Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting)

   We welcome this section of the legislation. I congratulate the Minister, the Government and officials on ensuring in legislation a smooth process for transfer of responsibilities, and on including a target date. The people served by the mayors—that is, our constituents—will want to understand very simply what new powers and responsibilities are being handed to the mayor. This is a sensible solution. We also welcome the creation of the deputy mayor for police and crime. Given the responsibilities outlined in other sections of the Bill, the mayor will quite rightly have many and multifaceted responsibilities. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to provide in statute for a deputy mayor specifically to cover the police and crime powers of the mayoralty. That will ensure that policing and crime is looked at as a top priority for the residents they serve. We welcome this sensible section of the legislation, and will not seek to oppose it.

   Hansard source
2. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting)

   As with the previous clause, we see that clause 45 is a perfectly sensible provision. The Minister has done an admirable job on what I know has been a long day, particularly after the late night yesterday. She is explaining the legislation in an excellent way. I wish to touch on amendment 26, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. In order to dispel the myth, for the hon. Members for Banbury and for Camborne and Redruth, that there is a coalition going on, this is where unfortunately the coalition comes to an end. Amendment 26 is not pragmatic or sensible. It would essentially remove the mayor’s power to appoint a deputy mayor to a day-to-day role for policing. The amendment would be bad for the legislation because, as I outlined in relation to the previous clause—and as we on the Conservative Benches agree—the mayoralty is a multifaceted role, and a role that is accountable to the public. In many previous sittings of the Committee, we have outlined that there has to be that democratic accountability. That is given in this legislation by a mayor appointing a deputy mayor for policing who is accountable to the public, but also accountable to the mayor who is accountable to the public. I understand the Liberal Democrats’ longstanding view that PCCs should not exist. We fundamentally disagree with that. We think PCCs are one of the better solutions of the coalition Government. We believe that policing is a public priority and that the public should have a say in the way in which their police forces are run. I am not sure whether opposition to PCCs is a widely held view within the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat candidate for Hamble Valley, who stood against me, also stood for the PCC election for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and put himself forward for election as Mayor of Hampshire and the Solent.

   Hansard source
3. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting)

   In one moment. It seems that that Liberal Democrat candidate perfectly endorses the solutions that the Government are putting forward, and actually wanted three jobs at once.

   Hansard source
4. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Eighth sitting)

   I would say, in a respectful tone to the hon. Lady, that the thing that the Liberal Democrats are most known for is saying one thing and in their actions doing another, but we will leave that there. Clause 45 is perfectly sensible. We will oppose amendment 26 if it is pushed to a vote. I am pleased to see that the hon. Lady has reverted to the Liberal Democrats’ traditional position of holding many positions at once. We support the clause, and oppose amendment 26.

   Hansard source
5. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Children’s Hospices: Ringfenced Funding

   This funding is welcome, but hospices such as Mountbatten in my area are still making cuts because of the budgetary choices that the Chancellor made and ICB practices. This is a multi-year funding settlement, but multi-year funding settlements need to be longer. Will the Minister commit to including all hospices in a longer multi-year funding settlement for stability in the sector?

   Hansard source
6. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Sentencing Bill

   Order. How long have you been in the Chamber? Have you just walked in?

   Hansard source
7. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Sentencing Bill

   Okay. Make sure your intervention is short.

   Hansard source
8. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Sentencing Bill

   I can see that the hon. Gentleman in question is shaking his head, so I assume that no swearing has actually taken place. Can he confirm that?

   Hansard source
9. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Sentencing Bill

   Sarah Pochin, will you please continue?

   Hansard source
10. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sentencing Bill

    I call Catherine Atkinson. [Interruption.] I call John McDonnell.

    Hansard source
11. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sentencing Bill

    Order. You should learn that one tempers oneself, Sir John.

    Hansard source
12. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Sentencing Bill

    Ms Minns, please—“you wish to disown”? I am not contributing to the debate.

    Hansard source
13. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Business without Debate

    With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 6 together. Ordered, Environmental Audit That Ellie Chowns be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Carla Denyer be added. Public Accounts That Peter Fortune and James Murray be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Rupert Lowe and Dan Tomlinson be added. Work and Pensions That Danny Kruger be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Joy Morrissey be added.—(Gen Kitchen, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

    Hansard source
14. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Social Housing: South Cotswolds

    Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to the Minister. He cannot keep saying “you”. It is exhausting.

    Hansard source
15. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme

    1. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the vaccine damage payment scheme.

    Hansard source
16. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme

    My constituent Kelly Hatfield sadly lost her father Ken Purnell as a result of the covid-19 vaccination. The family received a vaccine damage payment, yet the sum, which has not increased since 2007, falls short of the loss, trauma and long-term financial impact on these families. Will the Minister explain why that one-off payment has not been inflation-adjusted and will she commit to reviewing its adequacy and fairness?

    Hansard source
17. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Cancer Diagnoses

    The Government claim that they wish to reduce NHS waiting times, but I have written confirmation from the Government that they have slashed funding for community diagnostic centres. The consequences of Labour’s funding cuts mean that brand new facilities, such as those at Queen Mary’s hospital in Sidcup, for which I secured £9.6 million of funding from the last Conservative Government, can now open only two days per week. Will the Minister urgently review that funding cut, so that more patients in Bexley and across the UK can get their diagnostics quicker?

    Hansard source
18. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mims Davies

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), despite the Safeguarding Minister’s best efforts to explain whether she is involved concerning the response to the urgent question that you have granted, Mr Speaker, I am genuinely more confused and think that many constituents will be too. Despite the Minister saying that she is not looking to provide a running commentary, May I ask that she update the House clearly to assist on these matters, so that we can avoid urgent questions such as this one?

    Hansard source
19. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry

    We have heard what the Minister said about diverse views among victims, but is she concerned that some survivors of these terrible crimes have described the process as a toxic, fearful environment and warned that there is a high risk of people feeling silenced all over again? What is she going to do to reverse that failure?

    Hansard source
20. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Co-operative Sector: Government Support

    It is a great pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mr Turner. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) on securing this important debate, in which there seems to have been an outbreak of unanimity around the Chamber. As I start my remarks, I am conscious of the expression “everything that needs to have been said has been said but not everybody has said it.” My apologies if I repeat some of the points that have been made. As colleagues all know, this was all started in Toad Lane, Rochdale in 1844 by a group of 27—or was it 28?—men known as the Rochdale pioneers. The pioneers would not have been constituents of the hon. Gentleman, but it is important to recognise that the roots of the movement can be found not just in Rochdale, but in surrounding areas, including his constituency. At a time when living conditions were particularly tough, these men decided to do something for their community by balancing the profitability of their shop and its members with the social impact on the community and the wider membership. That meant that essential, good-quality ingredients—flour, butter and others—became affordable for the community. The co-operative movement that was founded in Rochdale in 1844 continues to thrive today. It has grown to become an international movement; co-operatives operate in 109 countries. In the UK alone, we have 7,400 co-operatives, but if we incorporate organisations that operate in the co-operative spirit, such as employee-owned businesses, building societies, friendly societies, credit unions and mutually owned banks, the number comes to over 10,000. That represents around 0.2% of businesses in the UK. According to a recent report by Co-operatives UK, there are 66 million members across the sector, with around 16.6 million people solely in co-operatives. I have to say that just in the last hour I have become a member myself, having signed up to the Co-operative on the app. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you very much. The exciting point about the last statistic that I referred to is that that number has increased by 1.4 million in one year, showing that the sector is truly on an upward trajectory. Additionally, it is suggested that the combined annual income of the sector is around £179 billion, with WPI Economics estimating that the sector has contributed £35 billion in gross value added, which is equivalent to about 1.5% of the total UK economy. It is obvious, therefore, that the co-operative sector plays an important part in the health and growth of the UK’s economy. Co-operatives help to provide a diverse range of business models, which I believe is a good thing. Any healthy economy needs a variety of business models, and it is really important that we have things like co-operatives. I agree with the premise of the debate, which is about Government support for the co-operative sector. A perfect example of such support is the introduction under the last Government of employee ownership trusts and the tax incentives surrounding them. Offering 100% relief on capital gains tax when a business owner transfers their company to an employee ownership trust has helped to empower communities, and we have seen a strong rise in employee-owned businesses, from 600 in 2020 to 2,500 this year. However, let me express a slight reservation. It is important in a competitive market not to incentivise one part of the economy, or one business model, over another, in the way that the Building Societies Act 1986 opened the way for demutualisation and incentivised building societies to convert into investor-owned commercial companies. Some have said that that was a bad thing, and in retrospect I probably agree. We need to be careful that we do not encourage excessive mutualisation and disincentivise investment in our equity markets. Fundamentally, a balance needs to be struck. I believe—possibly unsurprisingly—that that was done successfully under the last Government through the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. The last Government introduced measures to increase transparency and facilitate growth, while maintaining the core principles of member benefit and community focus; for example, by increasing the maximum withdrawable shareholding from £20,000 to £100,000 per individual investor, they allowed for broader capital participation. Although the 2014 Act was positive for the sector, I think that there is widespread agreement that it needs to be updated to help support the growth and modernisation of the sector today. It was good, therefore, that the last Government and now this Government have asked the Law Commission to review the legislation, and I look forward to seeing its proposals when they are brought forward, hopefully at the end of this year. I am also glad that the private Member’s Bill now known as the Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023 supported the co-operative sector to protect its capital and assets, and to discourage mutualisation. Introducing an asset lock mechanism could mean that organisations are able to lock their capital surpluses, ensuring that assets are non-distributable among members and must instead be preserved for the community and the purposes of the organisation. It is understandably disappointing that although the 2023 Act received cross-party support when it went through Parliament, over two years later the regulations specified in the Act have not yet been announced by the Government and co-operatives are still unable to utilise the statutory protection that it provides. I note, however, that the Law Commission has proposed to put those powers into primary legislation through reform of the 2014 Act. Are the Government considering that? If not, what alternatives are being pursued? It is worth adding that the last Government introduced the community ownership fund. Although that was not directly targeted at co-operatives, some, such as the Calder Valley Community Land Trust, which seeks to reduce energy use and costs at Fielden Hall, have made successful bids. That is positive, but I would be interested to know whether the Government are considering a fund specifically for those in co-operatives and mutuals. In fact, we heard earlier from one Member about the potential for the British Business Bank to be opened up in order to support co-operatives and mutuals. I turn now to what this Government are doing. First, it is important to recognise the commitment in their manifesto to double the size of the co-operatives and mutuals sector. That is a positive direction of travel that the Government want to follow. However, Chris Bose of the Nationwide asked what the Government meant by that and wrote: “Precisely what was to be doubled was unclear, as was the means to achieve that.” This is an important point for the Minister to clarify. Do the Government want to double the number of mutuals, the number of members or the size of mutual balance sheets? What specifically are they seeking to achieve? The measures announced at the Mansion House in 2024—specifically, the creation of the mutuals and co-operatives business council and the commissioning of a report by the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority on the mutuals landscape—will help to lay the groundwork for that, but I hope the Minister will be able to provide the clarity the sector is looking for. Like the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, I also welcome the creation of a co-operative development unit in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Those are all good things, but it feels like we are still waiting for some meat on the bone, so let me raise a few points with the Minister. First, the issue that is raised time and time again by those in the sector is their ability to access cash. By their very nature, co-operatives are member-run organisations, so they are more limited than companies when it comes to issuing shares that attract external investors. It is also worth highlighting concerns related to the rumours about what the cash ISA allowance will be following the Budget. There is talk that it will be slashed from £20,000 to £10,000. Cash ISAs are a really important way for building societies to access finances. The Building Societies Association estimates that around 40% of all cash ISA balances are held with building societies, which turn those cash balances into mortgages for our constituents to go and buy homes. It is really important that we get some clarity on that. Returning to the issue of incentivising certain sectors of the economy over others, I am very much in favour of encouraging investment in the UK equity market, but we must be careful that, in trying to achieve the good, we do not get rid of the best. By trying to incentivise cash ISAs to move into equity markets, we are effectively taking cash away from the mutuals and putting it into normal equity. I am worried that, if this policy comes forward, the Budget could cause a problem for the mutual sector. I know the Minister will not be able to comment on the contents of the Budget right now, and we have to wait only another month, but I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury takes note of this important point and feeds it back. I also encourage the Minister to look into the Credit Unions Act 1979, and specifically the regulations on geographical area and the total number of members in common bonds. The last Government made positive steps to increase the total number of potential members of credit unions from 2 million to 3 million, and at the start of this year the Government ran a call for evidence about common bond reform, which I welcome. However, we are still waiting on the findings and for the Government’s response to be published, even though there seems to be a consensus that the regulations are still stifling growth in the sector. It is important to get the credit union sector to grow. Government Members know exactly how important it is, and so do Opposition Members. We need to get on with this. Doing so would only support the goals of the Government’s financial inclusion strategy, as well as their manifesto commitment to double the size of the sector. Let me put a few final points to the Minister. I had the honour to go to Iceland and meet representatives of the country’s trade unions, which, by any other standard, behave as friendly societies. It is invigorating to see that from something as fundamental as a trade union, funded by both members and employers. Something like 97% of employees are members of those unions, because they act as friendly societies and provide insurance, holidays and all sorts of things. That is a really good example of how friendly societies can work. We should be debating more the mutualisation of other utilities. We heard from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) about an energy company in her constituency that does this, but has she considered the possibility of mutualising Thames Water? It is a very ambitious project—

    Hansard source
21. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Co-operative Sector: Government Support

    It is not in her gift, as she says from a sedentary position, but it is quite interesting. Notwithstanding the £17 billion black hole in Thames Water’s balance sheet, the water utilities are very geographically prescribed and millions of people use them, so they have a built-in membership. The most important issue that people are talking about is the pollution of waterways such as the River Thames. By mutualising an institution like Thames Water—by the way, this is not Conservative policy, but—[Laughter.] But it is a debate we must have, Mr Turner. With mutualisation, members could have a proper debate about what investment they want to make in the purity of the waters. My final point is about skills. I do not want to bring up the ugliness of the debate over the former chairman of the Co-op bank, the Rev. Paul Flowers, back in 2011 or 2012, I think, but he came before the Treasury Committee when I was a member of it and made a very good point. He said that his election as chairman of the Co-operative bank was because he was a member of it, not because he was good at finance. It is incredibly important, particularly with things like corporate governance, that we ensure there is training for corporate governors. Running a bank or a big chain of supermarkets is an incredibly difficult job, so we must make sure that that training includes not only people who work in the bank but those responsible for the corporate governance that looks after the organisations. My experience of the Co-operative in Kidderminster has been absolutely fantastic. A few years ago we were trying to stop a 4G telephone mast. This was several Governments back—perhaps around 2007 or 2008—when 4G masts were first going up, and there was a proposal to put one opposite the Co-op. I had a conversation with the managers there and they said, “We will buy the site in order to prevent the telephone mast from going up.” So I have always been a huge fan of them, and I cannot imagine why it has taken me 20 years to actually join the Co-op. I thank the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton for securing the debate. As I said, there has been an outbreak of unanimity, which is fantastic to see. I am only sorry that I did not bring more of my friends with me.

    Hansard source
22. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting)

    We are talking about a mayoral CIL reset, but some local authorities will not introduce a CIL because they get far more out of section 106 negotiations. Will mayors be able to take part in 106 negotiations if they do not bring in their own CIL? If not, why not?

    Hansard source
23. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

    English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (Seventh sitting)

    What happens if one plan says one thing and another plan says another? The Minister just said that the strategic spatial framework would take precedence, but what happens if the local plan from the local planning authority has policies that contradict or do not align with the strategic plan?

    Hansard source
24. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Employer’s National Insurance: GPs

    9. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions on general practices.

    Hansard source
25. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Employer’s National Insurance: GPs

    GPs surgeries across the Weald of Kent, including in Woodchurch and Charing, tell me how much they struggle with rising staff costs, and the national insurance increases in last year’s Budget put huge pressure on them. Alongside the investment that the hon. Gentleman just mentioned, what discussions have he or his colleagues from the Department of Health and Social Care had with Treasury colleagues about protecting GP partnerships from further NI burdens in the upcoming Budget?

    Hansard source
26. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of electricity infrastructure on rural communities. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I am delighted to have secured this important debate, as it is an issue that affects many communities across our United Kingdom. However, it particularly affects the Scottish Borders and other parts of Scotland, such as the highlands. Frankly, the Borders are being inundated with plans for new energy infrastructure: wind farms, solar farms, battery energy storage units and mega-pylons. This weekend, I joined other concerned local residents on Lauder Common, near Threepwood. It is a beautiful part of the Scottish Borders, an area of unspoilt landscapes and natural habitats that Scottish Power Energy Networks plans to destroy with a new electricity substation linking giant mega-pylons. From a vantage point on the southern upland way, we were able to look over the award-winning Threepwood Moss, a special area of conservation and home to curlews. Threepwood Moss is at risk from major construction works for the new electricity substation, a battery energy storage system and a nearby solar farm. The total site will cover approximately 24 hectares, which is equivalent to around 40 football pitches. This is at the heart of what is called the cross-border connection, which would see more than 75 km of overhead lines installed across the Scottish Borders, looping through the new substation near Lauder—called Gala North by Scottish Power Energy Networks, which I will call SPEN for the rest of this debate—and down to a second proposed substation south of Newcastleton.

    Hansard source
27. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities

    I will take interventions, but I will make a little more progress. Patience, colleagues! It means giant mega-pylons running through communities and landscapes across the Scottish Borders. We all understand the need for a modern, resilient electricity network, but there must be a balance. It must be done in a coherent and organised way that does not come at the expense of our rural environment or the wellbeing of our communities. This project is deeply unpopular with local people and will do huge damage.

    Hansard source
28. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities

    I share the hon. Member’s concerns, and I will come on to nuclear a little later.

    Hansard source
29. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities

    The hon. Member makes an excellent point about taking communities with us. We all accept, I believe, the need to invest in our electricity infrastructure, but it must be done in a coherent way that takes local communities with us.

    Hansard source
30. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities

    The hon. Member makes a key point, which I will come to later, that often these projects generate many jobs while the developments are being constructed, but the jobs disappear as soon as they are finished. That is unlike nuclear power, which the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) mentioned, with 300 jobs in Berwickshire alone directly connected to Torness power station. Those are permanent jobs, for people living and working in the local communities. We do not get the same employment opportunities with some of the current proposals for energy infrastructure.

    Hansard source
31. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities

    The hon. Member makes a key point about the need to invest in the electricity network, but it needs to be done in a coherent and organised way with buy-in from the local communities. That is what is lacking dreadfully with some of the proposals. I will make some progress. The issues are clear. First, the proximity of pylons to people’s homes will impact their quality of life and the visual amenity of their community. Secondly, our countryside will be scarred, damaging tourism and leaving businesses that are already badly suffering out of pocket. It will also damage our environment and natural habitats. Agricultural land will be damaged or lost, impacting farms, reducing the amount of produce made in the Borders and harming our drive for food security. We are not saying that we do not want any energy infrastructure—we already have a lot in the Borders. It is about finding the right solution that protects our rural communities.

    Hansard source
32. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities

    My hon. Friend is demonstrating what a doughty campaigner she is for her constituents in the north-east of Scotland. I agree with everything she has said, and I will develop some of those points.

    Hansard source
33. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities

    My right hon. Friend is right. She has consistently raised this issue in the Commons, and I know how passionately she feels about it on behalf of her constituents. I will come on to battery storage shortly. It is important that alternatives are considered. For example, rather than overhead cables, why is underground cabling not being considered? That proposal has been simply dismissed on cost. [Interruption.] I have a lot of time for the Minister, but he is dismissing these concerns out of hand. He is laughing and scoffing. These are real concerns that my constituents feel passionately about. I would be grateful if he showed the same respect that I give to him for the concerns that I am raising on behalf of the people of the Scottish Borders, the highlands and the north-east of Scotland. These concerns are legitimate and I would be grateful if he treated them as such. The proposals for underground cabling have been dismissed by ScottishPower Energy Networks on cost grounds alone. It may be more expensive for the developer, but what is the cost of destroying our natural environment forever? Rather than using the route through the Scottish Borders, why can we not use the route of the existing cross-border electricity infrastructure following the M74 motorway and railway corridor? Throughout the process, SPEN has not listened to our local communities in the way we would have hoped. It is another example of decision makers in cities with little regard for the people and landscapes affected. I have organised a number of extremely well-attended public meetings about the cross-border connection and some of the other infrastructure projects being proposed. We have set up the Action Against Pylons: Scottish Borders Alliance, a voluntary coalition of 10 independent community action groups made up of people who live along the proposed route of the pylons and the other infrastructure projects being imposed on us—the people whose lives are going to be made a misery if this project goes ahead. Local people are coming together to fight the plans: there are too many people to mention, but I wish to pay tribute to a few of them. Edward Kellow and Rosi Lister put in many hours of hard work to get the group up and running. Campaigners such as Rory Steel and local councillors Leagh Douglas and Julie Pirone have done much to raise public awareness, alongside many others. As a group, we invited SPEN and representatives of the Scottish Government to walk the proposed route of the pylons, to come and see the landscape and communities that will be most impacted by their plans, and to hear the concerns of local residents. It was a perfectly reasonable request but they refused. It seems that the people who live in the areas most affected are secondary to SPEN’s plans.

    Hansard source
34. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities

    The Borders already has a significant number of electricity infrastructure projects, including wind farms and battery storage plants that have already been developed. Some are community owned—Berwickshire Housing Association co-owns a wind farm—but it has gone too far. Many people who previously supported those types of projects feel that we have our fair share. We are now tipping the balance into changing the Borders beyond recognition. That is why people who previously consented to such projects now say, “Enough is enough.” It is about not just the size and scale of the pylons, but the connected electricity infrastructure that comes on the back of the pylons, with the new substations and new projects rushing to get a connection to the upgraded power supply. Barely a week goes by without a new planning application: wind turbines, solar farms, battery energy storage units, data centres. The borders have been expected to take a disproportionate burden in the transition to net zero. As we have heard in this debate, other rural communities across the UK feel much the same. There will be those who say that we need to suck it up. Take for example the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), who said he would happily live next to an electricity pylon or a wind turbine. That is very easy to say for someone who lives in north London; it is an entirely different matter for someone who lives in the countryside. There is a hidden impact of the new electricity infrastructure too. Last week, we heard that data centres in Scotland powering artificial intelligence are using enough water to fill 27 million half-litre bottles of water a year—a shocking statistic. It is made all the more shocking when we discover that it is our precious tap water that is being used. According to Scottish Water, the demand is growing. There is also the agricultural land that is lost to those projects. Rather than filling productive agricultural land with solar panels, why not adopt a rooftop-first approach to protect our farmland and greenfield sites while maximising existing infrastructure? Community consent and local democracy are vital, and I am afraid that my constituents too often feel that these projects are simply a done deal—that the projects are being done to them rather than with them, without meaningful and constructive engagement between the developer and local communities. We feel that SPEN and other developers will go through the motions of a consultation but ultimately know that they will get their own way because they are pursuing Government policy objectives. That attitude was evidenced when the Information Commissioner’s Office recently ruled that SPEN appears to be seeking to “obfuscate” concerns about major power projects. That is totally unacceptable. We live in a democracy, and people are supposed to have a say on what happens in their community. We have an alarming situation in which many local residents are saying no and elected councillors are objecting, but the local council is powerless. Members of the Scottish Parliament are saying “Enough is enough,” but the SNP Government will not engage. Members of this Parliament are pressing the alarm bell, but the Labour Government say that it is nothing to do with them, which is utter nonsense. We live in the United Kingdom, and we should respect local decision making. We do not live in China, but it increasingly feels like that. Whatever the Government want is bulldozed through regardless of local opinion or the impact on our environment, habitats or landscapes. That is not how we do things in this country. My concerns centre not only on the projects affecting the Scottish Borders; they are about the lack of co-ordination and cumulative impact assessments. I have already highlighted the concerns about the cross-border connection and the process used for that. Separately, there is a rush to get connections to the new, high-voltage power line, which is what is generating the applications for battery storage sites, solar farms, wind farms and data centres. Where is the National Energy System Operator in all this? It should be dictating how many connections it will permit, as well as looking at the cumulative impact of those projects, but it is not. The situation has become a free-for-all, and both the SNP and Labour Governments seem happy to sit back and watch the chaos unfold. Who pays the price? Communities and the environment, such as those in the Scottish Borders. It is not just people in the Borders who have been left dismayed by the way SPEN has behaved. In the highlands, my Scottish Parliament colleague Douglas Ross MSP and Highland councillor Helen Crawford have been leading the battle, and I am pleased they have joined us in the Gallery today. Councillor Crawford organised two conventions with community councils to issue a unified statement on the importance of local democracy to new energy infrastructure. That was backed by politicians from the Scottish Conservatives, Labour, the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and independents—strong, cross-party backing—because the issue is above party politics, and because people deserve a real say in what happens in their community. In the highlands, local communities are grappling with more than 1,300 major electricity infrastructure projects. Despite these concerns, the Scottish Government refuse to engage or meet local residents. I have a letter from Gillian Martin MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, in which she refuses to meet the affected residents, hiding behind the ministerial code. This summer, I visited Torness power station. Some might call it a blot on the landscape, but it has been there for decades, generating vast amounts of electricity. It is a key source of high-quality jobs and an essential part of the energy network. Many of my constituents work there, as have generations of their families. Nuclear power is cleaner and greener than most alternatives. Frankly, it is the best way to produce more renewable energy while protecting our environment. Nuclear energy uses 3,000 times less land than wind does, and it can safely and reliably produce far more power than other alternatives. However, unbelievably, the SNP Government in Scotland have an ideological obsession against any form of nuclear-generated power. That means that in a few years’ time, Torness will close, jobs will be lost and our energy security will be weakened. We should be increasing the use of nuclear power, not pursuing developments that will ruin our countryside and communities. New electricity infrastructure simply does not provide jobs and opportunities in the same way. Yes, jobs are created while the projects are built—although often for those outside the area—but then they disappear. The developers pack up and local communities pay the price for generations to come. The issue matters to my community and to millions of people across the United Kingdom who are affected by new electricity infrastructure. Some of the most beautiful parts of our great country are at risk of permanent destruction. It is nonsensical for anyone to say that they want to protect our natural world while they simultaneously destroy it. We need a better deal for our rural communities when it comes to new energy infrastructure. The Government should urgently look at how developers engage with local people, consider options such as underground cables to protect our environment, and consider alternatives such as investing in nuclear, which is one of the most underused energy resources. If we do not do that, our rural communities will pay the price for generations to come. I have one ask of the Minister today: will he meet me in the Scottish Borders, together with local residents who are raising concerns about this, so that he can see and hear at first hand what is at stake?

    Hansard source
35. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry

    I acknowledge the Minister’s commitment to get to justice on this issue, and I recognise the frustration that she expresses, because I was responsible for the infected blood compensation scheme, which involved meeting a diverse group of 40 different charities and representative bodies that did not agree with one another. However, I gently and respectfully say to her that we face a credibility gap on this issue, and I urge her to examine how she can get ahead with the communications so that she can continue to demonstrate her commitment to get to justice. Frankly, we as Members of Parliament have to come to this place when things get into the media and public concerns are expressed. I understand her frustration, but getting the communications right and maintaining a pathway to the delivery of justice is critical.

    Hansard source
36. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    NHS Trusts: Performance

    I see the Health Secretary is having a bust-up with the Chancellor over who pays his £1.3 billion redundancy bill for breaking up NHS England. Will he guarantee that, once he has resolved his differences with the Chancellor, not a single penny will be taken from delivering frontline health and social care services or from underperforming NHS trusts to pay for making staff redundant?

    Hansard source
37. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·James Wild

    Topical Questions

    Greater transparency about NHS data should be used to drive improvements, so what assessment has the Health Secretary made of the impact on the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn of being forced to make savings of £18 million this year? What impact will that have on the need to reduce waiting times for A&E and cancer treatment, as identified in the league table that he published?

    Hansard source
38. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Electricity Infrastructure: Rural Communities

    I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Although he is speaking about the Borders, we are seeing something similar in the north-east. We have a huge amount of energy infrastructure across our region, whether that be pylons, batteries or substations, and the communities feel like things are being done to them. Our agricultural land is vanishing. Housing are having substations put right outside—I have heard from one household who have a substation right outside their child’s front window. There is no planning or organisation. Things are being imposed on communities who have very little say. The ways in which consultations are done are not up to scratch. It seems that there is nothing communities can do to have a say and actually be heard.

    Hansard source
39. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mandatory Digital ID

    My hon. Friend mentions digital exclusion. Some 28% of people over the age of 75 do not have a smartphone. How are they going to access digital ID?

    Hansard source
40. 21 Oct 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Mandatory Digital ID

    I recently conducted a local survey after being contacted by hundreds of constituents about this digital ID issue. The results were clear. Over two thirds of respondents opposed the introduction of mandatory digital ID, with the majority of them being “strongly” against it. Over 80% of respondents said that they believed such a system would infringe on personal privacy and do little to tackle illegal migration. Around 30% of respondents supported some form of digital identification, often for specific limited purposes. However, even among that group, most respondents said that they did not believe it would meaningfully address illegal migration or illegal working.

    Hansard source