5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this debate, which is incredibly important to our whole country, and certainly to my constituency. Neighbourhood plans are a vital component of a fair, balanced and genuinely democratic planning system. They are a testament to the principle that local people should not simply be told how their community will look by central Government, but be empowered to shape the future of the places they call home. Neighbourhood plans should guarantee that development happens with the consent of those who live there, and is not forced on them by speculative developers or bureaucrats in Whitehall, who too often view our villages and market towns as blank canvases. In Buckinghamshire, a clear framework is taking shape. The new Buckinghamshire plan is being developed right now to set out how many homes we need in the county and, broadly, where they should go, building on the local plans of the legacy councils before we went unitary in 2021. However, it is our neighbourhood plans that give meaning to that strategy on the ground. They provide certainty to my constituents in Mid Buckinghamshire. They reflect the unique character, constraints and aspirations of each parish, village and town. They tell developers, planners and councillors alike where development is acceptable and, just as importantly, where it is not acceptable. In Mid Buckinghamshire, I have seen how the plans work when they are respected and, sadly, what happens when they are not. In Marsh Gibbon, for example, the parish’s neighbourhood plan, backed by a local referendum, capped the number of new homes in that small village at 25 until 2031, yet we now face an attempt by a speculative developer to push through 90 homes, all on farmland—nearly four times what the community had previously agreed to. Such proposals do not simply test the robustness of local policy; they erode trust in the entire planning system if they succeed. We see similar disregard for local issues elsewhere. In Waddesdon, a proposal has come forward for more than 500 homes and a solar installation—far beyond what local people had planned for. In Stoke Mandeville, a 650-home scheme threatens to overwhelm local roads, schools, drainage and other infrastructure. In Longwick, the parish council produced a neighbourhood plan with the clear backing of the local community, yet despite that plan, and despite the village having nearly doubled in size already, Longwick continues to receive speculative applications for yet more housing. Sometimes we simply have to say enough is enough. Labour’s stated aim to build, build, build, no matter the consequences or cumulative impact of development on our rural communities, in reality means destroy, destroy, destroy. Consent from constituents is crucial to protect the rural identity of communities throughout Mid Buckinghamshire and right across the country. Under the last Government, we rightly strengthened neighbourhood planning powers, because we recognised that development must be rooted in local consent. We wanted to see homes built where they were genuinely needed and wanted, while protecting the green fields, rural lanes and historic character that make our villages so special. We knew that communities are more likely to support plans when they have real control over scale and location, not when that is dictated from Westminster. I am proud that in my constituency so many parish councils and volunteers in the villages I have mentioned—Marsh Gibbon, Waddesdon, Stoke Mandeville, Longwick and beyond—have done the hard graft of surveys, consultations and draft policies. They have balanced the need for new homes with the reality of local infrastructure and the natural environment and beauty. They have played their part in delivering homes, but on terms that respect the countryside and the unique Buckinghamshire character that makes these places attractive and worth living in. Neighbourhood plans are not optional extras. They are not tick-box exercises. They carry legal weight and must be defended robustly by planning authorities, inspectors and Ministers, even if this Government have never quite grasped that concept or shown any interest in doing so. If we truly want to build the right homes in the right places, we must stand with our constituents, communities, hamlets, villages and towns. We must back local people, who have done the hard work of saying, “Yes, here, but not there.” If we do not, we risk not just bad development but a total breakdown in trust between residents and the system that is meant to serve them. That is what we in this place are meant to uphold. Although the current Labour Government, particularly with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, want to ravage natural landscapes across our country, I will remain staunch in seeking to protect our neighbourhoods and my hamlets, villages and towns from this reckless agenda. I very much hope the Minister is able to give the Government’s commitment to neighbourhood plans and, as others have said, ensure that the funding can remain to produce them.

   Hansard source
2. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

   I thank Sir Brian Leveson for his work and applaud all efforts to speed up the system, but what reassurance can the Minister give my constituents, who will see a reduction in access to jury trial as the beginning of a slippery edge leading to an ever greater erosion of one of the fundamental liberties and glories of this country?

   Hansard source
3. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

   It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. The Bill is being rushed through by a Labour Government desperate to paper over the cracks in an economy that they themselves have brought to a shuddering halt. So many of the questions that are coming before the House at the moment are the result of that economic flatlining and the flailing of a Government who are casting around desperately to see how they can get themselves off that economic hook. Put simply, the Bill is unaffordable. The Prime Minister’s latest concessions to his unruly Back Benchers—now happy and victorious—have left the Exchequer with a £5 billion gap to plug, which inevitably means higher taxes for hard-working families who are already feeling the pinch. Far too few of those voices will be heard today. Too often in debates in this House, Members are consumed with the idea that more spending is a better thing that can always be afforded, and therefore no responsible decisions need to be made. That was the decision of the Labour Back Benchers who wrested from those on the Front Bench control of one of the flagships of this Government’s agenda, leaving the Government—massively endowed as they are with Members of Parliament—like some gigantic ship that has lost all power and propulsion, listing at sea, waiting for the next wave to come along.

   Hansard source
4. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

   As we in this Chamber know, the next wave that comes along and buffets this Labour Government from the left comes all too often from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), to whom I am happy to give way.

   Hansard source
5. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

   I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that we should consider such people. I think of the lady who came to see me on Saturday at my street surgery. She was concerned about the brutality of the PIP process and the way that she and her husband, who has a degenerative, progressive disease for which there is no cure, are put through the wringer to justify their situation, which anyone with any common sense would see deserves support. But the hon. Lady will be aware of the mushrooming in claims from those with various levels of mental health challenges. Ultimately, we must balance looking after people with degenerative, progressive diseases in a humane and civilised manner with making sure that we have a system that cuts out fraud, and that seeks to minimise those who do not need aid seeking it and getting it. If only we could have a system in which people did not claim for money that they do not deserve and need, we would be able to look after the people whom I think—this is one area of commonality between the hon. Lady and me—both she and I would agree require fairer and more generous treatment.

   Hansard source
6. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

   I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. We on the Conservative Benches know that throwing money at a problem without proper safeguards is not leadership, is not generous and is not kind, but is an abrogation of responsibility and economic negligence. Let me be clear: this Bill in its current form locks in billions of pounds of additional welfare spending year after year. Under the current Chancellor, we have already seen Britain’s debt interest forecast soar and the bond markets become jittery—more than that, they are charging far more than after the mini-Budget to which Labour Members so love to refer. And inflation, of course, has proven stubbornly high. Now we have yet another unfunded spending commitment, with no plan to pay for it except reaching deeper into taxpayers’ pockets. The Chancellor might not say it outright, but families in Beverley and Holderness and across the country know exactly where this ends up—with them paying more. The Prime Minister can indulge in his favourite hobby of U-turning his way throughout his time in office, but that is not governing in the national interest, which is what he promised to do. It is the latest example of the Prime Minister bending to pressure from the left of his party, which is so well represented on the Government Benches today, desperate as he is to shore up support for a drifting Government who have lost all propulsion. Instead of fixing the underlying problems in our economy—or fixing the foundations, as has oft been repeated—Labour has chosen the easy political route of higher spending, higher borrowing and, inevitably, higher taxes. Those higher taxes will be imposed not on some mythical class of super-rich people, which the Greens like to propose, but on ordinary men and women who get up in the morning, work hard, look after themselves and recognise personal responsibility as a central tenet of their lives. That also needs to be a central tenet of our political lives. That is why I have tabled two amendments to the Bill. Amendment 41 would ensure that Parliament retains control over future annual above-inflation increases. It would mean that the House of Commons must explicitly approve continuing those rates beyond 2027-28, protecting against open-ended commitments that we cannot afford. New clause 9 would require the Government to report on fraud and error arising from these provisions.

   Hansard source
7. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

   Given the scale of welfare fraud that we have seen in recent years—it already costs the taxpayer more than £8 billion—it is only right that we get a proper handle on where taxpayers’ money is actually going.

   Hansard source
8. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

   I would happily give way if there were Labour Members who had an interest in controlling the public finances rather than running up the national credit card irresponsibly, which is their wont. Those efforts by the Front-Bench team have now come to nought. They have given in to their Back Benchers and they no longer have any control or say on the direction of this Government. Together, these straightforward safeguards to protect the public purse would help reduce waste and misuse. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will stand up today and try to paint this as a fair and measured Bill. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shout and scream in frustration, but they will have their time to speak. In reality, this is not a fair and measured Bill. It achieves nothing but a two-tier benefit system, unfunded spending commitments and, ultimately, higher taxes for ordinary working people.

   Hansard source
9. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

   Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

   If the hon. Gentleman, who is so energetically rising from his place, can tell us how he is committed to ensuring that the public finances of this country are kept in a healthy state, I and the House look forward to it with bated breath.

   Hansard source
10. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    The hon. Gentleman will know that, as the benefit system grows, the likelihood is that fraud will grow within it. I applaud all efforts to crack down on fraud. I want to see greater efforts by those on the Front Bench to do that, but he knows that it is those sitting on the Back Benches who are now calling the shots. Ultimately, all roads lead back to the Treasury. The truth is that the Bill is not the product of serious policymaking—neither in its inception nor its eventual outcome, gutted and filleted as it has been by a triumphant left in the Labour party. Instead, it is the product of panic—a rushed response to economic pressures caused by a feeble Chancellor who has brought the economy to a halt. It has been written not with reform in mind, but with rebellion in the rear-view mirror. The result is a muddled, mean-spirited piece of legislation that satisfies no one, least of all the vulnerable people who will suffer under it, or the British taxpayer who will pay for it.

    Hansard source
11. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the plight of cancer sufferers and the need to have a system that is more generous to those who genuinely need it, but is also tougher in ensuring that the funding goes to the places where it is most required. Under this Chancellor, as we know, Britain risks a return to the same old Labour habits: spend today, tax tomorrow and leave the mess for someone else to clear up. We saw that under Gordon Brown, and we are seeing it again today. The public deserve better than another Labour tax-and-spend spiral that leaves less money in their pockets and less resilience in our economy. The Bill in its current form is a short-term fix with long term costs. It fails to tackle fraud, fails to address getting people back into work, despite all the protestations from Ministers that it had anything to do with that, fails to guarantee value for money and fails working families by paving the way for inevitable tax rises. If Labour wants to be taken seriously on economic credibility, it needs to start by showing some discipline on spending and not indulging in a spending spree that Britain simply cannot afford. The Prime Minister promised a serious Government—remember that?—a grown-up Government, yet here we are debating a confused, divisive Bill whose main achievement so far is to split the Prime Minister’s own Benches.

    Hansard source
12. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    If the hon. Lady wants to tell me that the Bill is not confused or divisive and has not been driven by the ructions on the Back Benches, I look forward to hearing her intervention.

    Hansard source
13. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    The hon. Lady should recognise that looking after the public finances, minimising fraud and ensuring that this House keeps control of public expenditure is exactly in the interests of the most vulnerable. Who will pay the highest price as this economic spiral goes downwards? As always under a Labour Government, it will be ordinary working people, the increasing numbers of unemployed people and vulnerable and disabled people—they are always the ones who pay the price for a Labour Government. When the last Labour Government left power in 2010, youth unemployment was up 45%. That is their record on young people, who are most vulnerable to the negative impacts of unemployment. It is those vulnerable groups who are always let down by a Labour Government—and most of all by a Labour Government that is run not by those with some sense of public finance control but by their Back Benchers who are out of control.

    Hansard source
14. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I respect her a great deal. She will be aware that under the last Conservative Government millions more disabled people came into the employment market. Around 2.5 million—possibly as many as 3 million—more disabled people entered the employment market and had the dignity of work. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have no credible plan to get our economy growing. Hard-working families in Beverley and Holderness and right across the country deserve better than another Labour Government chasing short-term headlines at the cost of long-term economic growth and stability.

    Hansard source
15. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    A non-negotiable reality is that we have must economic growth to fulfil the Government’s priorities, be it looking after the poor or the disabled, or any other priority. Yet under this Government, inflation has nearly doubled, and their unemployment Bill, jobs tax and other measures have brought the economy to a halt. Can Labour Members not understand that if they do not prioritise private enterprise and economic growth, they will never be able to serve the most vulnerable, who depend on that growth the most?

    Hansard source
16. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

    On a point of order, Madam Chair. We were told that the Bill was going to bring a £5 billion saving to the Exchequer, then it was £2.5 billion. Is it in order not to have any idea what this will cost the taxpayer?

    Hansard source
17. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Draft Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services) (Prescribed Terms) Regulations 2025

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. A glance at the draft regulations might give the impression of a proposal that is short and easily resolved but, as the Minister’s speech demonstrates, this is not an issue with simple answers. In fact, the regulations are part of a wider topic of airspace modernisation, which is a matter of considerable complexity. I have no doubt the Minister is aware, from what I suspect are hundreds of pages of reports and strategies placed on his desk by officials since he he arrived in office, of the significant work that was conducted by the previous Government, the CAA and a wide range of other stakeholders on airspace modernisation. Recognising the importance of airspace modernisation, the previous Government provided £9.2 million to maintain progress and enable sponsors to co-ordinate their programmes during an existential period for the industry during the pandemic. That work has, without doubt, gained fresh impetus following the Chancellor’s announcement of airport expansion earlier this year. While that announcement appeared to have been made by the Treasury without a full appreciation of the scale of the task involved, this draft statutory instrument is an important part of delivering on that intention. At the time, I said to the Transport Secretary that the Opposition support aviation expansion in principle, because it delivers economic growth. I reiterate that stance today, and we will not divide the Committee this afternoon. I do, however, have some questions for the Minister, which I will come to at the close of my remarks. The arguments in favour of airspace modernisation and the actions taken to facilitate it are obvious, and the Minister has outlined many of them. Anyone who has returned home from holiday and found themselves circling the airport endlessly will welcome the measures to improve the efficiency of our air corridors. In September last year, easyJet published its work illustrating the potential for emissions reductions through greater efficiency. The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that the current proposal will result in substantial fuel savings over a 15-year appraisal period. At a time when the Government are increasing costs for travellers, it is all the more important that the draft regulations allow operators to fly more efficiently and, I hope, pass those savings on to passengers. The aviation sector is one of the UK’s most successful industries, and our focus should be on how we support and improve it, not hold it back. In that light, not to embrace this opportunity to increase efficiency, to reduce fuel use and emissions, and potentially to reduce delays and noise would be a significant mistake. However, it is not that simple, because airspace modernisation will inevitably create winners and losers. While it will deliver greater fuel efficiency, reduced flying times and associated cost savings to airlines and, I hope, to passengers, changing flight paths will of course be a double-edged sword. Some people who live under a flight path will be removed from it and no doubt grateful for that, but others who do not live under flight paths now may may do so in the future; they can be expected, naturally, to be far from happy. As with airport expansion, the creation of the UKADS to simplify that process may also face challenges. While a majority of the stakeholders supported the principle during the consultation, 33% of those who did not oppose the proposal did in fact answer “maybe” in their response. That included one third of the respondents from the commercial aviation sector, whose buy-in the Government will need for the proposal to succeed. NATS, the only organisation the Government say is capable of handling those responsibilities—we do not dissent from that—responded to the consultation by stating that therefore “the accountabilities and responsibilities of UKADS must be more clearly defined.” That is not to say that the proposal will not work, but I believe that further clarity is needed on some broad questions. For example, can the Government confirm that the necessary skillset is available to lead the changes? Will the Minister provide assurances to smaller airports that the structure of the new arrangements will recognise and reflect the unique challenges that those locations face? Does he believe that there will be sufficient expertise within the UKADS to support airspace modernisation outside London in a timely manner, so that progress elsewhere is not held back simply because the initial focus is on London’s vastly more complicated airspace? Finally, I will address communication and transparency. During the consultation and following the policy announcement, it seems that some local organisations responded negatively and suggested that the concerns of local communities were being overlooked or ignored. I therefore ask the Government to give serious consideration to how they can provide maximum transparency around the process. In that light, my final question is: will the Minister commit to ensuring that the new body communicates its proposals with full transparency?

    Hansard source
18. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

    Can I check the hon. Gentleman’s wellbeing, as he is not making a speech today? Is he fine and dandy? [Laughter.]

    Hansard source
19. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

    I remind the Minister to leave Dr Luke Evans a couple of minutes to wind up.

    Hansard source
20. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

    The Minister will know the high regard in which I hold her. With that in mind, does she, in her own heart, believe that intermediate courts will fix the criminal court backlog, or does she agree with the legal profession that that risks being a costly distraction from investing in the existing system? Does she agree with me that chipping away jury trials in the name of speed risks undermining the cornerstone of British justice?

    Hansard source
21. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the role of neighbourhood plans in planning decisions. When we come to this place as representatives of our communities, it is our job to hold the Government to account for things that really matter. I must admit that when I entered Parliament I never thought that planning would be something I would lead on, but for my community it is so important because it impacts their daily lives all the time. I do not go through a week without someone raising a planning concern with me, so I thought it would be useful to have a debate yet again on the importance of neighbourhood plans. First, I will say a little about the national context of neighbourhood plans and their roles and why they matter to me and my community. As a country, we know we need to deliver more housing—both sides of the House believe that. The Conservatives and Labour pledged 150,000 houses in their manifestos and Liberal Democrats pledged 180,000. But the Liberal Democrats who campaigned against me locally have blamed the Government under both the Conservatives and now Labour for a build, build, build agenda, campaigning against local housing despite the figure in their manifesto being far higher. Here is where the national divides from the local, which is really important. Before the Minister makes his prepared speech about 14 years of what the last Government could or should have done, I should say that since I was elected I have raised many planning issues, had debates on this topic and lobbied from the Back Benches to try to deliver change, because the planning system does need to change. Despite a change in Government, we are still struggling to deliver the houses—we have only to look at what the Chancellor said in her Budget speech: “Changes to the national planning policy framework alone will help build over 1.3 million homes in the UK over the next five years, taking us within touching distance of…1.5 million homes in England in this Parliament.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 951.] I am no mathematician, but that is 200,000 short and deals only with the UK when the Labour manifesto was to deliver in England. On top of that, the Government have brought in changes, but they make my community feel hard done by. The national statistics and changes to the national planning policy framework show that Hinckley and Bosworth’s housing target has to rise by 59%. With the boundary changes, I take in some of north-west Leicestershire, which has to rise by 74%. We are prepared to build our fair share of houses, but it sticks in the throat when we see Leicester city dropping by 31%.

    Hansard source
22. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

    My right hon. Friend is spot on. That is why I wanted this debate, and many colleagues are here to raise that exact point.

    Hansard source
23. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising yet another point. I am sure we could go round the House and get examples of city areas having housing targets go down, whereas countryside areas have them go up. We know we need more houses, and everyone must take their fair share, but we have brownfield sites that need redevelopment and already have the infrastructure in place. The last Government chose to prioritise those sites for housing, because they are connected and have the amenities that the local population needs. That makes a lot of sense. I look forward to this Government explaining their decision. Neighbourhood plans were brought in under the Localism Act 2011, to give local communities the chance to shape what their community looks like.

    Hansard source
24. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

    My hon. Friend is spot on. In the planning system, there is a constant feeling that things are being done to people, not with them. The idea of localism and neighbourhood plans was to fight that. We know that local plans deliver more housing with neighbourhood plans, because the neighbourhood chooses where it goes, so it is in keeping with what the local village or parish wants. I will come on to that, because that is the key point.

    Hansard source
25. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. For someone who is not speaking, he articulates his point very well. He makes a really important point: different parts of the UK have a different approach, and there should be shared learning. Joining up community hubs is really important, especially in rural areas, where there are limited numbers of sports fields, doctors, shops and schools. The ability to bring businesses and the community together is good not only for the Government, so that they can deliver the housing, but for the local populace, to better understand and buy into what is being delivered. That is the whole point of neighbourhood plans. At the end of March 2025, the Government were aware of 1,800 neighbourhood plans being in place. The Locality website states that over 2,400 communities have initiated neighbourhood plans and over 1,000 plans have been successful at referendum. CPRE says that 5,800 local green spaces have been designated in neighbourhood plans, showing that local communities are deciding what is best for them. That is all well and good, but why are these plans important and are they making any tangible difference? An assessment of the impact of neighbourhood plans in England for the University of Reading in May 2020 showed that “Neighbourhood planning’s contribution to housing supply can be significant. Neighbourhood plans which are allocating housing sites are providing sites for an average additional to local plan allocation 39 units per neighbourhood plan.” I like to think of this in terms of percentage gains, as the Sky cycling team did. These are huge percentage gains in local communities, which go on to choose to have this housing. We know that these plans will deliver about 11% more houses, and they have community buy-in, which is fundamental to getting people on board to say they will take more housing. That is why we need these plans. However, the Government announced last month that the funding is stopping.

    Hansard source
26. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

    The hon. Lady makes a vociferous defence of her area; actually, she could have been speaking about my constituency in Leicestershire, which suffers all those things. The only thing I would say is that in my constituency we fought the national rail freight hub, won and pushed it back. The population was very pleased about that, but that speaks to people’s engagement and what they can do. The concern that we have to raise with the Government is about what happens when the funding stops. As I will say later, we need to understand where the Government stand on neighbourhood plans. Do they support them? Do they want them to be taken away? Do they want to see them wither? Will they strengthen them? The Opposition’s argument is that strengthening them would deliver the housing that people want in the way they want it. On the funding that is stopping, Locality—the membership organisation that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government commissioned to deliver support services to neighbourhood forums to prepare their neighbourhood plans—has announced that it cannot proceed with new neighbourhood planning support services from 2025, and it has until the end of March 2026 to complete all existing technical support packages agreed with MHCLG. It believes that “it will be difficult for some groups to progress their plans…we are not able to support the Champions Network and other learning and development opportunities”. The National Association of Local Councils said: “We are bitterly disappointed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG) decision to stop funding for the neighbourhood planning support programme…This decision is a significant setback for localism and the highly successful neighbourhood planning initiative”. CPRE nationally says that that it is “concerned about the government’s decision to end support for preparing and updating neighbourhood plans, as this is likely to lead to planning decisions becoming less responsive to the needs and aspirations of local communities.” That is the rub: it feels like a slap in the face for local communities that want to take on the responsibility of making change. That is often done by volunteers who do not have technical experience but aspire to change their area for the better. That is why it hurts. This is not just some nebulous concept that we discuss down here in Whitehall and Westminster. My constituency is a primary example that is living this out. We do not have an up-to-date local plan under the Liberal Democrat borough council—this has been ongoing for six years—or an up-to-date five-year land supply. The Liberal Democrats’ local campaign says, “Stop building,” but the national campaign says, “We need to go even further than the Labour and Conservative pledges.”

    Hansard source
27. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out; I hope she will get in contact with her colleagues in the Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough council to make that exact point. They could take more control if they had an up-to-date local plan and learned from their neighbours in North West Leicestershire—part of which is now in my constituency—which does have a five-year land supply and an up-to-date local plan, and is making the best of that because it is able to take in business rates and turn that into a positive. The community chooses where development goes and has control over it. The mechanism is there, and I have been raising this issue with the last Government and this Government. I am keen to ensure that the Government are able to kick local decision making in the right direction to prevent failings. Neighbourhood plans are the protective mechanism that can deal with that. I argued with the last Government, and will argue with this Government, that neighbourhood plans should have more weight, especially where there is no up-to-date local plan, because that would do exactly what the hon. Lady is asking for. They allow communities to have infrastructure and amenities, in keeping with the their heritage and environment, without top-down speculative developments that place 100, 200, 300, 500 or 1,000 houses on top of them. Communities just will not swallow that. That is the key and why I secured this debate. Let me continue with the example of my constituency. We now have the prospect of devolution, with 21 councils getting a legal invite to change the way in which they structure themselves. I am not sure about other Members, but if I got a “legal invite” from the court, I would not ignore it. This is being imposed on local governments. In my area, we have at least three different versions of what devolution will look like. This will have a drastic impact on planning, yet we have no idea of what the neighbourhood plans or planning authorities will look like, especially if we are divided into one, two or three different unitaries.

    Hansard source
28. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

    The hon. Member makes a fantastic point. It is about getting that balance. There will always be nimbys, but I find that many of my constituents understand that we need more housing for the young and for older people to downsize into, and more businesses and infrastructure for jobs and creating wealth. The question is their involvement and the understanding of the community, and being plugged into decision making. The whole idea of localism is that local communities know best. The Government cannot do everything, so we should empower the people at the bottom to make choices, and they will do. The evidence backs that up, which is why I would like to know why the Government seem to be reneging on localism. In response to parliamentary questions, the Government’s answers have been ambivalent: “Government remains of the view that neighbourhood plans can play an important role in the planning system. Communities can continue to prepare neighbourhood plans where they consider that doing so is in their best interests.” The Government believe: “Support for neighbourhood planning groups should be possible without further Government funding.” They also state: “The Government has no target for neighbourhood plan take-up.” This is why I secured this debate: do the Government want to scrap neighbourhood plans, or simply phase them out? If they believe in neighbourhood plans, why are they taking away the funding? How do they expect volunteers to deliver the change that the Government and the Opposition want to see, without the means to deliver it? What protections can be put in place for villages and parishes that are using neighbourhood plans, especially when there is no up-to-date local plan? How can we hold to account local councils, such as Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, for not delivering a local plan? The plans were almost designated under the previous Government, but that would be a big step to take. Fortunately, we have seen progress in planning improved, but at the end of the day we are open to speculative development, and there does not appear to be a mechanism to hold local councils to account. Finally, what does the Minister say in response to the thousands of plans, with likely tens of thousands of volunteers who have given hundreds of thousands of hours to deliver on a vision for their community that brings the houses that the Government need and of which local people can be proud? Westminster might write the targets, but it is our neighbourhoods that deliver the homes. If the Government cut the lifeline in neighbourhood planning, they sever the link that turns policy into places and houses into homes. We must not lose sight of their value or ignore the warning signs.

    Hansard source
29. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

    That was the argument made to me when I solely represented Hinckley and Bosworth, but stepping across and taking in north-west Leicestershire, when they are able to deliver a local plan that has the five-year land supply that brings in the business rates, there is chalk and cheese to be seen. Everyone can see that. So I am not so sure that the targets are the problem. There is the local accountability. The Government need to step in to say that where councils are failing on delivery, they should be held accountable. Unfortunately, what happens is that people come to their MP to say, “What are you going to do to sort it out?”, when of course it is councils that deliver the plan. They just need to be held accountable. Does the hon. Member agree?

    Hansard source
30. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

    Just before he took the previous intervention, the Minister was talking about the power of neighbourhood plans and the community coming together. My worry is that, if there is no funding, why would volunteers step forward for such a big undertaking, requiring legal prowess? That is a big worry, and the Government do not seem to have explained how they have filled that void. At the end of the day, this is volunteers working hundreds of thousands of hours to deliver for their communities.

    Hansard source
31. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

    The way I see it, under devolution, more powers will be devolved down to parish councils, so indirectly they will have more responsibilities by the very nature of what the Government are trying to do in creating unitaries. Do the Government really believe that a volunteer on a parish council, which will have more responsibilities under devolution, will turn their attention to neighbourhood plans, especially when there is no funding, given the responsibility that goes with them? My concern is that there are competing issues for parish councillors.

    Hansard source
32. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions

    I thank the Minister. I know that this is not his brief, and that he fought eagerly to respond to this debate. I appreciate his constructive tone. He heard Members say that neighbourhood plans are not a luxury, that they are about local concern and that things should not be forced on communities. Members said that we want neighbourhoods that we want to live in, that local people should have a meaningful say, that we want scrutiny and, to the greatest extent possible, that they should be done with local residents. Those are the key sentiments behind neighbourhood plans. Neighbourhood plans are not obstacles to progress; they are the architects of local consent. In fact, they are the granular centre of local democracy. To dismantle them is to forget that true planning begins not in Whitehall but in the beating hearts of our communities, which call these places home. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the role of neighbourhood plans in planning decisions.

    Hansard source
33. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Glaucoma Awareness

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), who is a colleague both in my region and in primary care. His powerful testimonies about patients and what they suffer are exactly why he is an asset to this House. He presents information that we all need to hear when we debate health issues. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke about the fantastic Perth royal infirmary. It is lovely to hear a success story. We do not hear enough success stories about the NHS, because the good news, despite what we hear in this place, is that the NHS broadly does a fantastic job for many patients, and we should never forget that. The experience he described is what we want to see across the country when it comes to dealing with glaucoma. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is nothing if not tenacious and consistent because, when I checked the records, I saw that in April 2024 he introduced a similar debate to raise this cause and to make sure people hear about it. He is a credit to his party and the people he represents when it comes to raising health issues. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) talked about NHS working groups. I have worked in places that have had PEARS—primary eye care acute referral schemes. Patients love them, GPs love them and I think the opticians and those who work in the services love them too, because they allow better joined-up care, which is what we all want. Glaucoma is actually a spectrum of conditions. Ocular hypertension affects 3% to 5% of people in the UK aged over 40. Primary open angle glaucoma affects about 2% of people in the UK older than 40, but when we break that down, it affects 1% of people aged 40, 3% of people aged 60 and about 8% of people aged 80. With a growing elderly population, we can see why this is a problem. Primary angle closure glaucoma affects about 0.4%. There are also some rarer ones, but the point is that glaucoma affects about 700,000 people, who could potentially go blind. Are the Government considering the call of the Association of Optometrists, and it is a simple one, to commission a national glaucoma pathway? I ask the Minister to think about that. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on glaucoma is very clear: “If any of the following risk factors for glaucoma are present, consider advising people to have their eyes examined by an optometrist…Older age. People 60 years of age or older should be examined every 2 years until they are 70 years of age, when they should be examined annually—free examination is available through the NHS…Family history of glaucoma. People older than 40 years of age who have a first-degree relative (parent, sibling, or child) with open angle glaucoma should be examined annually—free examination is available through the NHS…Ethnicity. People older than 40 years of age who are of black African family origin should be examined…Certain people are entitled to…NHS-funded eye examinations by optometrists…These include people …With a family history…as described above…Aged 60 years or older…In receipt of certain benefits” or “Who have been advised by an ophthalmologist” to have a follow-up. This is really important, as we have heard today, when we are talking about awareness. People should get their eyes checked, check their availability and, if they are 60 or over, make sure they understand that they can get their eyes checked through the NHS. This issue was raised in a debate at the end of April 2024, just a few weeks before the election. It is worth looking at what was said by the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), who went on to be a Health Minister: “I have a degree of frustration with the Government’s approach to the issue. Given the statistics, I would like to see the Minister commit today to turbocharge access to ophthalmology services and make eye tests more commonplace for people who do not routinely test their eyes, but also to get people access to eye care services once conditions have been diagnosed.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 51WH.] And he finished his remarks by saying: “We will support the Government in the remaining weeks or months that they have to get this policy right, but mark my words: the next Labour Government see this as a priority and we will act.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 53WH.] Now that we are one year into this Government, it is worth checking the record to see whether that priority has been given. Forgive me for being a bit of a pedant, but I checked Hansard to see how many times glaucoma has been mentioned. There have been four mentions since the election, only two of which were in the context of health. One mention was made by the hon. Member for Leicester South last month, and the other was made by the hon. Member for Strangford in a debate on rare retinal disease. That does not seem like it is a priority. I am being a bit of a pedant, but I also looked through the 10-year plan again, and there were two mentions of eye care, one of which was “ophthalmology” and the other was “optometrists”. The Minister will argue that it is a strategy document, but it raises the question: what is the plan for glaucoma? The last Government concentrated on several areas. These included early detection and greater use of community optometry, with an emphasis on the importance of routine tests. There was £500 million a year for sight tests and optical vouchers, supporting more than 12.5 million NHS sight tests provided free of charge. The budget was demand-led rather than limited by volume, and the public were encouraged through campaigns and social media advertising to get tested. Integrated care boards expanded local services for minor and urgent eye care, pre- and post-cataract checks and glaucoma referral filtering. The post-covid backlog recovery programme also received £8 billion. I am getting death stares from you, Mr Pritchard, so I will move on to my main points and my questions for the Minister.

    Hansard source
34. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Glaucoma Awareness

    Is there a plan or a strategy for considering a glaucoma pathway? Will the Government also commit to the workforce? The Health Service Journal has noted that the plan, as it stands, has no delivery chapter. Where is the delivery chapter for the 10-year health plan?

    Hansard source
35. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Glaucoma Awareness

    The Minister will probably be aware of the Full Fact and Sky News report that examined the speed at which appointments are being delivered. The Government have indeed delivered 4 million appointments, but under the last Conservative Government there were 5 million appointments within a similar time period, so we are actually seeing a slowdown in appointments. How will that affect people with eye conditions or other health conditions?

    Hansard source
36. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    For Women Scotland: Supreme Court Judgment

    6. What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland v. The Scottish Ministers of 16 April 2025 on women in Scotland.

    Hansard source
37. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    For Women Scotland: Supreme Court Judgment

    Joe Griffin, the permanent secretary to the Scottish Government, was asked when appearing in front of the Holyrood Finance and Public Administration Committee about action taken in relation to the Supreme Court judgment. When pushed, he said: “Specific actions, I can’t give you that right now.” Do the UK Government believe that the Scottish Government are failing to uphold the law?

    Hansard source
38. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Draft Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council (Housing and Regeneration Functions) Regulations 2025

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. As the Minister set out, each of these agreements was negotiated between the then Conservative leaders of each of these councils and the previous Conservative Government. Having engaged with those individuals, I know that they are positive about the fact that this statutory instrument has been introduced for agreement. I have a couple of questions, some of which stemmed from the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne and for Spelthorne. It is worth reflecting on the fact that there have been elections in some of the areas since the initial agreements were negotiated. We know that is not the case for Surrey, but there have been changes in Warwickshire and Buckinghamshire, although Buckinghamshire continue to have a Conservative leader. The Minister set out that consent from the authorities was granted in May 2025, which is also when those elections took place, and it would be helpful, particularly in respect of Warwickshire, where there has been a change of leadership, if he provided an assurance that the revised leadership of the council is still supportive of the devolution deal that we are due to agree. Some other questions have emerged. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne referred to how things would pan out in relation to the powers of mayoral strategic authorities. In the context of devolution, authorities are seeking an assurance that the exercise of those powers will remain subject to an appropriate level of local democratic oversight after reorganisation. I am conscious that ministerial directions could be used to instruct the local authority to conduct itself in a certain way, when that may not be what was envisaged when the original agreement was drawn up. Finally, to the point about the consent of districts and boroughs, regulation 4 says that the consent of those districts and boroughs will be required for the exercise of any of these functions. The Minister can be very clear about that, and it would be helpful if he could set out in what circumstances the Minister may provide a direction to a district or borough to agree to, or to provide consent to, one of those functions. That potentially would circumvent the local democratic control that was envisaged. I am grateful to the Minister for honouring the commitments that have been made. For the most part, these provisions are politically non-controversial and are seen very much as beneficial regardless of who is in control of the local authorities, but I know that colleagues would appreciate it if he provided clarification on those points.

    Hansard source
39. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·David Mundell

    Spending Review 2025: Scottish Public Services

    Does the Secretary of State share my view that, whatever the SNP Scottish Government’s budget, they have cynically and systematically deprived funding from areas that do not support independence, leaving councils such as Dumfries and Galloway and Scottish Borders and their health boards struggling to provide basic services?

    Hansard source
40. 9 Jul 2025·Parliament·David Davis

    Engagements

    Q9.   With permission, Mr Speaker, before I ask my question, may I tell the House that there are a number of veterans of Northern Ireland in the Public Gallery? Given what the Prime Minister said about 7/7, I would like to publicly thank them for their courage in defending our country and our democracy against the first scourge of terrorism. The Prime Minister knows that every time a paramilitary was killed in Northern Ireland by a British soldier, it triggered a thorough investigation. No bullet went unscrutinised. Our soldiers were held to the highest standards of law. The IRA were not; they tortured, shot men in the back, forced families to watch their menfolk being murdered, and killed women and children with bombs, yet we are willing to prosecute our own men, who were forced to make life-and-death decisions in split seconds. If the Government get the legacy legislation wrong, at least 50 innocent retired veterans will be exposed to legal persecution for crimes they did not commit. I have raised this matter six times since February. I ask again: on Monday, when we debate this matter in Westminster Hall, will the Government protect our veterans, or will they sacrifice them to politically motivated lawyers who are trying to rewrite history with a pack of lies?

    Hansard source