Local Transport: Planning Developments

Debate between Victoria Collins and Freddie van Mierlo

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Victoria Collins]

I agree with parts of the hon. Member’s intervention. The developers have armies of legal teams and, as I will come on to, the national legislation is open to interpretation when it comes to roads. Councils are essentially left powerless to enforce the legislation, because developers find the loopholes. They have the money and the power to push past.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that developers have armies of lawyers, and one of the most frustrating things for local authorities is when they come back again and again. Even when planning authorities reject an application, developers will take it to appeal, and even if the appeal is rejected, they will wait a short period and then come back again. They only have to win once, which is incredibly frustrating for the communities that face the threat.

[Victoria Collins]

Absolutely. On top of that, councils also warn that when they get section 106 money or funding from the community infrastructure levy, the funding available is not enough for the new roads needed for development. They also warn that if we expect section 106 contributions to deliver all new infrastructure, the burden will often be pushed on to new homeowners, as prices can be pushed up.

What is more, there is no guarantee on the delivery or timing of infrastructure plans, often because major infrastructure depends on external bodies or funding cycles, such as for highways and regional transport, as well as on NHS capital planning cycles or educational funding cycles. The Government must adopt an infrastructure-first approach. How will they empower communities to take a cumulative view of the infrastructure impact of planning? What action are the Government taking to address the train capacity and service issues I have highlighted?

Let us turn to the reality on the ground for transport services, starting with roads. Local people put it best. Fiona from Berkhamsted says:

“The roads are completely overwhelmed by traffic through Berkhamsted.”

Anne captures the absurdity of national planning guidance:

“The biggest issue for Berkhamsted is a one-size-fits-all NPPF”—

national planning policy framework—

“for a valley town where the only place left to build is at the top of valley sides, and ancient narrow streets give little scope for cycle routes—certainly not a joined-up network.”

Having once been a keen cyclist in Berkhamsted, I can confirm that the difficulty of getting around means that my poor bike has been left locked up. Sarah from Berkhamsted asks:

“What’s the point of building new houses if there are no pavements for people to walk or safe roads for cars to use?”

Gill from Harpenden is direct, saying:

“The town has so many pinch points on already narrow roads that are already causing jams.”

As I said, the towns and villages in my constituency are old, and many of the roads were built for horse-drawn traffic. Berkhamsted is a hilly place, but there is not a single mention of topography in the national planning framework. Yet the loose definition of “severe”, in terms of cumulative impact tests for roads and traffic, leaves another door wide open for developers.

If someone cannot get around by car, perhaps they can use the bus. Well, that is a whole other story. Under the Conservatives in Hertfordshire, we saw a 56.5% reduction in bus mileage between 2017 and 2023—the biggest reduction in England. That has left us with inaccessible areas where people need a car to get around. The 307 bus in Redbourn runs to Harpenden station only from 9 am, with the last departure at 2 pm, and on Sundays there is no service at all. There is no direct bus connection to local secondary schools. Catherine from Redbourn says it plainly:

“While you might have had to wait ten minutes in London for a bus, here we have three buses a day to Harpenden—you cannot rely on the buses.”

In Berkhamsted, we worked with local campaigners to bring back the 500 bus every half hour, but the service stops at 7 pm. It is a similar story in Tring. I once tried to get a bus across my constituency, from Wheathampstead to Berkhamsted, but what should have been a 30-minute drive took four hours. The recommended route from Harpenden to Berkhamsted is actually via London and costs £35 one way.

Hannah, a sixth-form student from Harpenden, makes the point well:

“Public transport allows me as a young person to visit friends and do activities outside the House—it gives me independence.”

She adds:

“I have never considered living in Harpenden in the future, because it would be far too expensive to buy a place to live.”

That is a double failure by this Government that needs to be heard. Young people say they cannot afford to stay and cannot get around even if they could.

So what about the train? In the last four weeks, only seven out of 122 daily trains from Harpenden to London ran 100% on time. From Berkhamsted to London, only three out of 78 daily departures ran 100% on time, and from Tring there were also only three. From driver availability issues to Thameslink core infrastructure failures and a bottleneck around Croydon, it seems that things will only get worse as pressures grow around the Thameslink line from Bedford to Brighton. Beyond housing development, I have mentioned the other pressures from the expansion of Luton and Gatwick airports, and the Universal Studios development.

There is a two-track bottleneck through central London, and when it fails, the whole line fails. Govia Thameslink Railway has asked the Government for funding for a back-up system; has that been agreed? What are the Government doing to work with rail operators to prepare for the pressures that are building up on the Thameslink line from Bedford to Brighton?

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Victoria Collins and Freddie van Mierlo

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Collins]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and for your patience regarding my earlier intervention. I am very passionate about all elements of the Bill.

On Second Reading, I said:

“Data is the new gold”—[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 302.]

—a gold that could be harnessed to have a profound impact on people’s daily lives, and I stand by that. With exponential advances in innovation almost daily, this has never been truer, so we must get this right.

I rise today to speak to the amendments and new clauses tabled in my name specifically, and to address two urgent challenges: protecting children in our digital world and safeguarding the rights of our creative industry in the age of artificial intelligence. The Bill before us represents a rare opportunity to shape how technology serves people, which I firmly believe is good for both society and business. However, I stand here with mixed emotions: pride in the cross-party work we have accomplished, including with the other place; hope for the progress we can still achieve; but also disappointment that we must fight so hard for protections that should be self-evident.

New clause 1 seeks to raise the age of consent for social media data processing from 13 to 16 years old. We Liberal Democrats are very clear where we stand on this. Young minds were not designed to withstand the psychological assault of today’s social media algorithms. By raising the age at which children can consent to have their data processed by social media services, we can take an important first step towards tackling those algorithms at source. This is a common-sense measure, bringing us in line with many of our European neighbours.

The evidence before us is compelling and demands our attention. When I recently carried out a safer screens tour of schools across Harpenden and Berkhamsted to hear exactly what young people think about the issue, I heard that they are trapped in cycles of harmful content that they never sought out. Students spoke of brain rot and described algorithms that pushed them towards extreme content, despite their efforts to block it.

The evidence is not just anecdotal; it is overwhelming. Child mental health referrals have increased by 477% in just eight years, with nearly half of teenagers with problematic smartphone use reporting anxiety. One in four children aged 12 to 17 have received unwanted sexual images. We know that 82% of parents support Government intervention in this area, while a Liberal Democrat poll showed that seven in 10 people say the Government are not doing enough to protect children online.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

I welcome new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend. Does she agree that raising the age of consent for processing personal data from 13 to 16 will help reduce the use of smartphones in schools by reducing their addictiveness, thereby also improving concentration and educational performance in schools?

[Victoria Collins]

That is exactly what is at the heart of this matter—the data that drives that addictiveness and commercialises our children’s attention is not the way forward.

Many amazing organisations have gathered evidence in this area, and it is abundantly clear that the overuse of children’s data increases their risk of harm. It powers toxic algorithms that trap children in cycles of harmful content, recommender systems that connect them with predators, and discriminatory AI systems that are used to make decisions about them that carry lifelong consequences. Health Professionals for Safer Screens—a coalition of child psychiatrists, paediatricians and GPs— is pleading for immediate legislative action.

This is not a partisan issue. So many of us adults can relate to the feeling of being drawn into endless scrolling on our devices—I will not look around the Chamber too much. Imagine how much more difficult it is for developing minds. This is a cross-party problem, and it should not be political, but we need action now.

Let me be absolutely clear: this change is not about restricting young people’s digital access or opposing technology and innovation; it is about requiring platforms to design their services with children’s safety as the default, not as an afterthought. For years we have watched as our children’s wellbeing has been compromised by big tech companies and their profits. Our call for action is supported by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 5rights, Healthcare Professionals for Safer Screens, Girlguiding, Mumsnet and the Online Safety Act network. This is our chance to protect our children. The time to act is not 18 months down the line, as the Conservatives suggest, but now. I urge Members to support new clause 1 and take the crucial steps towards creating a digital world where children can truly thrive.

To protect our children, I have also tabled amendment 45 to clause 80, which seeks to ensure that automated decision-making systems cannot be used to make impactful decisions about children without robust safeguards. The Bill must place a child’s best interests at the heart of any such system, especially where education or healthcare are concerned.

We must protect the foundational rights of our creators in this new technological landscape, which is why I have tabled new clause 2. The UK’s creative industries contribute £126 billion annually to our economy and employ more than 2.3 million people—they are vital to our economy and our cultural identity. These are the artists, musicians, writers and creators who inspire us, define us and proudly carry British creativity on to the global stage. Yet today, creative professionals across the UK watch with mounting alarm as AI models trained on their life’s work generate imitations without permission, payment or even acknowledgment.

New clause 2 would ensure that operators of web crawlers and AI models comply with existing UK copyright law, regardless of where they are based. This is not about stifling innovation; it is about ensuring that innovation respects established rights and is good for everyone. Currently, AI companies are scraping creative works at an industrial scale. A single AI model may be trained on thousands of copyrighted works without permission or compensation.

The UK company Polaron is a fantastic example, creating AI technology to help engineers to characterise materials, quantify microstructural variation and optimise microstructural designs faster than ever before. Why do I bring up Polaron? It is training an AI model built from scratch without using copyright materials.

Chalk Streams: Sewage Discharge

Debate between Victoria Collins and Freddie van Mierlo

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Victoria Collins]

Absolutely. As my hon. Friend says, chalk streams are extremely rare. There are almost 200 in the world—not many at all. As for regulating our water, Ofwat simply is not fit for purpose, and we ask the Minister to replace it with a new clean water authority that takes relevant powers from the Environment Agency. We ask her to strengthen the regulatory powers and resources and set legally binding targets to prevent sewage discharge in our highly sensitive nature sites.

The clean water authority should have the power to revoke the licence of poorly performing water companies swiftly, fine top executives of water companies and initiate prosecution. It should increase water monitoring with new sewage inspectors, including unannounced inspections, with the aim of ending the self-monitoring of water companies. When it comes to water companies, we must hold them to account and reform the way in which they work. We must ask for meaningful targets and deadlines to be set for water companies to end sewage discharges, with local environmental experts on water company boards. Water companies should publish 25-year investment plans to encourage sound investment and promote the use of nature-based solutions.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

My constituency suffered quite considerably from flooding in the past month. One reason is that chalk streams can be over-engineered, culverted and canalised through villages. Nature-based solutions offer a really good solution to improve the flow of rivers. Does my hon. Friend agree with me on that point?

[Victoria Collins]

Absolutely. We must also see a ban on bonuses for water company executives until sewage spills end and leaks are fixed. Ultimately, we need to transform water companies into public benefit companies.

Our precious chalk streams are of rare, global ecological importance and the backdrop to our towns, villages and daily lives. We must protect them for our future generations and for today’s generation. We cannot squander the opportunity to protect them under our watch.