring the recommendations of the older people’s housing taskforce, for example.

In addition, we are committed to introducing the new plan-making system, which includes the following provision set out in new section 15C(8) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023:

“The local plan must take account of an assessment of the amount, and type, of housing that is needed in the local planning authority’s area, including the amount of affordable housing that is needed.”

New clause 50 would therefore duplicate national planning policy and legislation that we anticipate will come into effect later this year. It would create new burdens on local planning authorities, with the effect of delaying plan making. It would also undermine the Government’s priority for extensive coverage of local plans across England, reducing much-needed housing supply. I ask the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner not to press it.

I fully understand and support the principle behind new clause 75, tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. The Government fully recognise the benefits that small sites can offer in contributing to house building, diversifying the housing market and supporting faster build-out. We are therefore fully committed to increasing delivery on small sites and supporting our SME developers. This is a real priority for the Government. The statistics show that back in the 1980s SMEs built something like 40% of housing supply; the figure now is less than 10%. That is a large part of the reason that we are not bringing homes forward in the numbers we would want. Council house building is another example.

Via the NPPF, local authorities are already expected to allocate 10% to small sites in local plans unless they can provide a strong explanation why this is not possible. If such an explanation proves wanting, the plan can be found unsound when it is examined by an independent inspector. In line with the thinking behind new clause 75, we consulted on strengthening that requirement by making it wholly mandatory in local plans. That was part of the summer 2024 consultation on the NPPF, but the responses we received were clear that making the target fully mandatory would be resource-intensive, would put significant pressure on local authorities, would be unworkable in many areas and might lead to delays in plan making.

In the Government response to the NPPF consultation in December, we therefore made clear our intention to explore other options to support small site delivery as part of the upcoming national development management policies. I do not want to tease the Committee again, but details will be forthcoming and will be subject to consultation. Although I appreciate the principle behind new clause 75, I therefore do not believe that it is the best way to support small site delivery. I ask the hon. Member for Hamble Valley not to press it.

[Paul Holmes]

I am a pragmatist, so if the Minister says that he will make announcements in due course to strengthen what he already has a track record of doing, which is what the new clause seeks, we will welcome that. I must press him slightly, however. I grant that he has only been in his position for 10 months, but if the 10% is already in the NPPF and has not made any real change, and if he is reluctant to make legislative changes to enforce it, what other measures can he introduce to increase the number of houses that SME builders can build?

[Matthew Pennycook]

It is worth referring to the NPPF consultation in the summer and the Government response. We think that there was good reason not to make the 10% allocation mandatory. Local authorities, in particular, told us that they had concerns in that regard. There are many other things we could do. Without using this as a defence, in fairly short order the shadow Minister will see some of the measures that we want to introduce to support SME house builders. Access to land is a concern, and access to finance is another issue, as is the cumulative burden of regulation on SME house builders, which, for obvious reasons, are less able to cope with that than large-volume house builders. All of that is part of the answer, but I am sure we will have further debates on the matter once the Government have brought forth new measures in that area.

I turn to new clauses 92 and 26. I share the commitment of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to enhancing provision and choice for older people in the housing market. I agree that the need to provide sufficient housing to meet older people’s specific needs is critical. We must ensure that the housing market is moving with demographic change. I also recognise that well-designed, suitable housing can improve the quality of life, health and wellbeing of older people, as well as supporting wider Government objectives.

That is why the revised national planning policy framework already makes it clear that local authorities producing a local plan should, as I have said before, assess the size, types and tenure of housing for different groups in their communities, including older people, and reflect that in their planning policies. Supporting guidance also makes it clear that an understanding of how the ageing population affects housing needs should be considered from the early stages of plan making through to decision making.

Furthermore, clause 47 contains provision for spatial development strategies to take account of that factor. It provides that SDSs

“may specify or describe…an amount or distribution of affordable housing or any other kind of housing”

if the provision of that housing is considered

“to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”

One can well imagine how, in particular sub-regions of the country with high proportions of older people, SDSs may want to take particular account of that factor.

We will of course consider how we can continue to make progress on delivering sufficient housing for older people, as we develop our long-term housing strategy, which we will publish later this year. I recognise that that will have benefits not only in meeting housing need for older people, but further down the housing chain, by unlocking homes that are inappropriate for older people. Those people may wish to move if they have a better offer and if challenges such as those mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, such as the excessive service charges on some older people’s residential housing, are dealt with.

On new clause 26, I do not believe that introducing legislation to impose targets and capital funding for the affordable homes programme is the best way to incentivise the market to increase the supply of older people’s housing and later living homes. The Government’s view is that local housing authorities are best placed to bring forward the right amount of new housing for older persons and later living homes in their areas through the planning and care systems, and based on local need. The Government will obviously support them to do that when they set out the full details of a new grant funding programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme at the spending review on 11 June. Alongside wider investment across this Parliament, the new programme will help to deliver our commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. For that reason, I respectfully ask that none of the new clauses in this very large group are pressed to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine, I accept that it was a discussion between me, as the Opposition Whip, and the Labour Whip yesterday, which is the usual channel through which times are agreed. That being the case, and in her absence, I will not move the adjournment, in order to enable the Committee to proceed. However, I respect that hon. Members may have to leave—including me, because I have built my diary around that agreement and I have childcare responsibilities.

[Paul Holmes]

Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine—I do not wish to waste any more of the Committee’s time—for my part, I am content for the Committee to sit until 5 pm to ensure that business gets through. However, given my own diary, I would take a dim view if the Government should seek to continue beyond 5 pm.

[The Chair]

To clarify, the Committee sits until the Government moves the adjournment, so it is entirely up to the Government as to what they wish to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 7, which would require schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to be commenced. My Liberal Democrat colleagues have pressed on this matter repeatedly over recent months and years, including in Westminster Hall. The schedule, which was never commenced, would require sustainable drainage systems—SuDS—to be provided in all but the most exceptional cases. It would establish a proper authority for regulations to ensure they are properly designed and maintained. It is not right that because of inadequate regulation and safeguards, the burden of poorly constructed drainage systems should fall on individuals who have saved for years to get their first home. Without proper enforcement of sustainable drainage, there is a real risk that the drive to increase housing numbers will exacerbate the current problems with drainage and flooding.

After the 2007 floods, Sir Michael Pitt recommended the introduction of the provision. It was duly passed as part of the 2010 Act, but it was never commenced. By 2014, the Government had consulted on the necessary guidance and were on track for commencement before the end of 2015. In 2015, the consultation came to an end, the work came to an end and it was not commenced. The policy approach taken by the then Conservative Government was that we would deal with sustainable drainage through policy, and policy would be sufficient. A little later on, in their 2023 review of the implementation of schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, they set out that a previous review had concluded that

“non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems should be made statutory: as the ambiguity makes the role of the planning authority very difficult. The review also found that in general there were no specific checking regimes in place to ensure that SuDS had been constructed as agreed, leaving concerns about unsatisfactory standards of design and construction, and of difficulties of ensuring proper maintenance once the developer has left the site.”

If only that schedule had been brought into effect, a great deal of flooding of people’s homes would have been avoided.

In the past, we have had a body of law to control our sewage and drainage system, originally from the Public Health Act 1936, which dealt with any kind of drain that is

“communicating with a public sewer”,

in the words of the Act. But SuDS are a new way of doing things, and they do not have the same body of regulation. There is therefore no longer any reason why schedule 3 should not be commenced as soon as possible, if not immediately. It should not take another flood to make that happen.

It is time to implement the recommendations of the 2008 review, the Government’s consultation response in 2014, the 2023 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs review that I quoted, and schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 before our constituents find themselves forced into communicating with a public sewer in their homes and gardens in a way that is all too close and personal.

[Paul Holmes]

I commend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on tabling the new clause. It is very similar to new clause 34, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). My hon. Friend’s goes slightly further, in that it would ensure

“minimum expected standards for ongoing maintenance”,

but we welcome the sentiment, and we understand why the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democrats have tabled the new clause.

This is an issue that many of us have faced. The hon. Gentleman and I both attended a Westminster Hall debate about problems with drainage in new developments. I said then that in our constituencies, several of us could point to new developments in which planning officers and constituents had no confidence, even though the planning authority had acted entirely appropriately within the guidelines. I think particularly of Botley parish council in my constituency and Boorley Green, where development is going on along the River Hamble and further up into Winchester Street. Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was supposed to help with the expected standards.

With many new developments, a lot of the water companies are not sufficiently accountable to the people they serve. Local authorities are slightly constrained by the planning system from making the changes that they could make to help the long-standing flooding problems, if schedule 3 was brought in.

I welcome the new clause, and it will have our support. We will work with the hon. Gentleman on Report to strengthen the new clause. I do not mean that there is anything wrong with it, but I would like it to be combined with new clause 33 and the standards on ongoing maintenance. I hope the hon. Gentleman takes that as a helpful suggestion, and we look forward to supporting his new clause.

[Ellie Chowns]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 7. I have spoken about flooding in the main Chamber at least five times. Constituents have come to see me in my surgeries to tell me that they have been flooded out of their new homes only six months after they were built, because of a lack of appropriate drainage. As climate change brings us greater extremes and severity of weather, we know that frequent flooding will become even more of a problem, so it is imperative that any new building is flood resilient.

I draw the Committee’s attention to my new clauses 85 and 86, which I will move if we have time tomorrow or on Thursday. They are also designed to prevent building on flood plains, and to ensure that flood resilience measures are in place for all new buildings. It is quite extraordinary that 15 years after SuDS were provided for in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, they have still not been brought in. I add my voice to those of my Lib Dem and Conservative colleagues urging the Government to support the new clause, and to ensure that all new building is genuinely flood resilient and does not contribute to further problems downstream for other areas, housing or infrastructure.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 81 primarily seeks to standardise the list of infrastructure that development corporations can deliver to be in line with that of mayoral development corporations. The co-ordination of infrastructure with large-scale property development is essential. However, the current legislation is inconsistent concerning the types of infrastructure that different development corporation models can provide, creating unnecessary uncertainty.

In particular, the existing legislation sets out a long list of infrastructure that mayoral development corporations can provide, but the same list is not currently applied to new town and urban development corporations. Clause 81 addresses that by standardising the list of infrastructure that development corporations can provide. It also goes further in adding heat networks to the list. This recognises heat as a distinct utility, alongside others such as water, gas and electricity. The addition of heat networks will also empower development corporations in their aims with respect to sustainable development and climate change, a point that we have just debated.

Existing legislation also places unnecessary restrictions on new town development corporations to deliver transport infrastructure. Clause 81 therefore removes the restriction on new town development corporations so that they can provide railways, light railways and tramways. No other type of development corporation is subject to this restriction, and provision of sustainable transport systems is vital to delivering large-scale developments. These measures will ensure that development corporations are on an equal footing to deliver the infrastructure to unlock more sites and co-ordinate more housing infrastructure and transport in the public interest. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. It is good to see the Minister and all members of the Committee here again; I have déjà vu, but we are still happy, aren’t we? [Interruption.] “Speak for yourself,” the Minister says.

We generally welcome the powers in relation to infrastructure in clause 81. I particularly welcome what the Minister said about removing restrictions to deliver infrastructure such as trams. That is a welcome move to deliver for those of us who have had constantly had frustrations at the lack of ability to get that infrastructure, but I would like to ask a few questions. Having said that, I deem that the clause does not account for the varying needs and characteristics of different regions. Can he reassure the Committee about the effective standardisation that he is promoting?

We do not necessarily have an argument with it, but we would like to examine the checks and balances in the consultation element of what the Minister is proposing to ensure that there is not a one-size-fits-all model. Even though I know that is what standardisation aims to do, I hope he would accept that in varying regions, with the wants and needs of different communities, that may not be appropriate at all times. Will he outline the checks and balances and how that could be varied according to the needs of local communities? Other than that, the Opposition welcome the clause and the Minister’s commitment to infrastructure.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that question. I think it raises a slightly wider debate than the provisions of the clause and their purposive effect, but he raises a valuable point. Decisions to designate and grant powers to a development corporation must be made via regulations. They are subject to statutory consultation and are carefully made with consideration given to issues of oversight and governance. The particular model selected in a particular area will be chosen by the relevant parties on the basis that it is the model that best suits what they are trying to achieve.

I take the shadow Minister’s point about regional variation in the sense that all this clause does is standardise the list of infrastructure that can be provided by development corporations of all types, making it equal to the existing list that applies to mayoral development corporations. It is a simple simplification to ensure standardisation across the infrastructure that can be provided across all models.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

Exercise of transport functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 82 seeks to introduce a new duty for relevant local transport authorities to co-operate with development corporations in the development and implementation of their plans, Too often developments are not co-ordinated with the transport infrastructure needed to service existing and new communities. That has detrimental impacts on quality of life, productivity and economic growth. Development corporations cannot currently take on local transport powers. As a result, there can be significant delays and barriers to delivering essential transport infrastructure, particularly where local transport authorities are unaligned with the plans of development corporations. Clause 82 will therefore place a duty of co-operation on local transport authorities to ensure that sites delivered by development corporations include the necessary transport infrastructure and are seamlessly integrated into the wider spatial plan for the area.

Local transport authorities must have regard to the plans of development corporations and co-operate in the development and implementation of their plans. Where that duty is not fulfilled—resulting, for example, in a failure to produce key outputs in an agreed timeframe or transport provisions being blocked and impacting growth potential—the Secretary of State will have a new power to direct relevant local transport authorities. Where the direction is not complied with, and as a last resort, the Secretary of State will have the new power to transfer specific transport functions from local transport authorities to the development corporation in question.

In addition to transport planning functions, the transfer may also include specific property rights and liabilities—for example, in instances where the development corporation needs to undertake upgrades to existing highways within its red line area. Any such transfer will be made by regulations and in relation to the development corporation’s red line area. The measures are intended to increase co-operation while ensuring that development corporations can ultimately deliver necessary transport infrastructure in a timely manner. I want to be very clear: our preferred approach is for the development corporation to work with the local transport authority in the first instance. The measures are therefore escalatory and will be used only as a last resort. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to transport infrastructure. We have had disagreements on other parts of the Bill that we have discussed in previous sittings, and no doubt we will in this afternoon’s sitting on the new clauses, but I think this part of the Bill genuinely tries to reform models to make sure that transport infrastructure, which is often controversial, is delivered. We welcome his commitment and foresight in that.

The clause aims to address, as we know, the co-ordination issues between development corporations and fragmented local transport authorities by placing the statutory duty of co-operation on the latter. Although the intention to improve alignment between housing and transport planning is welcome, I have a couple of questions about its practical impact and enforceability. None of the questions comes from a place of criticising or carping; they are to get genuine clarification for Opposition Members. By simply requiring transport authorities to “have regard to” and “co-operate” with development corporations, does the Minister not have a concern that the plans may not be sufficient to ensure meaningful collaboration? The terms are legally vague and may result in only minimal compliance. He has said that it is escalatory, but I wonder whether the clause needs to be slightly strengthened, in terms of “have regard to” and “co-operate”.

The clause stops short of granting development corporations any direct transport powers. That may be a fundamental disagreement between us, if the Minister does not believe they should have those powers, but we have a concern about the good intentions not being delivered on because of that collaboration and “having regard to”. Other than that, we welcome the clause, which will make a huge difference in delivering the fundamental change that we need in regional and local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We just debated a clause about standardising the list of infrastructure that all development corporations can bring forward, but clause 82 addresses a specific gap in the legislation, which is that development corporations cannot have transport powers and are reliant on local transport authorities to bring them forward. I do not dismiss his point about wider infrastructure—we have debated it elsewhere, and I have taken on board the points that hon. Members have raised—but the clause addresses a specific issue and outlines a way of dealing with it. As I say, the preferred approach is co-operation in the first instance and working with the local transport authority in question.

The ability to transfer transport powers, which is available under the clause, is ultimately a backstop measure, and escalation via direction is an initial measure to address insufficient co-operation. The clause clearly sets out how the escalatory process will work, although it is worth saying that decisions to either direct or transfer powers will be taken on a case-by-case basis and applied only where there is good reason to believe that co-operation on the part of the local transport authority is not forthcoming and necessary transport infrastructure is not delivered.

We think that the backstop is necessary for cases where the local transport authority refuses to co-operate and is blocking necessary infrastructure that the development corporation requires for its urban regeneration and development needs. On that basis, I hope I have reassured hon. Members.

[Paul Holmes]

You may rule me out of order, Ms Jardine—I entirely expect that you might—but I want to follow up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne on health services. I know that it is not directly in the scope of this clause, but I want to explore the fact that, in many of our constituencies, integrated care boards, which, as the Minister will know, are locally responsible for the provision of health services, simply are not doing the work that is needed on demographic or infrastructure changes because of the silo-based approach to central and local government. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he will go away and work with the Department of Health and Social Care—maybe other clauses could be included—on how we can bring that together and allow those health facilities, as well as transport issues, to be delivered?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for that question. Hansard will correct me if I am wrong, but I feel that I have already given a commitment in that area, which I am more than happy to give again, on the following basis: to the extent that essential infrastructure and amenities, particularly those delivered via the existing developer contribution system, are not forthcoming in the manner required or in a timely manner, and where section 106 agreements are not being honoured, the Government are looking to take action to strengthen the existing system. There are two aspects to this. One is ensuring that local authorities are in a position to, on a fairly equal basis, negotiate with an applicant and get a good section 106 agreement. Then, there is the other part of the process, which is ensuring that the agreements entered into are honoured.

However, in some instances—I think I have recognised this in a previous debate—there is a co-ordination issue. I am interested in what more can be done and I am exploring that across Government Departments. ICBs are a good example—there have been examples in my constituency. In certain cases, it may be that the 106 agreement or other provision is not bringing forward the necessary—let us put it in very practical terms—GP centre. In other cases, as I hear from many hon. Members across the country, the 106 has facilitated the construction of the building, but there is a workforce challenge. That is a wider challenge for Government and the Department of Health and Social Care to address, which they are doing. I think that co-ordination can help us to address some of these problems.

To bring us back to the clause that we are debating, we are talking specifically about instances of a development corporation, either within the red line area or outside it where transport infrastructure is necessary to facilitate growth within it. We need a mechanism to ensure that co-operation occurs with the local transport authority. As I have said, judged on a case-by-case basis, in instances where the local transport authority in question is not co-operating, or where Government have good reason to believe that it will not co-operate, we need a measure to ensure that those powers are transferred or a direction is put in place. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83

Electronic service etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clauses 83 to 92 relate to compulsory purchase and are designed as a group to improve the compulsory purchase order process and land compensation rules to enable more effective land assembly through public sector-led schemes. As hon. Members will no doubt be aware—I am sure that they have read every word—the Government’s 2024 manifesto made a commitment to further reform compulsory purchase compensation rules to improve land assembly, speed up site delivery and deliver housing, infrastructure, amenity and transport benefits in the public interest. That manifesto promised that a Labour Government would take steps to ensure that, for specific types of development schemes, landowners are awarded fair compensation rather than inflated prices based on the prospect of planning permission.

The Government’s reforms, which were outlined in the consultation published at the end of 2024, are necessary to deliver the housing and critical infrastructure that this country needs and to make it more attractive for the public sector to use its compulsory purchase powers to deliver development in the right places. That is the intent behind the clauses that we are debating this morning. To be clear, changes introduced in the Bill are not targeted at farmers or any particular landowners, and they make a limited addition to the existing power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value, so it may apply to parish or town council CPOs facilitating affordable housing provision.

I made this point on Second Reading and I want to be clear: there is nothing in the Bill that changes the core principle of compulsory purchase—that it must be used only where negotiations to acquire land by agreement have not succeeded and where there is a compelling case in the public interest. It will be for individual authorities to decide where it is most appropriate to use their CPO powers to deliver their schemes in the public interest. Taken together, the clauses will ensure that quicker decisions on CPOs can be made, the administrative costs of undertaking the process are reduced, and a better balance is struck so compensation paid to landowners is, as I have said, fair but not excessive.

Clause 83 amends the legislation underpinning the compulsory purchase process and compensation rules to allow the service of statutory notices to be undertaken by electronic methods of communication. Allowing CPO notices to be served on parties by electronic communication will ensure that the CPO process is modernised and made more efficient. Notices may be served by electronic communication providing the person receiving the notice has provided an address for such a service, such as an email address. Where an address is not provided, the existing methods of service—for example, by post—will remain. The default method for service of notices on public authorities will be electronic communication, providing the authority has specified an address for communicating about the specific CPO in question. The clause, which again I hope is uncontroversial, simply intends to modernise and speed up the compulsory purchase process and reduce the administrative costs, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I will take the tactic of discussing each clause relating to CPOs at a time, if that is all right with the Minister. I know he had to give an overview of clauses 83 to 92, but we would like to scope out some questions before coming on to new clause 52, which we will discuss under clause 88, where most of our disagreement comes from.

I understand what the Minister has said about CPO reform and not targeting farmers. However, the record of this Government’s relationship with farmers in other areas of policy has raised anxieties about agricultural land and the rights of farmers, and the amount of compensation that tenant farmers versus occupied land farmers will be offered. Some of the reforms that the Minister is making raise questions about the Government’s general campaign against farming and agriculture in this country, which we remain very concerned about in other areas of policy, but we will discuss those issues in a moderate and constructive manner when we debate later clauses.

Clause 83 concerns electronic services. We generally welcome any simplification and reduction in costs and administration; that is why I am a Conversative. However, we believe that the clause could still raise some implementation challenges. Public authorities are presumed to consult with an electronic service if they provide a relevant email or web address, but that assumption may lead to issues where authorities have multiple points of contact or emails go unattended, potentially causing delays or disputes within an effective service.

Secondly, the clause introduces a default presumption that notices are received the next business day after sending, but that might not hold in practice—for example, if the message is caught in a spam filter or fails to send due to technical error. There could be some conflicts and complications in some of the cases that the clause seeks to amend. The legislation could benefit from a clearer mechanism for confirming receipt to reduce uncertainty or legal challenge further down the line.

Moreover, although the shift to digital communication is welcome, the clause stops short of encouraging or mandating broader digital transformation across the CPO process. For instance, there is no mention of a centralised digital portal for tracking notices or verifying delivery, which could further enhance transparency and reduce administrative friction. Although modest in scope, the clause is a positive step towards a more efficient compulsory purchase regime, notwithstanding the concerns that we have about further reforms, but its practical success will hinge on thoughtful implementation, clear guidance and ongoing support for acquiring authorities and affected parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Again, we do not see the clause as particularly controversial, but we would like to ask some questions. Can I put on record, first, that I wish the Minister well with his jury service? We will see whether he is the living embodiment of being “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”. I am sure that the Whips will love the fact that one of their Ministers is off-site—hopefully on Report so that we can get most of our amendments through.

As the Minister said, clause 84 aims to streamline the content requirements for newspaper notices related to CPOs by permitting either the use of a postal address or a general location description where a specific address is not available. The clause is expected to reduce administrative complexity and cost, which is a welcome step for authorities managing CPOs under tight timelines and budgets.

However, while simplification is beneficial, there is a risk that overly brief or vague descriptions could undermine transparency for affected landowners or the wider public. Newspaper notices remain a critical means of ensuring that individuals who may not be directly notified are still informed about CPOs that could affect them. If the language becomes too generic, individuals may be unaware that their land is included in an order, potentially limiting opportunities for objections or engagement.

The clause could benefit from safeguards or accompanying guidance to ensure that clarity and public accessibility are maintained, especially in cases involving rural land, undeveloped plots or where postal addresses are unclear. Moreover, the clause does not address whether digital platforms could supplement or eventually replace newspaper notices, which could further modernise the process while improving public access to information. Overall, the clause is a pragmatic reform, but we must strike the right balance between efficiency and the need for meaningful public engagement.

Has the Minister had any feedback from local newspaper industry representatives saying that they are concerned, given some of the ways in which these notices provide an income stream to a sector that is increasingly under pressure in being able to communicate with our local residents?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I again thank the shadow Minister for that fair and reasonable challenge. I recognise—as the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, would—that the loss of local newspapers is very keenly felt in a London context. Blogs and other things have sprung up in their place, but this is definitely an issue. That is one of the reasons why we have determined not to remove the requirement to publish CPO notices in newspapers. We think that that does have benefits, particularly for members of the public who cannot access the internet, but we do think that a modernisation of the process is necessary.

This is not about reducing transparency; it is about making the administrative process more proportionate and more cost-effective. The key point is that the information contained in the newspaper notice will still give the location of the land and other information, and, importantly, as I have said, that will be complemented by information available in site notices affixed to the land in question, notices served on individuals, and information published about the CPO on the acquiring authority’s website—for example, electronic copies of the CPO, including a map and notices. The requirement to describe the land fully in these other notices is not changing. We are just trying to make more proportionate the information contained in the newspaper notice in question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 85 will speed up decisions on CPOs where no objections have been received. Currently, where a CPO is not objected to, the confirmation decision can be made by the acquiring authority, providing certain conditions have been met. One condition is that the CPO does not require modification—for example, to correct an error in the drafting of the order. That adds unnecessary delay and prevents authorities from taking earlier possession of land to deliver benefits in the public interest.

Clause 85 allows an acquiring authority to confirm its own compulsory purchase order with modifications, providing that they do not affect a person’s interest in the land. Where they do, it introduces the ability for acquiring authorities to confirm their own CPOs where modifications are required, providing that the modifications do not affect a person’s interest in a controversial way. Where modifications need to be made to a CPO— for example, to remove land from the CPO, or to correct a drafting error such as the wrong colour used on the map to identify land—the confirming authority will set out in a notice what modifications are required. Acquiring authorities will not be allowed to add new land into CPOs or exclude part of a plot of land from CPOs, as such changes could provoke objections. In those circumstances, the modification and confirmation of the CPO will still be made by the confirming authority.

The changes are intended to speed up the decision-making process for CPOs that have not been objected to, and to allow benefits in the public interest to be delivered more efficiently. They will be particularly helpful in situations where, as part of a wider land assembly exercise, an acquiring authority needs to exercise its compulsory purchase powers to acquire title to land in unknown ownership. Modifications that do affect a person’s interest in land are allowed, but only if the affected person gives their consent for the modification being made. For these reasons, the Government believe that the clause will enable the CPO process to better benefit the public interest.

[Paul Holmes]

Again, we welcome the Minister taking a pragmatic approach to streamlining the process. That would be useful to some elements of CPOs, with minor modifications. Although the clause is framed around efficiency, however, it raises some concerns about checks and balances. Even modifications deemed minor can have implications for how land is used or valued. Relying on the judgment of the acquiring authority alone may create a risk of oversight or perceived conflicts of interest.

The provision for consent from affected landowners offers a safeguard, but in practice, there may be power imbalances that undermine the voluntariness of that consent, especially if pressure to expedite delivery is high. Furthermore, the process for how affected parties are informed and how modifications are assessed as “non-impactful” remains vague. Without clear guidance or criteria, the risk of inconsistent applications across authorities is significant. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that specific issue. Although the goal of speeding up land assembly for public benefit is legitimate, greater transparency and procedural clarity is essential to ensure that the clause does not erode public trust in the compulsory purchase process.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I welcome that question from the shadow Minister. We are confident that the power will not be misused. The legislation will allow acquiring authorities to make minor modifications to CPOs in cases where they do not affect a landowner’s interests, other than with the landowner’s consent. We broadly consider that such modifications are non-controversial and will not provoke objections, but given the strength of feeling that the shadow Minister has expressed on the matter, I am more than happy to write to him to set out some further clarification of how we believe the process would operate, and why we do not think there is risk of misuse in the way that he fears.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86

General vesting declarations: advancement of vesting by agreement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I will make some brief comments on the clauses. On clause 86, we believe that the conditions under which earlier possession may occur, such as when land is unoccupied, unsafe or where ownership is unknown, are potentially valid, but they rely heavily on subjective judgements by the acquiring authority. For instance, allowing the authority to determine whether items left on the land are of significant value or whether the land is

“unfit for its ordinary use”

introduces a risk of inconsistent or contested interpretations. The exclusion of illegal occupation from the definition of occupancy is also fraught with complexity, particularly in areas where land may be informally used by vulnerable individuals.

Although the clause provides a process for effective parties to make representations, it does not establish an independent mechanism for appeal or review if the acquiring authority rejects those representations. That could weaken procedural safeguards and may leave individuals or communities with limited recourse. Furthermore, although the clause excludes partial acquisitions of buildings, the broader implications for owners of derelict or disputed property could be significant, particularly in urban regeneration contexts where such assets are common.

Overall, while the reform seeks to introduce efficiency, it must be implemented with caution to avoid undermining rights to property and due process. Stronger safeguards, such as independent oversight of early possession decisions and clearer statutory definitions, may be necessary to prevent potential misuse or unintended consequences.

On the surface, the provisions in clause 87 appear pragmatic: they enable willing parties to bypass the standard three-month wait under the general vesting declaration procedure, and instead agree to an earlier possession date no sooner than six weeks after the publication of the CPO confirmation notice. We accept that this could reduce delays in project delivery, particularly where landowners prefer a swift resolution, or where prolonged possession timelines would otherwise stall regeneration or infrastructure efforts.

However, the clause’s wider implications warrant attention. While this is an agreement-based route, the inherent power imbalance in the compulsory purchase context can make voluntary agreements feel pressurised. Landowners—particularly smaller ones or those with limited legal support—may feel compelled to agree to early possession without fully understanding their rights or the valuation consequences. The clause attempts to address compensation timing and valuation issues, but the technical nature of the provisions may still leave room for confusion or disputes. I look to the Minister for reassurance.

The exclusion of counter-notice rights in cases of partial early possession under schedule A1 to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 also weakens the landowner’s ability to negotiate fairly, as it removes a potential tool for resisting piecemeal acquisitions that may render the remainder of the property less viable. While efficiency is a legitimate goal, it must be weighed against individual rights and procedural fairness.

Overall, while the clause introduces a useful flexibility for streamlined land acquisition, it should be accompanied by strong safeguards, including clear guidance for landowners, transparent compensation mechanisms and accessible dispute resolution processes, to prevent coercion and ensure genuinely informed agreements.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for those questions. As ever, I will reflect on his request for procedural fairness to be maintained, but in broad terms, I would say that abuses of the kind he suggests are highly unlikely. I am more than happy to provide him with further reassurance on that point.

Given that clause 87 is about undertaking the procedure in question by agreement, I think it is less controversial. On clause 86, it will be for the acquiring authority to be confident that the conditions for the use of the power have been met, and to objectively identify where it thinks that the conditions for the use of the power have been met. In doing so, it will be for acquiring authorities to respond to and defend against any disputes or challenges made on the use of the power.

Where the land includes a dwelling, the acquiring authority is empowered only to expedite the vesting of the land if the dwelling is unfit for human habitation within the well-understood meaning set out in section 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. However, included within the power to take early possession of land or buildings is a safeguard to prevent the vesting of land from being brought forward where there is disagreement as to whether the land is unoccupied or is in a condition that it is fit for use, or where an occupant identifies themselves to the authority. As I have said, parties can make representations to the acquiring authority that those conditions have not been met, but ultimately, the decision as to whether they have or not remains with the acquiring authority. However, I am happy to reflect on whether there is a need for further safeguards in this area and to update the shadow Minister accordingly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 86 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. 

Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88

Adjustment of basic and occupier’s loss payments

[The Chair]

Does anyone wish to move amendment 134?

[Paul Holmes]

I do not know whether this is helpful clarification procedurally, but on this group, I would like to speak only to new clause 52 under the name of the official Opposition. We are happy not to press amendments 134 to 147 at this stage.

[The Chair]

Okay.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the shadow Minister for not pressing amendments 134 to 147. I would not have been able to accept them for reasons I could have gone into at some length.

I will deal with the clause and then new clause 52, which the Opposition still wish to move. To ensure that compensation paid to those whose land is compulsorily acquired is fair, clause 88 makes changes to the Land Compensation Act 1973 and the framework for basic and occupier’s loss payments. Loss payments exist to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase. They are valued either on the market value of a person’s interest or on an amount calculated by reference to the area of the land or buildings known as the “land amount” or “building amount”, whichever is the highest.

The market value of a freehold interest is often more than the market value of a leasehold interest held by an occupying tenant, which often has little or no market value. That usually results in occupying tenants receiving less compensation than owners. As occupying tenants bear the burden of having to close or relocate their businesses, the existing allocation of loss payments is poorly targeted. It unduly favours investor owners over occupying businesses or agricultural tenants who incur greater costs. The Government believe that to be unfair. The clause therefore amends the 1973 Act to adjust the balance of loss payments in favour of occupiers.

Under our changes, we are increasing the land and buildings amount payments, which will benefit occupiers as that is the payment that they usually receive. That will better reflect the level of disruption and inconvenience caused to them through compulsory purchase, compared with investor-owners. It also ensures that the compensation regime is fair. To be clear, the reforms to the CPO process and compensation rules will not encourage the use of any particular type of CPO or change the fundamental principle that there must always be a compelling case in the public interest for use of a CPO.

The changes being made to the loss payments regime will benefit tenant farmers whose land interest is compulsorily acquired, as they will receive a fairer share of compensation to reflect the level of inconvenience that they experience from CPOs. The changes under the clause will not result in landowners being paid less than market value for the compulsory purchase of their interests.

The clause also simplifies the method of calculating the buildings amount for occupier’s loss payments relating to non-agricultural land by using the gross internal area method instead of gross external area, which we believe is more consistent with industry standards. The clause applies to England only, apart from the change to the method of calculating buildings amounts, since the Welsh Ministers have devolved competence to reform loss payments for CPOs in Wales. I therefore see the clause as an integral part of ensuring that the CPO process is built on a fair and balanced compensation process, relative to the level of disruption and inconvenience caused to occupiers of land by a CPO. I commend the clause to the Committee.

I am more than happy to respond in due course, but will first turn briefly to non-Government new clause 52, which seeks to introduce a change to the loss payment compensation regime under the Land Compensation Act 1973. The new clause would increase the amount that occupiers of buildings or land subject to a CPO would be entitled to, and place them on an equal footing with owners. Clause 88 already achieves, in part, what the shadow Minister is looking for: it increases the loss payment compensation due to occupiers of buildings and land in the way that the new clause seeks to do. The purpose of loss payments, however, is to reflect the inconvenience caused by compulsory purchase, and it is occupiers, rather than investor owners, who bear the greater burden in that respect because they are the ones who will need to close or relocate their businesses.

As I said, the clause rebalances loss payment compensation to allow occupiers to claim a higher amount and landowners to claim a lower amount. We believe that that rebalancing of loss payment compensation in favour of occupiers is the right approach. While the clause does some of what new clause 52 seeks to achieve, elements of the new clause are problematic for the reasons I set out. I am afraid I will not be able to accept the new clause, and I ask the shadow Minister not to move it.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for that detailed assessment of the clause. Lord knows how long his speech would have been if we had referred to the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) tabled. I thought I would spare the Minister that—and also spare myself having to explain them. We will table more amendments on Report.

As the Minister explained, the clause revises key provisions of part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, particularly loss payments to landowners and occupiers whose properties in England are subject to compulsory purchase. The intent behind the changes is to ensure that compensation more accurately reflects the disruption and inconvenience caused to affected individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 89 amends the Land Compensation Act 1973 and introduces provision to exclude the right to a home loss payment in certain situations. A home loss payment is an additional amount of compensation paid to a person to recognise the inconvenience and disruption caused where a person is displaced from their home as a result of a CPO. We have just had a debate about a slightly different aspect of what the Government intend to effect by these provisions.

Under the current provisions, where property owners have failed to comply with a statutory notice or order served on them to make improvements to their neglected land or properties, their right to basic and occupier’s loss payments may be excluded. There are, however, currently no similar exclusions for home loss payments. Clause 89 amends the 1973 Act to apply this exclusion to home loss payments also. The situations where home loss payments may be excluded will include where certain improvement notices or orders have been served on a person and they fail to undertake the necessary works.

Local authorities can expend significant resource and cost using CPO powers to acquire neglected properties to bring them back into use. Where property owners fail to undertake mandated improvement works to their properties, they should not be able to benefit financially through claiming a home loss payment. Non-compliance with improvement notices or orders can increase the costs to the public purse of bringing valuable housing resources back into use through use of CPOs. If memory serves, we had a short debate on empty homes and what more the Government can do, and I think that making changes in this area will help with that. Introducing provision for these circumstances will lower local authorities’ costs of using their CPO powers. It will support the delivery of more housing for communities. It also further ensures that the compensation regime is fair.

[Paul Holmes]

I have nothing further to add.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90

Temporary possession of land in connection with compulsory purchase

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 90 amends the power to take temporary possession of land under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. Promoters of major infrastructure have indicated that their current consenting regimes provide flexibility for the taking of temporary possession of land, and should the 2017 Act power be commenced, that flexibility would be taken away. The clause sets out that the power for acquiring authorities to take temporary possession of land by agreement or compulsion under the 2017 Act does not apply in respect of: first, other express temporary possession powers provided for by other Acts; secondly, development consent orders made under the Planning Act 2008, and infrastructure consent orders made under the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024; thirdly, orders made under the Transport and Works Act 1992.

The clause will enable the taking of temporary possession under the 2017 Act, without interfering with the process for taking temporary possession under development consent orders, infrastructure consent orders or transport and works orders. It will help ensure continued flexibility for the delivery of critical infrastructure, while paving the way for the taking of temporary possession under other regimes such as the CPO process and the New Towns Act 1981.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

We do not have much to say on this clause, but it would be rude if I did not say something. [Interruption.] I know Government Back Benchers agree.

Clause 90 provides a targeted amendment to the temporary possession provisions under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, clarifying the scope of that Act’s powers in relation to other legislative frameworks. It stipulates that the temporary possession powers under the 2017 Act do not apply where other Acts such as the Planning Act 2008, the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 or the Transport and Works Act 1992 already contain express provisions for temporary possession. That clarification will ensure that there is no duplication or conflict between the different legislative regimes, thereby promoting legal certainty and administrative efficiency.

By explicitly excluding scenarios where other statutory mechanisms are in place, the clause avoids overlapping authorities and potential jurisdictional confusion. Moreover, it preserves the functionality of the 2017 Act for compulsory purchase orders under the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and New Towns Act 1981, ensuring that those frameworks can continue to utilise the temporary possession powers where no alternative statutory mechanism exists.

Although the clause provides a cleaner legislative structure, it may also introduce complexity for practitioners who must now navigate multiple legislative sources to determine the applicable authority for temporary possession. That could increase the burden on acquiring authorities and landowners alike, particularly in large infrastructure schemes involving various enabling statutes. Overall, the clause serves a valuable purpose in harmonising the law, but may require careful guidance to ensure that its practical application does not create uncertainty or administrative hurdles. Although we are generally supportive, I look to the Minister to see whether he deems it appropriate to provide advisory guides and accompanying documents when the legislation is enacted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I rise to support the principle of what is being proposed in clause 91 and what has been said about the need to allow authorities to acquire land without paying additional hope value or value of planning permissions not yet sought or granted. It is a long-standing issue, and debates on it go back a very long time indeed; I think it began with Lloyd George, who said that it should be the state, rather than landowners, that benefits when the state invests resources or increases the value of land from its own actions.

I support the clause as a Liberal Democrat—it was in our manifesto—but I should add that it does not represent a radical or enormous change; in fact, it was the position for a great many years. Following the second world war, the Pointe Gourde case established the principle that hope value would not be paid. As has been mentioned, it was only the Land Compensation Act 1961, exaggerated by further case law in the 1970s, that gradually increased the amount of compensation payable to landowners on the basis of planning permissions not sought or obtained—that is, hope value. As we have been discussing, that frustrates and stymies the delivery of social housing, which we all wish to see, and of other public development.

For all those reasons, this is a welcome clause and we definitely support it. On amendment 2, my understanding is that the clause would allow social housing to be delivered under the provisions of clause 91, but no doubt the Minister will clarify that. We will make our decision about amendment 2 on that basis.

Finally, this has been a long campaign by a number of people and organisations, including the Town and Country Planning Association. People such as Wyndham Thomas, a pioneer in this field, long argued for a change to the hope value provisions. The change, if it comes today, will do credit to those who pushed for it for so many decades.

[Paul Holmes]

For the Committee’s convenience, I note that we do not plan to speak to proposed new clause 108, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins); I have just scribbled it out. We welcome some provisions of clause 91, but we have some concerns. The Minister will definitely come back to me and say, “But your Government made some reforms.” We know that, but the Opposition have some concern about the scattergun—I would not say “spontaneous”—approach to bypassing hope value, which allows its removal through a much more centralised and unfair system. As we said previously about some CPO provisions, we are concerned that the clause will be unfair on some people who are not well off or affluent.

However, overall the clause is a pragmatic and well targeted reform that aims to steer towards prioritising community benefits and affordability. We will look at it in more detail in later stages of consideration; the Minister knows that we will constructively try to reform the elements that we are concerned about. But we will not press proposed new clause 108, and are happy to let clause 91 through without a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I absolutely can confirm that. If the hon. Member is interested, that was set out in the extensive debates on that power during the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee. The public benefits to which the direction can apply are very clear: transport schemes but also affordable housing schemes. However, it would be judged on a case-by-case basis whether the amount of affordable housing provided, in each instance, was sufficient to meet that public benefit test.

The important point that I need to make is that the reference to the provision of affordable housing and other benefits is an important safeguard, to ensure that directions removing hope value could meet the public interest justification test and ensure that the use of the power would be compliant with human rights legislation. That is really important. Trying to draw the power too widely would fall foul of human rights legislation and we would not be able to use it in any case. That is why it has to be targeted at schemes that deliver in the public interest. That will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

The Government also have concerns that amendment 2 could introduce a change that could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest. We think that it could make the benefits delivered through use of the existing direction power less clearly identifiable and problematic for those reasons, so I will not be able to accept the amendment, although, as I say, I am sympathetic to the use of the direction in clear instances when a public benefit is at stake.

Although we have commenced the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act provisions only this year, to date no acquiring authority has used them; I suspect that is partly from the usual hesitancy about being the first mover and partly about ensuring that there are sufficient skills in the acquiring authority to use it. But the Government are very clear: we do want an acquiring authority, where appropriate, to make use of the power, although we cannot draw it more widely for the reasons I have given.

I turn to amendments 86 and 87. The amendments seek to amend clause 91 and expand the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value. The amendments propose to extend the types of CPOs for which directions removing hope value may be sought to CPOs providing provision of sporting and recreational facilities.  The amendments also seek to introduce a change so that CPOs that provide sporting and recreational facilities would not have to facilitate affordable housing provision when seeking directions removing hope value. 

While the Government recognise the value of parks and playing fields to our communities—we could all give our own examples of how much they are cherished and loved—we are unable to support the amendments. As I have said, the non-payment of hope value to landowners through the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and justified in the public interest. Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities.  The Government have concerns that the provisions would be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities.  The proposed changes could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest, as the benefits to be delivered would be less clearly identifiable. The Government are therefore unable to support the amendments. 

I turn briefly to clause stand part. Clause 91 makes amendments to the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which we have just been debating, that allows authorities to include in their CPOs directions the removal of hope value from compensation, when that is justified in the public interest. First, the clause amends the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and provides that CPOs made with directions removing hope value may be confirmed by acquiring authorities where there are no objections to the relevant CPO.

Alongside that reform, the Government intend to publish updated CPO guidance to make clear their policy that the power for inspectors to be appointed to take decisions on CPOs under the 1981 Act can be used for CPOs with directions removing hope value. CPO guidance published by my Department sets out criteria that the Secretary of State will consider in deciding whether to delegate confirmation decisions to inspectors. The updated CPO guidance, reflecting the Government’s policy, will be published when we implement the Bill’s reforms following Royal Assent. The changes will speed up the decision-making process for CPOs with directions removing hope value and ensure that the process is more efficient and effective.

Secondly, clause 91 extends the power for CPOs to include directions removing hope value to CPOs made on behalf of parish or community councils under section 125 of the Local Government Act 1972. That will allow parish or community councils, when seeking to deliver affordable housing in their areas, to acquire land without paying hope value compensation—again, when a direction removing hope value is justified in the public interest demonstrably and clearly. The change is intended to increase the viability of such schemes to deliver more affordable housing, which these communities desperately need.

Lastly, the clause amends the legislation to ensure that when CPOs are confirmed with directions removing hope value, the directions apply not only to the assessment of market value of land taken but to loss payments where the assessment of market value is a relevant factor. That makes it clearer that hope value will be removed from all heads of claim where market value is assessed. That provides for the consistent application of the principles for the assessment of the market value of land where CPOs are confirmed, with directions removing hope value. It also ensures that the compensation regime does not deliver excessive compensation where compulsory purchase is used to deliver benefits in the public interest.

I again make it clear that these reforms are not about targeting farm owners or any specific types of land or landowner. Neither do the clauses seek to change—returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke—the core principles of compulsory purchase, which remain. There is nothing in the Bill that changes the core principles of compulsory purchase. As I have said, it must be used only where negotiations to acquire land by agreement have failed, and where there is a compelling case in the public interest. To deliver the homes and infrastructure we need, we must look to unlock land in the right places. These clauses ensure we have the correct tools to realise that.

Briefly, new clause 108, tabled by the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, seeks to repeal section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed, with directions removing hope value where justified in the public interest. For that reason, I understand why the shadow Minister has at the last moment hesitated to speak to it. In essence, the new clause would remove the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which allows acquiring authorities to take forward certain types of scheme by compulsory purchase and to pay a reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest.

I disagree with the reforms made by Baron Gove—I think that is now the correct terminology—in a number of areas. He tainted his record in my Department very late on in the previous Government by abolishing mandatory housing targets under pressure from the so-called planning concern group, the ringleaders of which all lost their seats in any case. He did, however, introduce a number of very valuable reforms, one of which is that reform to CPOs. It is therefore absolutely right that we do not attempt—as the right hon. Lady clearly does, if not the shadow Minister—to remove it from the statute book.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is being slightly unfair in saying that I have chosen not to speak to the new clause at the last minute; I had always intended not to speak to it because we are very collaborative on our Opposition Front Bench in deciding what we will and will not speak to. The Minister should know that there is always a good intention behind a new clause or amendment—in this case, to restrict the unfairness to some people.

The Minister should also not be surprised that the shadow Cabinet and shadow Ministers such as myself are assessing what happened under the last Government. We are looking back and, as we have said repeatedly, we are under new leadership. The Minister will know—in a basic constitutional lesson—that no Government is bound by the actions of its predecessor, and we are not bound by the actions of our previous leader. [Interruption.] They should not be surprised by that. They were always reviewing their successes under Gordon Brown and particularly the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). They have changed a lot of their views from what they used to say then. They have definitely changed a lot of what they thought when they were under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and were extolling the virtues of loyalty.

We will look to see how we can strengthen the provisions in the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, and we will come back to it a further stage. The Minister should not always think that there is a conspiracy when I decide not to press an amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

It has been pretty dry going this morning on these clauses. For the purposes of entertaining the Committee, I just want to make sure I have understood the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes]

No, you do not need to.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Opposition are at liberty to change their position on any policy that the previous Government introduced, but they do not want to change policy in this area as they believe that the power is proportionate and necessary. However, the right hon. Lady still tabled the new clause to signal that they may be willing to come back to it at some point. Is that broadly right?

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is being overly cynical. As he knows, our leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has said that there is a mainstream review of what worked and what did not work under the very successful Conservative Government that served for the last 14 years. What we are looking at going forward is whether we need a new approach to planning reform. That is exactly what the new clause was intended to probe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the Government move to bring forward the new system of environmental outcome reports that will replace the EU processes of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment, it is necessary to make a minor amendment to the original drafting to ensure the new system can comply with relevant international obligations. Environmental outcomes reports provide the opportunity to streamline the assessment process while securing better outcomes for nature, but it is vital we start this journey with the right powers.

Clause 93 amends the power to specify environmental outcomes to ensure they can relate to areas outside of our national jurisdiction. This is to ensure that the new system of EORs can comply with, among other things, the UK’s obligations under the Espoo convention, which requires signatories to consider the potential transboundary impact of development. This measure will ensure that, as the Government progress with developing the new system of EORs, they will have sufficient powers to ensure the new system can adequately fulfil all our international obligations.

[Paul Holmes]

Before we receive a statement later from the Prime Minister, can the Minister outline whether any of the movements in this domestic legislation, which stem from the transitioning of EU-derived systems, will be affected by any Government deal made between the EU and the United Kingdom?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come back to the hon. Member on that point in writing, because it is important that I am precise on it. Obviously a series of obligations stem from the trade and co-operation agreement, and they are set out. This clause specifically attempts to ensure that the new system of EORs—legislated for through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023—can, once it is brought into force, function in a way that is compliant with all our international obligations. I think members of the Committee would very much support that being the case. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I would expect the Minister to write to us; I would not expect an answer on the Floor of the Committee. What the Prime Minister is going to outline later is a detailed and holistic deal. When we talk about a change that is being framed within the context of transitioning from the EU-derived systems of environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments—I have only read what is in the papers; I am sure the Minister has, too—any area that is encapsulated within that wider deal may affect this domestic legislation going forward, so I would appreciate his writing to us on that.

By expanding the geographical scope within that derived system, the clause allows for a more holistic consideration of environmental impacts, including transboundary and global effects, as the Minister has outlined, which are particularly relevant in an era of climate change, biodiversity loss, and other interconnected environmental challenges. The broadened scope may be seen as a progressive move, enabling regulators to take a more comprehensive view of environmental harm such as greenhouse gas emissions or marine pollution, which can extend well beyond national borders. It aligns with growing international expectations that environmental assessments account for broader spatial impacts, enhancing the credibility and robustness of the UK’s post-Brexit environmental governance framework, although that is potentially subject to change by the Government.

Although the clause strengthens the theoretical scope of environmental assessments, it does not clarify the practical mechanisms by which the likely significant effects beyond the UK will be evaluated or enforced. Without that clear guidance, the broader remit could become more symbolic than operational, risking inconsistencies in application. Bearing in mind the time, I would appreciate it if the Minister could briefly come back on those points, and then we would be content not to vote against the clause.

[Matthew Pennycook]

In speaking to the clause, I stressed that the purpose is to ensure that the new system of environmental outcomes reports introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, which this Government are committed to proceeding with, is compliant with all our international obligations. I mentioned, for example, the Espoo convention. The UK is party to that convention, and thus all development must consider whether the project will have likely significant effects on the environment in other states that are also party to it. I understand the shadow Minister’s points, but this is a non-controversial clause that simply ensures that once we bring the new system into force, it is compliant with all our international obligations.