Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 General Committees

[Matthew Pennycook]

That is a fair question and the hon. Gentleman pre-empts the next point that I was going to make, specifically about local accountability. This is important. The NSIP consenting process provides substantial opportunity for interested parties, including local communities and local authorities, to have their say on proposals going through that process.

Under the Planning Act 2008, local authorities are invited to submit a local impact report giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development on their area, which the Secretary of State must have regard to when deciding the application. The examination process, which all NSIP applicants need to go through, provides the opportunity for local communities, interested parties and statutory bodies to make representations and for them to be considered by the examining authority in examination of the application and in the subsequent report that will be made to the Secretary of State for a decision on whether to grant development consent.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

This is a little parochial to London, but can we ensure that local authorities in London are consulted, along with the Mayor of London, so that their power to decide is not usurped by the mayor?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As I said, the NSIP regime provides for local communities, local authorities, other statutory consultees and stakeholders to input into that process. In a similar way to how a local planning authority undertakes a period of consultation to enable views on a planning application to be expressed, the examination process under the NSIP regime—which all NSIP applications must go through—provides the opportunity for local communities and interested parties to make representations to be taken into account by the examining authority in examination of the application and by the Secretary of State when they come to decide whether to grant development consent.

In the time I have, I should respond to a couple of other issues that were raised. Power usage was a point made by the hon. Members for Orpington and for Taunton and Wellington. Energy and carbon footprint are a key issue for data centres. The sector operates under a climate change agreement to encourage greater uptake of energy efficiency measures among operators. The UK has committed to decarbonising the electricity system by 2030, subject to security of supply, and data centres will increasingly be powered by renewable energy resources.

Newer, purpose-built and modern data centres can provide compute at a higher efficiency than older, converted data centres, in terms of the amount of power they draw on, but data centres will play a major part in powering the high-tech solutions to environmental challenges, whether that is new technology that increases the energy efficiency of energy use across our towns and cities, or development and application of innovative new tech that takes carbon out of the atmosphere. We are, however, very conscious that data centres draw on quite a significant amount of firm power, and the Government will take that into account in making decisions as to whether individual applications go through.

Lastly, I should address heat, which the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly mentioned. He is absolutely right to say that data centres produce a significant amount of heat. The technology exists to capture that heat and to use it in district heating networks, or to meet significant demand. There is potential, therefore, for the heat to be captured and used to further benefit than happens currently, but there have already been successful examples—which are worth highlighting—of using data centre heat for hospitals, homes and other uses. One such example is the use of a data centre to heat a local swimming pool in Devon. We will take that into account, as I am sure DSIT did in the drafting of its national policy statement and in its conversations with other Departments. However, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments are brought to the attention of the relevant Minister.

House Building: London

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

Of course I will, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for securing this debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his excellent speech, much of which I agreed with, especially about using the TfL space.

The TfL chairman is Sadiq Khan and, as Mayor of London, he is responsible not only for TfL but for house building in London. If we look at some of his promises in 2016, he said his first priority would be tackling the housing crisis. His first manifesto promised a step change in new housing supply, and that 50% of new homes would be affordable. Here we are nearly a decade later, and he certainly has not delivered that step change. House building has in fact ground to a halt—it is down 73% in London over the past year. The Government have had to step in to water down City Hall’s anti-growth affordability targets, because there is no way of avoiding it: despite Sadiq Khan’s boasts, he has comprehensively failed to build. After nine years at the helm, Sadiq Khan has nothing to show for it. Four fifths of homes built last year, as previously mentioned, were approved under Boris Johnson’s mayoralty. The average home in London cost £483,000 in 2016. Today, it is about £560,000. The average rent cost £1,292 per month in 2016. Today, it is £2,252.

As has been discussed, it is not a question of money: Sadiq Khan has been given nearly £9 billion to deliver on housing in London. It is not a question of powers; he has strategic planning powers in London. Instead, it has been about bad policy. His London plan is onerous and expensive to adhere to, and his affordability targets have acted as a tax on house building. The Government know this. Instead of addressing the problem, they are dancing around the issue. They scrapped a mandated review of the London plan after independent experts found it to “frustrate rather than facilitate” building on the brownfield sites that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup discussed.

The Government have cut the community infrastructure levy but kept the more expensive mayoral levy. Instead of taking powers away from the failing mayor they are rewarding him, giving him power to call in developments of 50 homes on green-belt sites. Instead of removing the obstacles to building on brownfield sites they are weakening green-belt protections.

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend speaks passionately about this, but does he not agree that this absolutely shows the problem with centralising not just targets but powers in the hands of one person—the mayor or a combined authority? We need much more involvement of local communities, and we need councils to have a greater say on planning matters.

[Peter Fortune]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is worth re-emphasising that the mayor has had responsibility for delivering housing in London for nine years and has fundamentally failed to deliver on his promises.

On weakening green-belt protections, which matters so much to those of us representing outer London boroughs, it is a bizarre decision to effectively block building on vacant former industrial sites in inner London near tube stations, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, and instead force thousands of homes on to poorly served farmers’ fields in Bromley. If the Government want to meet their housing targets, they need to realise that Sadiq Khan is not a builder—he is a blocker, and the record proves it.

Supporting High Streets

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Picture this: Downing Street, a hub of activity, alive with purpose, people moving with intent, heated debate and entrepreneurship at every turn. You look confused, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not talking about the Downing Street here in SW1, but Downing Street in Farnham, where the high street starts and where the most heated debate is over whether the Farnham infrastructure project will ever end and the concerns about the local Lib Dems whacking up car parking charges at the same time.

The other big debate is about how high streets will survive the headwinds of tax rises that this Government have thrown against them time and again. From hospitality to leisure and retail, the high streets of Farnham, Haslemere, Liphook and the new town centre in Bordon are hives of business activity. Some 98% of the businesses across my constituency are small or medium-sized enterprises, providing the backbone of our local economy and the foundation of community life.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

My wonderful constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill is also home to many SMEs, and they tell me that they are being punished because of the irresponsible decisions taken by this Labour Government. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Gregory Stafford]

I entirely agree. The truth is that Labour does not have the backing of small and medium-sized businesses because it is stifling growth with its costly net zero commitments, layers of red tape, changes to the living wage, cuts to business rate relief, the Employment Rights Bill and higher national insurance contributions. That is a toxic cocktail designed to choke off enterprise and ambition.

The Conservatives have a very good record on supporting local businesses. Just think back to the pandemic, when we delivered 100% business rates relief for many businesses. Indeed, when we left office last year, business rates relief was at 75%. Yet what did Labour do? As soon as it came in, it slashed that relief to just 40%, which is absolutely crippling for small businesses in my constituency. That is why I am proud and pleased that we have announced the abolition of business rates altogether, meaning that nearly a quarter of a million businesses will benefit. Financed by the golden rule, that is responsible, sustainable and, most importantly, pro-growth.

An hon. Member on the Government Benches argued that removing the rates will let landlords raise rents, but that assumes a balanced market. The reality is oversupply, with retail space outstripping demand. Abolishing business rates will therefore not drive up rents, but will make high streets more sustainable. The Brightwells development in Farnham, in my constituency, proves the point.

When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition visited my constituency last week, we met Steve at Hamilton’s, Mario at Serina, and Julian at The Castle pub. All three said the same thing: business rates are crippling, HMRC’s red tape is growing and energy bills are too high. That is why I am delighted that we have a plan to scrap business rates and cut energy bills for those small businesses.

In Bordon, in my constituency, we are working intensely to ensure that the new high street and town centre can thrive. We are making progress, but that progress will be undermined by this Government’s attack on business. These are not just businesses; they are the heartbeat of our community. They train young people, they create jobs and they invest in the place they call home. I am also afraid that the disconnect that Labour shows nationally is echoed by the Liberal Democrats in my area. They simply do not understand the struggles that our high streets face under this Government and therefore have no empathy for our local businesses.

High streets are not just the commercial zones; they are social, and the social and economic soul of our towns. Supporting them requires a Government willing to protect essential services, invest in rural areas and cut through the bureaucracy that holds small businesses back. Conservatives understand that if we back ambition, we build prosperity. If we bury it in bureaucracy, we destroy it. Our high streets and the communities that they serve deserve better than that.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Peter Fortune Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

This Bill is supposed to be the Government’s flagship piece of legislation to empower England’s cities, regions and communities, but there is disappointingly little in it about strengthening accountability in existing devolved bodies, especially the Greater London Authority.

It is right that power is returned to cities, regions and communities, but those who hold devolved power must also be held accountable for their decisions, actions and delivery. Nowhere in England enjoys more devolved powers than London. That is in part why it is the only area with a directly elected Assembly, devoted to scrutiny. However, as the Mayor of London’s responsibilities, powers and budget have grown, the Assembly has become weaker and weaker in comparison. A notable issue is the two-thirds majority required to amend the mayor’s budget and strategies, but that is impossible to achieve in the London Assembly, which is why no budget or strategy has been amended in 25 years.

Unlike other combined authorities, the Assembly cannot call in mayoral decisions and London’s 32 boroughs are excluded from decision making. That means the mayor does not have to seek consensus, negotiate or even listen to opposing views. In a city the size of London, it effectively alienates and disenfranchises millions of people. That political fracture was made clear when Mayor Khan imposed the ultra low emission zone expansion on outer London, despite overwhelming opposition.

There is a glaring democratic and accountability deficit in London, which is why so many of my constituents—and, I know, the constituents of other Members—are now questioning the place of the London borough of Bromley in the Greater London Authority. They have never paid more to City Hall, yet people feel that they are ignored on every issue. Mayor Khan has increased council tax by 77% in nine years, meaning that Londoners pay nearly £500 a year on average to fund his policies. Let us not forget the huge sums that Londoners now pay City Hall thanks to his road charges. In the first three months of this year, motorists forked out nearly £220 million thanks to his ULEZ charge, the Blackwall tunnel toll and his hiked congestion charge. What do they receive in return for all that money? ULEZ cameras, too few police officers and green-belt protections being ripped up.

Anyone who wants to see devolution in London succeed must support measures to make the Mayor of London more accountable. First, this Bill introduces simple majority voting in combined authorities as the default decision-making process, but it stops short of doing that in the London Assembly. That is a mistake. It should abolish the two-thirds majority requirement to amend budgets and strategies, allowing a simple majority of Assembly members to force changes. That alone would transform London’s politics and force mayors to the table. Secondly, this Government should consult on a new model to give the 32 boroughs a voice and a vote in London, so that Bromley can no longer be ignored. Finally, this Bill should give the London Assembly the power to call in mayoral decisions.

My constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill have had enough of being ignored by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. If the Government want to maintain the support of Londoners for devolution, the London Mayor must be made accountable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The Grenfell fire was a national tragedy, and we must never forget the 72 lives that were lost. It was a honour to pay my respects on the eighth anniversary at the weekend. We remain fully committed to introducing the Hillsborough law, including a legal duty of candour for public services and criminal sanctions for those who refuse to comply. I know my hon. Friend speaks with passion and authority on the matter and, having spoken to the Grenfell community, I know that they really want to see this happen as quickly as possible. We are exploring reforms to ensure that we can get to the truth more quickly and deliver the meaningful change that these victims deserve.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

Bishop Challoner school has been helping to educate Bromley pupils for nearly 75 years, but it will close its doors in July due to Labour’s decision to impose VAT on independent schools. Given the Deputy Prime Minister’s well-publicised views on independent schools, does she welcome this closure or would she like to apologise to the parents, pupils and staff?

Havering Borough and Essex Devolution

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right: any type of devolution has to have the consent of the people. I have to say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not believe that the current Greater London devolution arrangement really has the consent of people in Havering. I think that if there were to be a referendum tomorrow, they would overwhelmingly vote to leave Greater London and be a unitary authority, but maybe there are other options. That is why this debate about Havering borough and Essex devolution is so pertinent today, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to my arguments.

To return to what I was saying about the police, all but one of our police stations have been closed, and my constituents are deeply unhappy with the lack of police cover we receive, despite the huge amount we contribute financially to the Greater London Authority. This is no fault of the dedicated officers who form the day-to-day, rank-and-file backbone of our local police operation. The local force is dedicated and determined to respond to and prevent instances of criminality that blight the locality, but they are undermined by a lack of the resources that we in Havering pay for, but simply do not receive. Indeed, if you speak to my constituents, they will tell you that they believe Havering residents are in effect subsidising inner London areas and, through the Greater London Authority, funding what I believe has become a London-wide bureaucracy in City Hall and associated London-wide quangos. It is hard to see how the people of Havering benefit from that, and more often than not, it has no relevance to local people in my borough whatsoever.

The reason for my Adjournment debate is to ask the Minister to please allow us to look at alternatives. Now is the time to consider Havering’s future. With devolution for what is termed Greater Essex now being implemented, this must surely be the right moment to examine a change that would give the people of Romford, Hornchurch, Upminster and Rainham hope that we could be part of something that better suits our local needs and goes with the grain of our historical identity. If the Government truly believe in genuine devolution, I hope the Minister will agree that local people should determine what is best for them, and a borough such as Havering must surely have the freedom to consider all options for our future. I request that the Government open up a meaningful conversation with the people of Havering about devolution for Essex that could include Havering, so that we can look sensibly and in detail at ideas for change.

Let me make one thing crystal clear. The freedom travel pass for pensioners is often cited as one of the benefits of being part of Greater London, as if the Mayor of London provides it to us for free, which is not the case. My borough pays millions to buy in to this scheme. It has always done so and will always continue to do so. We pay millions of pounds for the privilege, but I will always defend and support the freedom pass as our older folk deserve the benefits it gives them.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend on an excellent speech. Does he agree that boroughs such as mine—Bromley—face many of the frustrations that his constituents in Havering face, and that we are also contributing huge amounts of money to the Mayor of London?

[Andrew Rosindell]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is completely right. The people of Romford feel the same as the people of Bromley, Ruislip and other parts of outer Greater London who are disenchanted with the current settlement.

On the freedom pass, I have long argued that the scheme should be extended to all council areas where Transport for London operates. Indeed, the Elizabeth line runs to Shenfield and the Central line runs to Epping. Other TfL services operate in local authority areas that go way beyond the supremely outdated boundaries of Greater London, to the west side of London in particular, so any travel schemes like the freedom pass must surely be offered equally to all the local authorities that TfL serves. The freedom pass for older people and others should not be used as a reason never to change the structure of local government in what I call the capital region of the UK, which now stretches far beyond the Greater London boundaries of the 1960s.

May I also make it clear that I do not agree with the creation of super-unitary authorities? I believe they will prove to be very remote from towns, villages and neighbourhoods and from real people who want local democracy to be truly local, with councillors who genuinely know their wards and understand the areas they represent. If the Government are, however, set on going down this path, as they are now doing in Essex, I believe it is inevitable that boroughs in Greater London will go in the same direction at some stage, with amalgamations of councils taking place. Already, there is much discussion about this prospect, with varying proposals being put forward and openly spoken of by think-tanks, among local government officials and in London elite circles, of course.

Let me say here and now that if Havering is destined for eventual merger with east London boroughs in some new super-council configuration, that is not something my constituents or I would support. We in Havering are a town and country borough, with an Essex heritage and a special character that local people cherish and will fight to retain.

So, based on the principle the Government are already pursuing with the creation of expanded unitary authorities, I ask the Minister to please consider Havering for collaboration with, for example, our neighbouring Essex local authorities such as Brentwood or Epping Forest, both of which are also served by Transport for London and have much in common with Romford and Havering.

It has been evident for a long time that Havering is at a crossroads, and it is now becoming abundantly clear to anyone who dares to look that either we continue on a path of future London integration or we take a new path in line with our heritage, which fully realises our Essex roots, culturally, economically, and politically. I, alongside the people of Havering, strongly argue that this second path is the one we should, and indeed must, walk.

It could just be, much to the surprise of many of my constituents, that the new Labour Government’s plan for devolution and local government reorganisation provides the opportunity we need to finally take control of our own affairs and have our future restored to becoming part of Essex local government structures once again. It would be a great plus for the people of Romford if it was a Labour Government that actually delivered what they have been asking for for so long.

This is what I have been fighting for over the course of my entire political life—not as a personal preoccupation, but because it is what everyone in my constituency believes, from local families and business owners to pensioners and market traders, and indeed young people. They all tell me that is what they want: they want their identity restored to being part of Essex and having our local control away from central London and City Hall. It is high time that their voices were listened to and this opportunity was seized to shape Havering and Essex for the better.

I believe that today we have a once-in-almost-a-century chance to look afresh at the old boundaries of Greater London that were constructed six decades ago. The entire region around our great United Kingdom capital of London has changed dramatically since those days, and we should therefore seize this moment to be bold and look at options for change that local people would be happy to see, thus giving my constituents in Romford, Hornchurch and across the Borough of Havering hope for a much better structure of local government, rightly determined and supported by the people it is established to serve.

Local Government Finances: London

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.

Before serving the people of Bromley and Biggin Hill as their Member of Parliament, I served them as a councillor in the borough for 12 years. I was also privileged to be deputy leader of that great borough. I have, therefore, long been familiar with the financial challenges that face local government. As much as the Labour party would like to pin the blame solely on decisions taken in 2010, the story is far longer than that.

For Bromley, the story of underfunding started in 1997, under the previous Labour Government. Bromley council’s net budget has reduced by more than a quarter in real terms and nearly two fifths per person. It is true that the previous Conservative Government asked councils to make significant savings to tackle the country’s deficit but, ultimately, without those difficult decisions our nation would not have been able to weather the financial storm caused by the coronavirus.

I regret that the previous Conservative Government did not deliver a long-promised fair funding review, but I recognise that that was hard to achieve in the aftermath of the pandemic, the energy crisis and high inflation. It is a problem that successive Governments of all stripes have failed to grasp. The new Labour Government’s actions have made it even more challenging for councils. It is the same old Labour story in London: more money is spent on Labour areas and less on the Conservative suburbs.

Bromley council was awarded the second-lowest funding settlement amount per person. If Bromley received the average settlement grant of funding per person for London, the borough would receive an additional £80 million a year. In addition to inadequate settlements, Bromley did not benefit from the recovery grant. With inflation rising fast again under the Labour Government, the funding pressures will worsen, further eroding councils’ financial standing. Nor have councils received adequate funding to cover the cost of Labour’s decision to increase employer’s national insurance contributions. This jobs tax will further push up costs, especially in social care.

Bromley is a well-managed borough, and I commend its Conservative leader, Councillor Colin Smith, and his excellent team, but like all London councils Bromley faces enormous pressures that are simply unaffordable. We retain the fourth-lowest level of council tax in outer London because we are a low-cost borough. Bromley council has saved more than £150 million since 2011, but being a low-tax, low-cost borough means there are few remaining savings.

It is becoming increasingly impossible for councils to balance the books. Bromley can this year, but only thanks to the authority’s reserves, carefully built and protected over many years of sensible and responsible stewardship, despite opposition calls to reduce them. That is not sustainable in the long term. It is why a quarter of London boroughs have already effectively declared bankruptcy and requested exceptional financial support.

Future local government settlements must adequately fund councils to deliver, especially considering the rising national insurance costs. They should reflect the higher costs that all London boroughs face, fixing the area cost adjustments that wrongly say that Bromley is one of the most affordable places in London. There should also be a mechanism to reward low-cost and efficient authorities, instead of asking them to make savings while spendthrift authorities are given more.

Finally, the Government should allow councils to change statutory charges to match costs, and reduce ringfencing to allow councils to be more flexible and more concerned with their own priorities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The Secretary of State is leading the charge in building 1.5 million homes to tackle the supply challenge that we face as a country, because of the housing crisis we inherited. We also announced £500 million for the affordable homes programme in the Budget and funding for homelessness services has gone up by £233 million, bringing the total to a billion pounds. I am pleased to say that Luton will receive more than £6.3 million. Furthermore, we are investing £210,000 in the emergency accommodation reduction pilot.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

T4. Following the Grenfell tragedy, the residents of Northpoint in my constituency have had to pay charges of nearly £700,000 for a waking watch, fire wardens and alarms. Given the Government’s manifesto commitment to better protect leaseholders from costs, what steps can the Minister take to help my constituents with the reimbursement of those charges?

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

Sadly, I hear these stories across the country as well. The reality is that the best step that can be taken is for the developer to enter into the cladding safety scheme, to get the building remediated and to get the costs removed. In the meantime, we have made money available through the waking watch replacement fund, so that that particularly expensive way of keeping a building safe can be replaced. There are ways of tackling the pain in the short term, but the reality is that the only solution is the remediation of buildings, and that is why we are pushing on so hard through our remediation acceleration plan.

Building Safety and Resilience

Peter Fortune Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have learned from the potential misstep of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), and I promise to gaze at you throughout my entire speech. A maiden speech is, by tradition and design, quite light-hearted, and that is how I have fashioned mine, but I want the House to be in no doubt that this debate is on a very serious issue. I welcome the cross-party conversation about the disaster at Grenfell, and I know that my constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill send their thoughts and prayers to the victims and survivors and their families, and to others who have been impacted.

It is obvious that I represent the finest constituency in all of this great United Kingdom. Before I set out my case, let me say a few words about my main predecessor—noting, of course, those communities we welcome from the constituencies of both Beckenham and Orpington. The majority of my new constituency, however, is inherited from Bromley and Chislehurst and Sir Bob Neill KC. Sir Bob was and is a creature of this House, a magnificent speaker, a bon viveur and a good friend to many in this Chamber. Bob dedicated his adult life to service. He started as a councillor before moving to the Greater London Council. The GLC, of course, met its demise in 1986. Bob, unperturbed, simply hung around until it was reinvented in 2000, when he became the first assembly member for Bexley and Bromley.

In 2006, on the passing of the much-loved awkward squad Member Eric Forth, Bob fought a difficult by-election to become the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. For nearly a quarter of a century, Bob has been part of the fabric of our community, always ready to fight for those who needed a voice. Bob has a deep admiration and love for the law. He has held many positions in politics, but I believe that it was as Chairman of the Justice Committee that he reached his pinnacle. His knowledge and depth of understanding have been of unquestionable benefit to the House, but his love of the law is trumped by a love that is much deeper. It is not West Ham. It is not opera. It is not even Gibraltar, to which I know he has given so much time. His greatest love is for Ann-Louise, the woman, the wife and the friend who has made him so happy. Members will know that fate took a particularly callous decision early on in their relationship, but they will also know that Bob and Ann-Louise faced that challenge with their typical resilience and humour. I thank him for his service, and for the graciousness and kindness with which he has always treated me, and I wish his family well.

Before I move on to making the self-evident case that Bromley and Biggin Hill is the greatest constituency that has ever existed, I want to make a note of another previous Member for Bromley: the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. As Minister for housing, he took on the responsibility of meeting new and ambitious housing targets. He was not keen at first, writing in his diary in 1951 that it was

“not my cup of tea at all”.

Despite his concerns, he met the inflated target a year early, and changed the lives of families right across the country by presenting them with the opportunity to live in a safe and secure home. I wonder how he would feel—this links to the substance of the debate—if he knew that residents of North Point in Bromley are still suffering due to a cladding crisis that is no fault of their own. This is an injustice that has gone on for too long, and it is vital that the whole House work together to free those who are impacted from the shackles of poor governance and lack of accountability.

Before I talk further about the constituency, I would like to say thank you to the best people I know. I cannot linger here for too long or I shall be reduced to an emotional puddle, but I must recognise my beautiful family, without whom I am nothing. My extraordinary children make me so proud, and I am blessed with the most beautiful, talented, funny and patient wife in Anna-Marie. She is the most wonderful and kindest person I have ever met; I will never be good enough for her, but I will keep trying.

To business. Bromley and Biggin Hill is a long, thin and elegant constituency, which is why it comes as no surprise that its constituents chose me, an uncanny physical manifestation of the place. It is a wonderful place, comprising Sundridge, Bickley, Hayes and Keston, the bit of Darwin that is in the family, along with Coney Hall, Bromley common, Biggin Hill and of course the ancient market town of Bromley. Rather than give a geographical tour, I will demonstrate the amazing contributions from across Bromley and Biggin Hill to the fields of literature, sport, science and politics, and set out how we saved the world.

I will start with literature. If readers have enjoyed exciting stories of time travel or invisible men; or secretly encouraged William, the unruly schoolboy; or empathised with the buddha of suburbia, they have been enjoying a writer from Bromley and Biggin Hill. H.G. Wells, Richmal Crompton and Hanif Kureishi are all connected to the constituency. Enid Blyton was one of the first teachers at Bickley Park school, and academic writers and thinkers, including Sir Anthony Seldon, have spent time scribbling in the constituency, but perhaps the greatest intellectual offering came as a pre-ironic criticism of consumerism and a reflection on the UK’s struggling agricultural base, all expressed in musical form. Produced by an epoch-defining philosophical movement from the ’70s, the song went:

“Spam, spam, spam…spam, spam, spam, spam...lovely spam”,

and was set in the fictional Green Midget café in Bromley.

I have a pub quiz question for the sports round. Who can tell me the only English football league club in the constituency of a Conservative MP? It is indeed the mighty Bromley FC, recently promoted and going great guns, clearly due to the sound political stewardship of the constituency—and I look forward to chants of “You’ve got the only Tory” from Opposition Members when we take on Notts County at home in Hayes Lane later this week.

We have also added to the canon scientific. In 1843, Thomas John Hussey, the rector of Hayes, noticed anomalies in the orbit of the recently discovered planet Uranus. He wrote to the future astronomer royal and talked of

“the possibility of some disturbing body beyond Uranus”.

[Interruption.] Members are making their own jokes up; stop it. This led to further investigation and discovery, ultimately contributing to our modern understanding of the solar system. What I am saying is that we invented Neptune.

Moving on to politics, while we had our fair share of lefty types, notably anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin, who lived with us for a bit, my favourite local communist has always been Coney Hall’s irrepressible Elsy Borders, who led the famous mortgage strike of 1937. Elsy intentionally defaulted on mortgage payments, demanding that the structural flaws in her newly acquired building be repaired. I cannot but help think how this relates to the substantive issue we are debating.

While I have some Labour Members onside, I can delight them further by informing them that we in Bromley and Biggin Hill also invented the modern income tax—but allow me to win back Conservative colleagues by explaining that the revenue raised was used to fight the French. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I got them back. The tax was introduced by our local boy done good, William Pitt the younger, who was born and resided in the constituency. He was assisted into his political position by his father, William Pitt the elder, another resident. This original political nepo-baby went on to have an extraordinary career, with perhaps the highlight being the conversations he held with his colleague William Wilberforce around a tree in the grounds of the Pitt residence. A Wilberforce diary entry in 1788 reads:

“At length, I well remember after a conversation with Mr. Pitt in the open air at the root of an old tree at Holwood, just above the steep descent into the vale of Keston, I resolved to give notice on a fit occasion in the House of Commons of my intention to bring forward the abolition of the slave-trade”—

evidence that we in this House do occasionally get something right.

Finally, I turn my attention to the wonderful town of Biggin Hill. It is more Kent than London, with its rolling green hills and rural lifestyle, but Biggin Hill has given us so much. I urge Members to visit the wonderful Biggin Hill museum and chapel, hear the stories of “the few”, and imagine those young men strapping themselves into their Spitfires and Hurricanes, accelerating down the runway at Biggin Hill, gently pulling back on the stick and gliding free from the bonds of Earth. Imagine the cognitive dissonance that must have arisen from the exhilaration of floating in the blue Kentish sky, and the terror of the strife awaiting them across a freezing channel.

This Sunday, 15 September, is Battle of Britain Day, when we remember the service and sacrifice of those who gave their life so that we can debate the issues of the day in this place, and be both safe and free. They delivered this freedom with a bravery and selflessness that I can never begin to repay. As the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill, I recognise the honour and responsibility of forever remembering them, and I know that my privilege of serving the whole constituency was delivered by the sacrifice of those who were so much better than me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That speech has set a very high bar. The next maiden speech is from Josh Fenton-Glynn.