partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   It is a great pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman back and looking so well. He is genuinely an hon. Gentleman and it is always a pleasure to speak with him. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I suspect that there are lots of things that he could bring to this House from his long and experienced life. He is also a great champion of nuclear and the difference that made in his constituency, and I agree with him on this. It is helpful, of course, that he has taken the line much more closely of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey)—I have done some research—who said: “Jackdaw, I personally have always felt made sense because we’re going to need a lot of gas in the transition.” So I think the Lib Dem position is actually to support today’s decision.

   Hansard source
2. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   Let me say to my hon. Friend, as I have said to him repeatedly, we regret the process that was underway when we came into government and the lack of planning for the workforce in his constituency. Contrary to what he says, we have in fact invested a significant amount of money in supporting that workforce to find alternative employment, and we are continuing to spend money on developing the projects that will take advantage of the £200 million from the National Wealth Fund. Unfortunately, I cannot magic those projects up out of thin air, so we are doing everything we possibly can to support them. We have set up Great British Energy as a publicly owned energy company. It is already investing in supply chains, in supporting the North sea transition, and in investing and taking a stake in the projects that we are supporting across the energy space and that will bring jobs to his constituency and across the country. I hope he will get behind some of the initiatives that the Government are driving forward.

   Hansard source
3. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   I am certain that the Prime Minister did not say that, because the truth is that although this decision is important for energy security reasons, it will do nothing to bring down prices. Prices are set on an international market, and no amount of extraction from the UK shelf will change the price—those are just the facts of the matter. It is important we do this. I say to the hon. Member and his party that we have never been a “turn off the taps” party in the North sea, but his party is for drilling for every last drop and ignoring the tens of thousands of jobs, in constituencies that it represents, that are currently relying on offshore wind and other technologies. He would turn his back on all those jobs, and it is absolutely shameful that his party would leave this country not more energy secure, but vulnerable at the very moment we should be building up our energy sovereignty.

   Hansard source
4. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   My hon. Friend is right on his point about jobs, although I reiterate that direct jobs are often not the whole story with such projects, as there is a whole ecosystem around jobs. Skills is one of the most important things, and it is an area devolved to the Scottish Government. We have had a good partnership working on a lot of the transition support for workers. We have joint funded projects for North sea workers and will continue to do that because it is important that we match together the UK Government’s responsibilities with the Scottish Government’s responsibilities. Clearly, there is, however, a real issue in Scotland with the hollowing out of further education, which is the route for many of the skilled jobs we need in our economy, not least building the transmission system of the future, which needs highly skilled welders more than anything else. We need apprenticeships and further education, and I hope that the Scottish Government will invest even more in colleges across the country.

   Hansard source
5. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   I can give the hon. Member that assurance, but she does not need to wait on the new wealth fund; we have already committed funding to doing that. We published the North sea future plan, which charts a course for the future of the North sea, focused on not only oil and gas but the industries that come next and with the workers right at the centre of it. It is focused on how we provide the training support so that we can recognise the huge read-across from oil and gas skills into a lot of the other energy jobs and into defence and advanced manufacturing. We need to deploy those skills so that we can support workers the whole way through that process. We are already getting on with delivering it, and the North sea future jobs service should launch early next year.

   Hansard source
6. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   Both are important questions. First, I recognise the point my hon. Friend makes around energy independence. We do require gas in the system at the moment, so this decision is partly around how we increase domestic production. But the long-term energy security and our energy independence do not come from oil and gas, which we will always be a net importer of at this point on, and so we have to build a way to get us off that fossil fuel rollercoaster in the future. Secondly, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that off-gas-grid households have felt the significant impact of the war in the middle east as heating oil prices have skyrocketed. We very quickly put in place a fund to provide support for those households—much quicker than the previous Government did when Russia invaded Ukraine. I encourage all his constituents to ensure they have accessed that fund as people will be starting to refill tanks at this time of year, but we are also doing as much as we can to support, through the warm homes plan, the decarbonisation of those households who, of course, have access to the electricity grid and so can take advantage of solar panels, batteries and heat pumps, and we will say more about that in due course.

   Hansard source
7. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   It is a well-timed question because I am joining the hon. Lady in her constituency tomorrow to speak to some of the supply chain businesses that will help build the Gwyndod power station and to visit the site where Gwyndod will be built. It is an important example of where the last generation of nuclear power can turn into the next generation of apprentices in this new power station, with the grandchildren of people who worked at the Wylfa power station before. It is a huge opportunity, and I want to work with her and the Welsh Government on ensuring that we get as much economic opportunity from the Gwyndod project as possible with the supply chain jobs in her constituency and across Wales.

   Hansard source
8. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the importance of investing in renewables. On his broader question about consenting decisions, every single individual application is considered on its own merits, with its own evidence base and its own consultation process. The Rosebank decision is separate from the Jackdaw decision. We have concluded the evidence stage and the Secretary of State will make a decision in due course.

   Hansard source
9. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

   Jackdaw Gasfield

   I agree with the hon. Lady absolutely that we are in a climate emergency. We all lived through a summer that demonstrated that more than anything we have seen. I have heard many people say it was the warmest summer on record, but in the future it will probably be seen to have been one of the coldest summers. We have to do something about that. I am fed up with hearing people say that we should just work on adaptation. We do have to work on adaptation, but we also have to do everything that we possibly can to stop the situation from becoming worse. That is why we are doing all that we can on an international level and why we are building renewables as quickly as possible. I agree with her that the cheapest energy for homeowners is the energy that they do not use, and that the more we can do to upgrade our homes in this country the better. That is what the warm homes plan is all about. By devolving it to local areas, they can make their own local choices about what works for them.

   Hansard source
10. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I will not comment on future decisions, but the decision I am outlining today is clearly taking into consideration environmental impact, and all other decisions will do likewise. The Labour party has a proud record of passing the Climate Change Act 2008 and setting world-leading targets. For those who say that Britain should shrink from the world stage, those decisions have been hugely important for driving the transition to clean power in countries across the world. We are not alone in doing this and we have to do that even more. With consensus across the political divide, we cut emissions enormously. I was there at the closure of our last coal power station. We have made great progress, but there is a huge amount more to do to ensure we break the link with gas, to bring down people’s bills and to tackle the climate emergency, which is no longer some future threat but an ever-present reality.

    Hansard source
11. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    We have heard loud and clear that the standing charge is the most frustrating part of the bill for people, because it is not driven by the individual choices they make about energy use but by a fixed price on the bill. The challenge with gas in particular is that we want people to use less, but there is little incentive to do that if the standing charge remains the same. I do not pretend it will be easy: the standing charge still has costs that have to be paid for and the gas network still has to be funded, but the Prime Minister has committed to working through how we can make the standing charge fairer and encourage people to make decarbonisation choices for affordability reasons. That is important for all of us and, crucially, it will bring down people’s bills.

    Hansard source
12. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I hear what my hon. Friend says. On her last point, we are absolutely seized of the fact that the wildfires and the impact that heatwaves have had on people’s lives is evidence enough, if anyone ever needed it—I know she certainly does not because she has been a champion on this issue for a long time—that we have to take firm action on tackling climate change. That requires us to design a pathway to get to net zero that recognises the fact that we will need oil and gas as part of that transition, and that there are lower emissions coming out of the North sea than otherwise, but balancing that against significant investment, which must be made as quickly as possible, in renewables, nuclear and other technologies that help us get off the fossil fuels on which we are currently dependent. That is the only long-term pathway to energy security and to tackling the climate crisis, and we are doing everything we can to get there as quickly as possible.

    Hansard source
13. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I think the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be very surprised when they reach to turn on their heating or their gas cooker that they do not rely on gas—a significant number of his constituents will rely on gas. We want to get off that gas supply as quickly as possible, but we will continue to require it for a number of years, so I hope that he can recognise why the decision is important for energy security. I agree with him about the fundamental point: contrary to any other noise around this, no new oil and gas drilling will ever take a penny off bills. It does not impact bills. It brings in tax revenue to the Government that we will invest in the clean energy that gets us off fossil fuels. Breaking the link with gas will bring down his constituents’ bills, but I agree that it will not directly reduce bills.

    Hansard source
14. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and any other hon. Members from across the House who have experience that they want to raise or ideas about how we can do this. I chair the North sea future board, which has trade unions at its heart to bring the story of workers to the heart of the decisions we are making, not just because we owe that to those workers, who are powering the country right now and have done for decades, but because they are the critical workforce that will help us build what we need in the future. He is right to point to failed transitions—we will all have experience of that in our communities, but some more than others. There is a lesson from history that if Government do not actively engage in building the next part of the transition, we will not support those workers. We are doing everything that we can on that, but there is a lot more that we can do and I am happy to work with him on it.

    Hansard source
15. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    The hon. Lady is right to point to that fact. We have renewables in the system, but we are not getting the benefit of the pricing, because the last margin unit that we need in order to meet our supply is often gas. That used to be 90% of the time, but it is now less than 60% of the time. We are making huge progress; since the closure of the strait of Hormuz, we have been saving £50 million or more a day on displaced gas costs, because of the renewables that we have built. We are going as fast as we can, but I cannot just pull a lever and make decoupling happen, because the marginal price setting is important to ensure that we can meet our supply every single day. We are doing everything that we can on that issue. It is a No. 1 priority to ensure that people feel the benefit of clean power coming through on to their bills.

    Hansard source
16. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I will say two things. First, we are absolutely clear that tackling the climate crisis is an absolute priority for the Government. It is vital for our national security, our energy security and our children’s futures, and we need to do even more. This decision is about the transition period, in which we will need oil and gas to build into where we go next, but that is not the whole story. The absolute clear direction from this Government is that in order to tackle the climate crisis, we have to break the link with fossil fuels so that we are not importing from other countries and driving up climate problems for future generations to deal with, but have home-grown, clean energy here in the UK. We are already making enormous progress on that. People should rightly feel that the Government have to do more, but one of the really important things to recognise is that we are making progress in climate action. We always need to do more, but people should not feel that there is absolutely no route out for us. If we can work together and build some more consensus, we can tackle climate change.

    Hansard source
17. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I often have to start with the refrain that energy policy is devolved to Northern Ireland, but there are points to make on two fronts. First, our interconnector with Ireland, which takes gas from Great Britain into Ireland, will benefit from the security of supply that we are delivering through this decision, which is important. Secondly, although I do not have responsibility for decisions on energy policy in Northern Ireland, we have said from the beginning that the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy will operate and invest in projects in Northern Ireland. I can confirm that the £2 billion we have set up today will be part of that picture and ensure that we can invest in projects in Northern Ireland.

    Hansard source
18. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    That is a really important question. As a former teacher, I used to teach pupils who would come to school worried about this issue, because they had seen things in the news and felt a sense of threat. That is why it is important that people understand that the Government are taking the issue seriously and are determined not to only tackle climate change at home, but to play our international role abroad, rebuilding some of the international consensus to make climate action a reality. Factual information is always really important in these debates—at times, I think that it might help in this House as well. People should seek out information about what we are trying to do and about the progress that we are making as a country towards decarbonising our energy system.

    Hansard source
19. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    Let me be clear that that is a separate consenting decision. I am not making any comment at all today on the Rosebank decision, which will be made in due course. We are absolutely committed to tackling climate change. There is no change at all in my commitment or the Government’s commitment to delivering the clean power mission and improving homes so that we can get off fossil fuels as quickly as possible, but the reality is that Britain will need oil and gas for decades to come as part of that transition. Today’s decision is about a particular project that helps us to get those things out of our own continental shelf. My hon. Friend is right to say that that will not bring down bills, but it will provide energy security benefits, jobs and investment coming in through tax receipts, which we are deploying to deliver more clean power.

    Hansard source
20. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I declare an interest: I am a member of the GMB, and I am very happy to celebrate the role that it plays in this area. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter of National Gas and the transmission system, because we often talk about oil and gas workers offshore, but I have met a number of those workers who help to get the gas to homes and businesses across the country. It is an incredibly skilled job, and I pay tribute to the work that those workers do. He is absolutely right; during the transition between what is here now and what comes after in the oil and gas industry, workers have to be right at the centre.

    Hansard source
21. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of national resilience. That is front and centre in my mind as the Minister responsible for energy security and resilience, particularly as we go into the winter months. This decision is part of how we ensure that we can absolutely meet the standard that is expected for our gas supplies as we go into the winter—we will say more about that in the coming days. This decision is also part of the wider picture of the transition, because our long-term energy security and resilience cannot come from our being dependent on a fossil fuel that we will always be a net importer of. We have seen the price spikes that have been caused by a war in which we have no part, and they are affecting people’s bills right now. The long-term answer is the clean power that my hon. Friend talked about. She is right to raise the point about warmer homes and how we get more homes to use less energy. That is absolutely critical for our consumers to live in warmer conditions and to spend less on their energy bills.

    Hansard source
22. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    My hon. Friend is right that the North sea is a declining basin—I have said that on a number of occasions. That is not going to be turned around by decisions that we make, but none the less, we were elected on a manifesto that very clearly said that we would “not issue new licences to explore new fields”, but would manage existing fields for their lifetime. This decision is on an already licensed field, so it is compliant with our manifesto, and the investment resulting from it will allow us to build the clean power that will get us off fossil fuels. It is about recognising that we have to do both—the long-term future comes from reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and phasing them out completely, but we will need oil and gas in the interim.

    Hansard source
23. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    My hon. Friend is right to raise that point, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary hears it. We are doing everything we can on industrial prices as well as domestic prices, but I know we need to do more. Breaking the link between gas and electricity prices is crucial for the electricity bills that those industries face, but I know that my hon. Friend is particularly focused on the gas they use. I have talked about phasing out gas; we have always been clear that a strategic reserve will be necessary for particular industries and parts of the power system, but we should be using it much less. We need to support industries by finding new ways to decarbonise, be it with hydrogen or other fuels, but some will continue to require gas. I recognise that fact, and will continue to work with my hon. Friend and others to make sure we are doing everything we can to support those industries.

    Hansard source
24. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    My hon. Friend is right—the affordability crisis is the No. 1 thing facing all our constituents. I am not going to cut across what the Chancellor may or may not say next week in his Budget, but I hear what my hon. Friend says. We have already taken action by removing VAT from electricity bills, as well as the £150 of costs that we took off bills previously, but the first point he made is critical, because the situation in the middle east is what is driving up everyone’s bills. We can continue to take action to reduce those bills, as the previous Government did when Russia invaded Ukraine, but if we do not fix the fundamental problem, we will have to bail people out every time there is another fossil fuel price spike. While deploying clean power will not immediately affect everyone, every wind turbine we switch on and solar panel we plug in helps reduce our dependence on gas and brings down people’s bills.

    Hansard source
25. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I welcome my hon. Friend’s appreciation of the decision we have made today. The longer-term impact of climate change will be felt by his constituents as much as everyone else’s, so it is in all of our interests—as I know he appreciates—for us to take action to tackle it. While this is an important decision, the action we have taken to deploy clean power and break the link with fossil fuels is also really important. My hon. Friend is right to centre this discussion on jobs. We have worked not just to create new jobs in the clean power of the future, but to make sure those are good jobs. With offshore wind, for example, we are making sure there is fair work for offshore workers, in conjunction with trade unions and the workforce. We want to grow the number of jobs in clean power, but we also want them to be good, well-paid and sustainable jobs.

    Hansard source
26. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    On the international point and the message this decision sends about the climate emergency, I cannot be clearer about how central tackling climate change still is to the wider agenda of our energy policy. The transition to a non-fossil-fuel economy will require oil and gas for decades to come, and this decision is about where we get that from, not about the end goal, which is to remove our exposure to fossil fuels in the long term. We continue to take action on the climate crisis in a whole range of other ways. For instance, the Secretary of State will lead our delegation to COP to make sure we continue to press for international collaboration. On the wider point, consenting decisions are regulatory decisions for the Secretary of State to make, and then it is for the North Sea Transition Authority to make the final decision and issue the consent. Those decisions are not subject to debates in this House—they are quasi-judicial decisions. However, I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that that decision, like this one, will be based on a whole range of factors, and the environmental impacts will be absolutely central.

    Hansard source
27. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I am glad that people across the country are engaging in those kinds of discussions. It is really important that people get together, discuss this issue and recognise the absolute centrality of climate change to our lives right now, as well as its future impact. I would say two things: first, this Government take the climate emergency very seriously and are taking action right now to tackle it, whether that is building the clean power that gets us off fossil fuels or improving homes so that people use less fossil fuel energy to heat them. Secondly, young people right now should believe that their Government are taking this issue seriously. Despite the noise of the political debate, this Government take climate action seriously, and we are delivering good, long-term jobs in every single community for those young people in the industries of the future—jobs in clean energy that we as a country can be equally proud of. I hope the young people who attend my hon. Friend’s meeting will see some of those opportunities as a real chance, not only for a career in this country, but to help us tackle the climate emergency.

    Hansard source
28. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    As a Government, we are making it as attractive as possible to invest in clean energy sectors. That is why we have seen more than £100 billion-worth of private investment in the clean energy transition since we came into Government—£110 billion of investment in two and a half years. It is clear that people see the clean energy transition as a route for investment and helping to build our energy security. I would say to all those, pension funds or others, who do not take the economic opportunity seriously that there is a huge opportunity here to build the country we want to see and to get good economic returns as a result. We have set up things such as the National Wealth Fund and Great British Energy to help crowd in that investment.

    Hansard source
29. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I do not agree with that, actually. I will give the same answer that I gave to the Green party. We absolutely believe in tackling the climate crisis and in building our way out of a dependence on fossil fuels, but I cannot just click my fingers and make that happen overnight. We have to build this infrastructure over time, and there is a transition period in which gas will remain the main source of energy for people heating their homes. We have to move even faster to change that by electrifying heating to bring down people’s bills and get us off fossil fuels. I am open to any ideas my hon. Friend might have on how we can go faster on that.

    Hansard source
30. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I am grateful for his putting on record the fact that there are jobs in oil and gas in Hartlepool and in towns like it across the UK. Although there is a concentration of jobs in the north-east of Scotland, it would be wrong to say that this is a problem for the north-east of Scotland to solve. There are such jobs all across the country. We must get this transition right. As for the oil and gas workers, the new nuclear that we want to see in his constituency, and renewables, I make the point that the workforce is the same, and we are going to support them to retrain and bring their immense experience into what we have to build in the future. It is in our self-interest to centre this transition on the workers who currently power the country through oil and gas and who will take us through into the future. He is right to call out those politicians who talk about pragmatism, but who want it all to be one way. Pragmatism means being clear that oil and gas will be important for decades to come and that we have to invest now in the jobs of the future, in his constituency and across the country.

    Hansard source
31. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I thank the Minister, and recognise how much time he takes to talk to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee; he is barely ever out of the chair in front of us. He is very dedicated. Today’s decision is one that the Tories could not get over the line, but under this Prime Minister, a rapid decision has been made that will protect jobs and, critically, ensure that skills will be retained for a changing supply chain. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will continue with investment and equally rapid decision making for clean power projects?

    Hansard source
32. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. The original draft regulations were laid before Parliament on 16 July. Following the identification of omitted text affecting the calculation of two fee categories, they were withdrawn, corrected and re-laid on 1 September. Local planning authorities are integral to delivering the new homes and infrastructure that our country needs, and the Government appreciate fully that, to do so, they require sufficient capacity and capability. Yet for too long, local authority planning departments across the country have wrestled with significant financial pressures that have constrained their ability to recruit and retain skilled planners, invest in modern systems and make timely, high-quality planning decisions. For that reason, the Government have invested significant sums to boost capacity and capability in local planning authorities. At the 2024 autumn Budget, the then Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-26. At the Budget on 26 November last year, she announced a further £48 million of investment over three years to support local planning authorities to attract, retain and develop skilled planners over a sustained period. Of that funding, £28.8 million has been allocated to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s planning capacity and capability programme, equating to an additional £9.6 million per year for the next three years. That allocation will supplement existing budgets. In total, the programme now aims to deliver around 1,325 planners by the end of this Parliament, significantly exceeding our original manifesto commitment to deliver 300 new planning officers. Wider cross-Government recruitment and investment in planning capacity and capability will increase that figure further to approximately 1,400 planners. That new funding will support both graduate and mid-career entry routes into planning, including by expanding the Pathways to Planning graduate scheme. For local planning authorities, fees are an important contributor to resourcing requirements. Planning application fees are set nationally and are intended to cover the cost to a local planning authority of processing and determining a planning application. However, as things stand, the fees do not fully cover the costs of providing the service. Based on the most recent local government spending data for 2024-25, that has led to an estimated funding shortfall of £330 million per year, which means that local planning authorities are not adequately equipped to deliver an efficient planning service. That is why the Government acted through regulations to increase planning fees for householders and introduce fees for certain minor applications from 1 April last year, and why our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 included powers to allow local planning authorities, subject to safeguards, to set their own planning fees through a local variation model. The draft regulations amend the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012. Their objective is twofold: first, to reduce funding shortfalls and improve the financial sustainability of local authority planning departments, which they will achieve by providing a significant and immediate increase in funding for planning application services; and secondly, to establish a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee-setting arrangements, which will be implemented through separate regulations later this year.

    Hansard source
33. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

    I will address that more fully in my closing remarks, but we do expect the fees to be ringfenced. The hon. Gentleman may recall that we took powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Act to ensure that that is the case. The draft regulations will establish that baseline by providing for a national default fee that will continue to apply unless a local planning authority chooses to set a different fee to reflect its costs. Earlier this year, we carried out a consultation on fees for planning applications, seeking views on a proposed national default fee schedule, including in respect of the appropriate level of fees, whether structural changes should be made to specific fee categories, and the wider framework for local fee setting. The feedback indicated broad support across the sector for increasing fees, provided that the additional income is reinvested in planning application services and results in improved performance. The Government are clear that the additional funding should support measurable improvements in performance. We expect authorities to use the additional income to strengthen their planning application services, reduce delays and provide a better service to applicants. We will of course continue to monitor performance through planning statistics and the existing planning performance regime. In general terms, planning application fees typically account for less than 1% of overall development costs, while delays and uncertainty in the planning process can impose far greater costs on development and investment. Ensuring that planning authorities are properly resourced is therefore in the interests of applicants, communities and the wider economy. However, it is of course important that any changes to planning fees strike the right balance, ensuring that authorities can recover their costs while remaining proportionate for applicants and supporting continued investment and development. Having considered the consultation responses carefully, we think the revised schedule does just that. Let me briefly set out the main changes made by the regulations. First, they introduce a revised set of national fees, which we refer to as a national fees schedule. Fees will increase by varying amounts across existing application categories, with the aim of recovering approximately 90% of the estimated processing costs for each application type. The increases are informed by benchmarking work undertaken by the Local Government Association and the Planning Advisory Service, which showed that every application category operates below cost recovery. Increasing all fees to approximately 90% of estimated costs will provide a significant and immediate increase in funding for planning application services. We are not moving to full cost recovery through a nationally set fee schedule because the cost of processing applications varies significantly among authorities. A uniform national fee set at 100% of estimated average costs could therefore lead to over-recovery in some areas. Secondly, the regulations simplify and restructure selected fee categories. This includes aligning the household fee thresholds with the medium-sized development category introduced through the national planning policy framework, and simplifying the fee bands applying to certain agricultural, minerals, waste and other operational development. These changes will make the national fee schedule clearer and easier for applicants and local planning authorities to operate. Thirdly, the regulations introduce a standard fee of £310 for prior-approval applications that currently attract no fee. Prior-approval applications require local planning authorities to devote time and resources to their assessment, so it is right that applicants contribute towards the costs. As part of this third change, the regulations also enable the £310 fee to apply where prior approval is required for larger electricity substations. The separate statutory instrument introducing that prior-approval requirement was laid before Parliament on 30 September and comes into force on 21 October. Finally, the regulations correct omissions in existing indexation provisions. This will ensure that mixed-use outline application fees and the new standard prior-approval fee are subject to annual inflationary increases in the same way as other planning application fees. Subject to parliamentary approval, the regulations will come into force on 8 December 2026. To conclude, the regulations will provide an immediate increase in funding for local planning authorities, support the Government’s wider programme of planning reform and establish a stronger baseline for the future operation of local fee-setting powers. In return, applicants should expect improved performance, more timely decisions and greater certainty across the planning system—a better resourced planning system that is better able to deliver the homes, infrastructure and growth that this country needs. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

    Hansard source
34. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

    I thank the shadow Minister for his response and the questions he put to me. Before I address each of them in turn, I want to reinforce a general point that I made concerning the rationale for the regulations. As it stands, based on the most recent local government spending data for 2024-25, councils are facing an estimated funding shortfall of £330 million per year, as a result of the gap between the fees they are able to charge and the cost of processing and determining planning applications. It is entirely reasonable, on the principle of the matter, that we seek to close that gap so that local authorities are able to deliver a timely service. The shadow Minister spoke at some length about viability pressures and the role of regulations in those pressures. I gently say to him that lots of the regulations either that we are bringing into force or that were in force were introduced by his Government—the requirement for second staircases is a good example. We recognise that developers must meet a range of costs when bringing forward development. We are acutely aware that viability pressures remain pressing in many parts of the country—London is a good example—and that they have become, in many cases, more acute over recent months as a result of the conflict in the middle east. The shadow Minister will know the statistics when it comes to the increase in, for example, building materials costs that all developers are facing. I come back, though, to the point I made in my opening remarks. Planning application fees are typically a very small proportion of overall development costs. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure that planning application services are properly resourced so that they can process applications efficiently, because there is a cost to delays resulting from planning application services that are not efficient. I argue that by ensuring that local planning authorities can make high-quality and timely decisions we can support viability and investment, just as much as by keeping application fees proportionate.

    Hansard source
35. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

    I will come to that, and I will answer the specific point on ringfencing as well, because I think the shadow Minister slightly misrepresented my response to the hon. Member for Broxbourne. On a related point about viability—the shadow Minister tempts me to stray way beyond the the regulations before us—it is important to say that we consulted on the fee schedule that we are discussing. We received 173 responses to that consultation and, overall, 59% of respondents supported the proposed national fee schedule. The support included 68% of local planning authorities and 52% of developer respondents. There is, then, support out there for the fee increases, provided, as I said, that they result in an improved service. On ringfencing, the Government are clear that planning fee income should be invested in planning application services. I slightly take issue with the shadow Minister saying that we are just relying on moral suasion to ensure that planning departments do that. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 introduced a statutory ringfencing requirement to ensure that fee income is retained and applied to the delivery of the planning function. The ringfencing measures will come into force through separate regulations at the same time as the local fee-setting measures I mentioned earlier are introduced. The ringfencing duty will apply regardless of whether fees have been set nationally or locally, so the shadow Minister can be assured that, in due course, as soon as we have commenced those regulations, the ringfencing will apply. While those provisions are not in force, the Government expectation remains that planning fee income should be reinvested into planning application services. Once we have commenced those regulations, that will not be an option for authorities. On general planning performance, the shadow Minister will know that we monitor through planning statistics and our planning performance regime. Many of his colleagues have squirmed at their local authorities being put on to that performance regime for not making timely decisions and not performing as required. We will continue to monitor where we need to intervene using the powers available for us in respect of individual local authorities. To conclude, the regulations are a key step towards improving local planning authority resourcing, thereby enabling faster decision making, higher service standards and stronger overall performance across the planning system. As I have said, they will facilitate an immediate funding uplift for all local planning authorities and, by providing for a new national fee schedule, provide a more robust baseline for the operation of future local fee-setting arrangements, which we will debate in respect of a future statutory instrument. A fast, effective and reliable planning service is essential to support housing delivery, economic growth and the provision of infrastructure. The regulations will ensure that local planning authorities are sufficiently resourced to determine applications in a timely and high-quality manner. I commend them to the Committee. Question put.

    Hansard source
36. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Rodda

    E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this important debate. I am aware of the time pressure, so I will try to be brief. I strongly support cycling and the legal use of electric bicycles, where permitted. However, I am afraid to say the irresponsible use of e-bikes and e-scooters is a serious problem in my constituency, and residents have raised a range of issues on a range of fronts. First, intimidating behaviour on footpaths and pavements, particularly near and in parks, is causing serious concern in many parts of the town. That includes e-scooters whizzing down narrow streets where the pavements are less than 1 metre wide, e-bike riders riding over the two road bridges across the Thames on the pedestrian footpaths and intimidating residents, the lack of use of bells and the speed at which people are riding the bikes. It also includes high-powered electric motorbikes—I think that is the only way to describe them. I have seen two absolutely shocking incidents relating to these types of vehicles. In one case, it was a group of black-clad young people with black balaclavas riding around the Reading inner distribution road, a major highway around the town centre, pulling wheelies in front of cars. On another occasion, I saw a similarly dressed group doing dangerous stunts and jumps in a park, close to where families were picnicking with toddlers. That is absolutely irresponsible and utterly unacceptable. I am pleased to say there is some good news. As the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) mentioned, Thames Valley police is taking a firm line. It has been crushing the bikes, using drones to follow them in parks and using the new legislation introduced by the Government to arrive at people’s houses and confiscate them immediately rather than having to issue a warning, which was previously the case. Our local council has also secured a public space protection order, which gives local council officers more powers to address the bikes. I praise the police and the council for the action they are taking, but I ask the Minister to see what further powers could be used to try to contain this very serious problem.

    Hansard source
37. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Markus Campbell-Savours

    Support for Farmers

    To be honest, I am not a big fan of Opposition day debates in Parliament. I made my discomfort clear in a debate on farming in 2024, when I put the Government on notice of my intention to vote against the APR Budget measure. That evening, as the news that I had voted against the official Opposition’s motion was circulated on social media—a motion that quite rightly called for the Government to halt their planned changes to APR, but also appeared to claim that the last Conservative Government were the greatest gift to farming since Jethro Tull’s seed drill—I noted the way my vote was being reported by Conservative Members. One said I had “misled the chamber” and had “voted to impose the family farm tax”. As all Members know, Opposition day motions do not enact change. They are expressions of opinion, not instruments that alter policy or law, or as “Erskine May” says, they do not bind the Government. It was the same last week. In a debate in which the Conservatives tried out their new theory that sticking the word “family” in front of a tax makes it unpalatable and ripe for scrapping, I objected to the idea that a £175 million penthouse flat could be exempt from tax. For this, I was accused by Conservatives on social media of “nit picking”, being spineless and of “toadying” to get my Whip back—which I have had back, by the way. The post was accompanied by a meme that made reference only to family farms. I would like to be explicit: I want to see the end of the family farm tax, and I urge the Chancellor to do so in the Budget, but I do not believe the plight of my farmers should be conflated and used by politicians who want to give tax breaks to the mega-rich. Let me now turn my attention to today’s word salad. I like tomatoes, and I agree that the APR changes should be scrapped. I like olives, and I agree that the SFI has been a disaster. Lots of Members like olives, even those on the Labour Benches. The end of universal payments seems like a missed opportunity. Farmers are perfectly candid about how many in the industry who received the basic payment were doing very little for it, but I am increasingly of the view that a universal offer linked to delivering key public goods as a baseline, with a top up ELMs-style offer, would be preferable. It would give all farms a chance, and provide a buffer that they may rely on when times are hard. The farmers I have engaged with since my election have described how they take risks with every investment decision. Bad weather or market conditions can change and do change. A universal payment could not only provide a cushion, but help reassure those considering an investment that they are safe to do so. Last week I read an article in the Financial Times, which described issues faced by some farmers in accessing SFI. It quoted one Cambridge farmer as saying: “I will literally take a plough to everything… We will have to go back to farming more intensively than the 1950s.” It worries me that we may see farmers reaching the end of existing schemes simply plough up the good work they have done and look for what is commercially best for them. I believe a universal offer could, if implemented properly, prevent that from happening. I do not object to everything in this salad and I am quite pleased it has been served, but everyone has something they do not want in a salad—fennel, just in case you were wondering, Madam Deputy Speaker—and in the case of this motion it is the Liberal Democrats’ inclusion of a commitment to “an additional £1 billion a year to properly fund environmental land management schemes.” It sounds tasty, but having sat through a large number of debates in the House, I know that at the heart of their Budget plans is their claim that re-entering Europe would pay for everything. That is as silly as claiming that we could pay using lithium mined on Mars; its presence does not preclude the fact that there is one hell of journey before we get there. These motions are a con: a word salad full of things that Members across the House love, but ultimately containing an ingredient which makes them edible only to the author.

    Hansard source
38. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

    I thank the hon. Member for making such a strong argument. Along with other hon. Members, I recently met representatives of Guide Dogs for the Blind. They made a strong case for visually impaired and blind people, who are often put off going out on to their own streets, due to the silent nature of e-scooters and e-bikes. Does she agree that that point alone underscores the need to enforce the law properly in this area?

    Hansard source
39. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    Jackdaw Gasfield

    I welcome the Government’s pragmatic decision on Jackdaw; it makes sense to use gas from the North sea, rather than import it from abroad. I also welcome the Minister’s comment that the funds it raises in tax revenue will be used to support the green transition, hopefully with a view to bringing down energy bills in the future. However, my constituents know that their energy bills will go up in January, and they want help with that now. Given that the Minister has ruled out using those funds to support them through direct help with their energy bills, can I encourage him to use any mechanism available to him to get people the support they need with their energy bills in January, and possibly to have conversations with the Treasury too? As he knows, the cost of living crisis is biting now.

    Hansard source
40. 21 Oct 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mark Sewards

    Antisemitism in Schools and Colleges

    Antisemitism has swept across the UK and I am so sorry to see the report confirm what I think we already knew, which is that schools are yet another battleground against the world’s oldest hatred. That is why I commend the Government for their swift acceptance of all the recommendations set out in Sir David Bell’s review, as well as the Secretary of State’s excellent answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) on anti-Zionist antisemitism and why it should be condemned. On one particular recommendation, treating antisemitism in schools as a safeguarding issue will create an explicit duty on all schools to address it as they would a threat to any other child’s safety. How will the Government support schools to enact that duty and how will they ensure they are accountable for delivering it?

    Hansard source