Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
I will, but then I want to ask the Minister a question to see whether he will answer, in which case we might not press the amendment to a vote.
5,804 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
I cannot yet tell you that, Mrs Hobhouse, because I want first to respond to what the Minister has said, and then hear his response in an intervention I will invite him to make. The Minister and I are obviously fairly jaded about the length of time that this is taking. I feel exactly the same as he does, but this is a serious concern from all parties, as he has accepted. He outlined his belief that the wording in the Bill is substantive enough to ensure that there is an invitation to make representations. The process established by the Bill says that the authority must “consider notifying”—that could be, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, in a very small advert on a distinct web page that is not very accessible somewhere—“(at least) the following” people. It then publishes a strategy and asks for representations, which must be in a prescribed form and manner and within a prescribed period. That is fine, but nowhere in the Bill does it outline what happens to those representations once they are received. There is no obligation on the development organisation to look at those representations.
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
The Minister can make that face, but that is true. Nowhere does it say that the authority has to look at the representations, give any feedback on them or do anything about them. All we are saying in amendment 78—it was addressed in other Members’ speeches as well—is that local people should be consulted on what they think about the proposals. The Minister is, as I have said repeatedly on this Committee, a man of integrity and he has listened to our case, but nowhere under proposed new section 12H, particularly in subsections (3) and (4), does it require authorities to do anything with the representations. There is nowhere where those representations could feasibly make the proposals and draft plan better or fundamentally change their contents. I will invite the Minister to intervene—
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
—when I have posed this question. We are seriously concerned about this element of the Bill. The Minister said in Committee yesterday that they have the numbers. We accept that, and we can look at this on Report. We will look at this on Report, because it is a substantial area in which the Bill falls short. If the Minister commits to meeting all interested parties and look actively at how, in subsection (3), we can remove “consider notifying (at least)” and include not just notifying, but consulting, and we get a clear, proper commitment to that in Committee this afternoon, then we will consider not pressing the amendment to a vote. I know the Minister has the numbers, but I hope, in the spirit in which our amendment is intended, he understands that people who will be impacted by these decisions will want to have that consultation. I ask the Minister to intervene to hear if he is willing to do that. If he is not, we will press this amendment to a vote.
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
I am grateful to the Minister and I know he is doing his best in this regard. I am challenging not to be obtuse or difficult, but because, as I have said, there is clear concern about the wording in the Bill, and his interpretation, which is the really important thing, is an interpretation of language in the Bill that we just do not feel is tight enough. I know he has committed to writing to the Committee, and we would like him to do that. I did ask whether he would consider looking at the consultation element in relation to proposed new section 12H(3). On his reference to the London plan, that is fine—we can compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges—but let us look at the fact that this is a provision in legislation that will be new. I think that he should be looking at this afresh, aside from what happened before. Just because something has happened before does not mean it is correct or right, and we want the language in the Bill tightened up as much as possible. I really regret to say to the Minister—
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
After I was so kind to the hon. Lady! Actually, we agree on this issue, and it is not my amendment; it was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, so it is his fault. But whether she thinks it is poorly worded or not has no bearing on my inclination to press the amendment to a vote or not, because I think the principle is what matters. I think we both have a principled stance on what we want to achieve in the Bill, which is consultation. Whether the hon. Lady thinks that the amendment is worded wrongly or not—I say that with all due respect, genuine respect, to the hon Lady—what I was saying to the Minister was that he has made a number of commitments, but I fear that coming back to this on Report and not—[Interruption.] I am coming to a close, Mrs Hobhouse, but other people have had their say on this and it is important that we have our say on our amendment. The Minister has been very clear on what he wants to do, but I do not think he has gone far enough, so we will press the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
I apologise, Mrs Hobhouse, for the length of my speech on the previous clause; this one will not be as long. I will take your steer and cut my remarks to a more suitable length. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said from a sedentary position, but she is making my speech longer. Amendment 77, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, is an attempt to elaborate on the Opposition’s arguments about Natural England. The Minister will know where this amendment is coming from. He was open to some of the challenge from Members and witnesses in the Committee’s evidence session in which concerns were repeatedly raised about the functionality, ability and readiness of Natural England to play the role expected of it by the Secretary of State and the Minister in the parameters of this legislation. I was initially concerned about Natural England because I have had involvement with it in my constituency, and some of its response times and ability to react in what I consider to be a satisfactory manner are sometimes compromised. That is by no means a criticism of the chief executive, who I thought gave very honest and able testimony in our evidence session. I will précis her words, as I did not make a note, but essentially she said, “We are going to wait for the spending review, but there is a lot of work that we need to do. We have been assured that the Government are going to resource us, and there are added responsibilities, but we hope, we see, we think.” I am afraid that, when we are looking at such monumental changes to development and nature recovery planning, we need better than that. The Minister was really open when we cross-examined him in the evidence session. He said that I was tempting him to give an answer ahead of the spending review. I will not do that this afternoon; I know that he is but a small cog among the many Ministers asking the Chancellor for more money to resource their Departments. I understand that, having been through it myself. None the less, we are concerned about Natural England’s ability and whether it is the right organisation to take these responsibilities forward. Amendment 77 to clause 48 would remove the reference to Natural England and provide that an environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document. The second part of the amendment, proposed subsection (1B), would provide that where an EDP is prepared by a local planning authority, the references to clauses 48 to 60, which essentially outline Natural England’s responsibilities, should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority. We believe that local planning authorities have the wherewithal to develop local environmental delivery plans. They have experience of doing so. I know that there is some challenge, given the resourcing of planning departments, but the Minister’s record on that issue, as well as the actions that he is taking through this legislation, which we wholeheartedly support, make me confident that that challenge will be met. As I say, I am concerned to ensure that local authorities can develop environmental delivery plans. After my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has spoken, will the Minister elaborate on that in his winding up? I hope that since the evidence session, he has taken a look at some of the legislation and recommendations for Natural England, or discussed them with Natural England to reassure himself that Natural England is resourced for the actions that he and Secretary of State will require it to undertake, although I realise that he will say this is a slow-burn development going through. Those are the parameters of our amendment, and we hope that the Minister will look on it favourably. If he cannot, we hope he can give us some reassurance that Natural England is still the best fit to undertake these responsibilities.
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
I apologise to the Minister and to you, Mrs Hobhouse, because I did not register that amendment 148 was in this group—that is my fault.
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
It is getting late, and I have been thinking about chalk streams all day. I will speak briefly to amendment 148, which is in the name of the shadow Environment Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). Clause 50(4) states: “Where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site, the EDP may, if Natural England considers it appropriate, set out conservation measures that do not directly address the environmental impact of development on that feature at that site but instead seek to improve the conservation status of the same feature elsewhere.” The amendment would add two important carve-outs through an extra subsection (4A), whereby subsection (4) does not apply where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site and is a chalk stream or a blanket bog—[Laughter.] The Minister was laughing. We have carved out those two things in the amendment—well, the shadow Environment Secretary thought it was very important, obviously, and I have researched what a blanket bog is—because of what we discussed earlier. In particular, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined perfectly that our chalk streams in this country are exceptionally special, are unique ecosystems and are unique in most ways to the UK, particularly Hampshire and certain other parts of the country. Therefore, we think there is scope to create subsection (4A) to exempt those two specific protected characteristics from subsection (4). That is the reason why we tabled amendment 148: chalk streams obviously cannot be moved—I am not being facetious; I promise the Minister that we are not at that stage of the day—and they are incredibly rare, so it would not be appropriate to try to create that environmental protection elsewhere. We could do it from one chalk stream to another, but chalk streams are so rare that we would not want to harm, inadvertently or purposefully, the country’s chalk streams. I hope the Minister sees that those very small additions to the text of clause 50 would strengthen the Bill. I commend the amendment, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, to the Committee.
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
Let me first put on the record how much I appreciate your giving us that break, Mrs Hobhouse. I managed to buy the Minister a double espresso—I hope his officials have noted that and put it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, so that there is no accusation of collusion across the Chamber.
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
I can buy one for the hon. Gentleman tomorrow—coffees for everyone. I rise to speak to amendment 125, in the name of the shadow agriculture and fisheries Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). The amendment would tighten up the key statutory bodies outlined in the clause in relation to consultation on draft EDPs. To tease the Minister slightly, I find it slightly ironic that he is happy in this clause to have a very clear set of organisations to consult, whereas in some of the clauses we discussed before, we would just notify, but not outline, organisations. But who are we to disagree? We welcome the detailed way in which clause 54 outlines the organisations whose views should be sought. Amendment 125 would simply add: “any impacted landowner…sea fishing businesses, where the EDP covers an area which is adjacent to their fishing grounds” and “the owners of fishing rights, where the EDP includes or otherwise affects rivers or lakes used for fishing.” We seek to do that because, where an EDP is in a coastal region or any other area covered by the amendment, those key stakeholders would not be consulted. As I say, the clause takes a welcome step in requiring Natural England to consult the public and relevant public authorities on draft environmental development plans, ensuring a degree of transparency, and I will always applaud the Minister for that. However, although the inclusion of key statutory bodies such as the Environment Agency and local planning authorities is appropriate, the clause gives Natural England broad discretion to determine which other authorities are “relevant”. We do not think that that wording is tight enough, given the unique nature of some of the elements we want to include, and it may risk inconsistent or insufficient consultation across EDP areas, depending on Natural England’s interpretation. Will the Minister tell us how transparency will be ensured in summarising and responding to stakeholder feedback? Additionally, the clause does not specify the form or duration of public consultation, nor how responses will be taken into account in revising the draft EDP, so what guarantees are there that public consultation responses will materially influence the final EDP?
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
Having assessed some of the Minister’s comments this afternoon, not in relation to EDPs but overall, I will not move amendment 149.
- Hansard source
Great British Energy Bill
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2B.
- Hansard source
Great British Energy Bill
That is noted, and no doubt on the record again, as it has been previously. Thank you. I will continue with the business. Lords amendment 2B agreed to. Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)), That the following provisions shall apply to the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 12 February 2025 (Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]: Programme): Consideration of Lords Message (1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement. Subsequent stages (2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put. (3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Kate Dearden.) Question agreed to.
- Hansard source
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendment 49B, the Lords disagreement with the Commons in Commons amendment 52 and Lords amendments 52B and 52C engage Commons financial privilege. If any of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. Clause 28 DVS trust framework
- Hansard source
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions: That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 34B and 34C proposed instead of the words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment 34. That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 43B. That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 49B. That this House insists on Commons Amendment 52 to which the Lords have disagreed and disagrees with the Lords in their Amendments 52B and 52C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement. That this House does not insist on Commons Amendment 55 to which the Lords have disagreed and agrees with the Lords in their Amendments 55D and 55E proposed in lieu of Commons Amendment 55. That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendment 56B
- Hansard source
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
To help the Minister for a moment, because colleagues are looking bewildered: I do not know who was or was not invited to the Minister’s 60th birthday party, in case they are feeling a little left out.
- Hansard source
Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. He is entirely correct to say that the House took an urgent question earlier today on the provisions of the ministerial code. Those provisions make clear that when the House of Commons is sitting, major Government announcements should be made to the House first. That point has been made repeatedly from the Chair, including on multiple recent occasions. Ministers are accountable to this House, and should make every effort to inform this House of policy developments via statements wherever it is possible to do so. While I have been in the Chair, I have had no warning that a statement is due today. The Government and, no doubt, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard both the point of order and my response, and I trust they will act accordingly and with some urgency. I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Engagements
If I may, Mr Speaker: Sir Roy Stone served 13 Chief Whips, and Prime Ministers from Margaret Thatcher to Boris Johnson. I would like to pay tribute to his extraordinary service and send my best wishes to his family. Before we start, I would also like to say to the Prime Minister how horrified I was to hear about the attack on his family home. It is completely unacceptable, and I think I speak for the whole House when I say that it was an attack not just on him, but on all of us and on our democracy. Yesterday we learned that unemployment is up 10% since the election. Why does the Prime Minister think unemployment is rising on his watch?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I am not sure that the Prime Minister even knew that employment was up, but there is no point in him blaming everyone else. The fact is that the Conservatives reduced the deficit every year until the pandemic, more than doubled the personal allowance, left 4 million extra jobs, tackled the post-pandemic inflation spike, and left the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Let us talk about what is happening today. Let us look at Beales, a 180-year-old department store in Dorset. It survived two world wars and the winter of discontent, but it could not survive this Labour Government. Beales is having what it calls a “Rachel Reeves closing down sale”. What does the Prime Minister have to say to all the people who have lost their jobs?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I am very happy to welcome the Prime Minister’s tiny tariff deal, but the fact is that it has put us in a worse position than we were in in March. He should not over-egg the pudding. Let us talk about how things are getting worse now. In every month of this year, household names like Sainsbury’s, Tesco, Asda and Santander have cut staff numbers. The Office for National Statistics estimates that there are 100,000 fewer jobs than there were a year ago—and that was before the Prime Minister’s jobs tax, which will make things worse. Can he promise the House that by this time next year, unemployment will be lower than it is today?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I did not hear a promise to get unemployment down, and that is because the Prime Minister knows things are going to get worse. This goes wider than businesses. Last week I met staff and patients at Farleigh hospice. They do fantastic work, but they need to find an additional £250,000 to pay the jobs tax. How does the Prime Minister suggest that Farleigh hospice—a charity that relies on donations—pays for his tax hike?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I cannot believe the Prime Minister is still using that figure. We have had this very conversation at the Dispatch Box—he knows it is just capital spending. Either he is not paying attention or he is saying things to disguise what is going on. That money will not pay for the jobs tax. He knows that, and the hospices know it too. The other people who know that things are getting worse are the five leading business groups in the UK. They say that his so-called Employment Rights Bill will be “deeply damaging” to growth. Does the Prime Minister accept that they are right, or does he believe that he knows better than business?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Prime Minister needs to listen to business. We cannot have employment rights without employment. Labour always forgets that it is not Government that creates growth; it is business that creates growth. Businesses are closing, and they are blaming him and his Chancellor. There are 100,000 fewer jobs. Hospices, charities and nurseries are facing bills from the jobs tax that they cannot afford. Even the unions say workers are being thrown on the scrapheap, and all of this before his unemployment Bill makes hiring even more expensive. When will he admit that Labour isn’t working?
- Hansard source
Future of Public Libraries
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship again today, Mr Dowd. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing this important debate. It is great to hear from Members from across the House and across the country, and I thank them for championing libraries in their constituencies. Libraries matter; they are one of the few places in public life where people of all ages and backgrounds are welcomed in without cost or condition. Whether it is a child discovering books for the first time, students revising for exams, pensioners playing bridge or Scrabble, or those needing digital support or wi-fi to apply for jobs, libraries quietly meet a range of needs every single day. Baroness Sanderson put it very well in the other place: “no matter who you are or where you are from, you can walk into any library in the country and ask for help. In return, you will be asked for precisely nothing.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 September 2024; Vol. 839, c. GC128.]— well, apart from maybe to return your book on time. That civic spirit, quiet, constant and universal, defines the best of what public services should be, and demand for libraries nationally continues to highlight this popular public service. Recent published data from DCMS highlights that nearly one in three adults in England—around 13.7 million people—have used a library in the last year. As we all know, libraries are a statutory service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, and rightly so, but how they are delivered is a matter for local councils. That is consistent with the principles that we Conservatives believe in: local services delivered by local people, community engagement, and fiscal responsibility. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the challenges of funding and provision that local authorities and libraries face. As a former local councillor, I understand the scale of those challenges for many councils, and the new duties and demands on precious resources, but it is not all doom and gloom, as my home area has demonstrated. In my borough of Bexley, the Conservative-run council has built two new state-of-the-art libraries, in Sidcup and Thamesmead. The Sidcup library on the high street has been extremely popular since its opening, with a new cinema, and was very busy when I visited on Saturday to view the fantastic VE Day display arranged by the Lamorbey and Sidcup local history society, alongside brilliant local archive and history volunteers. Old Bexley, Sidcup and Welling was home to Roald Dahl for part of his life, as it was for other creative talent such as Quentin Blake, Roger Moore and, perhaps most famous, Gary Oldman, who portrayed Winston Churchill in the motion picture “Darkest Hour”. Lots of entertainment for readers and film fans comes from Bexley, and I hope many will enjoy it during this summer’s reading challenge. I am happy to support the people taking part in that this year in our libraries. Councils across the country have adapted creatively to the challenging backdrop for libraries in the online age. From traditional council-run libraries to commissioned trusts and community-supported services, delivery models have evolved, but the mission remains unchanged: to provide a comprehensive and efficient service that meets the needs of local people. I take this opportunity to thank all library professionals around the country, but particularly those in Bexley and the House of Commons Library, and the incredible volunteers at Blackfen community library in my constituency, which has gone from strength to strength since opening as a real community hub in Blackfen. I am proud to support it throughout the year. That library and the new Sidcup library on the high street highlight the powerful role that libraries can play in generating local economic activity and footfall in town centres. That point has not been made much today, but it is important. In government, the Conservatives supported that evolution. Through the libraries improvement fund, we invested more than £20 million to help modernise buildings, improve digital access and ensure that libraries remained fit for purpose in the 21st century. We commissioned the independent review of English public libraries, excellently led by Baroness Sanderson, which laid out a practical vision for renewal through stronger data, better branding, wider membership and deeper community connections. We supported the idea of a universal library card, a national data hub and closer alignment with institutions such as the British Library to strengthen the sector’s long-term sustainability. This is not about centralisation; it is about enabling the sector to thrive by giving it the tools, visibility and consistency it needs. We must acknowledge the vital role that libraries played during the coronavirus outbreak, which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) mentioned. They moved swiftly online, offering ebooks, streamed activities and virtual learning. In the most difficult circumstances, libraries kept people connected to culture, community and one another. We must be honest though. We understand that local councils face financial pressures, which are being made worse by the Government’s Budget decisions. Bexley council is already £5 million worse off this year, so it has to make more difficult decisions. I encourage councils in that situation to look at the community library model, which has worked well in my constituency and has prevented closures. We must help councils to protect core services while encouraging partnerships, co-location with other services and volunteer engagement where appropriate. I urge the Government to build on the momentum of the cross-party Sanderson review, which provided a road map that balances modernisation with the values that have always underpinned public libraries: access, education, community and trust. It is disappointing that a refreshed public libraries strategy was not published before last year’s general election, but I am sure the Minister agrees that that work must not be lost. This is why we are disappointed that the Minister, Baroness Twycross, has so far avoided giving a direct answer to a direct question on this matter, so I ask the Minister here today: when will his Department publish a strategy for English public libraries, as many Members have called for? I know he understands the need for a new strategy that is informed by data, rooted in localism and underpinned by a longer term vision for this essential local provision. That would allow libraries not just to survive but to flourish in the years ahead. Members on both sides of this House believe in the quiet power of public libraries to educate and inspire, and we stand ready to work across the House to ensure their future is every bit as valuable as their past.
- Hansard source
Future of Public Libraries
One of the key asks from this debate from Members across the House is that the Government publish a national strategy on the back of the Sanderson review. Can I push the Minister to commit to that today?
- Hansard source
Future of Public Libraries
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this debate. The Chamber is very well attended, and rightly so; libraries remain at the heart of our communities. Libraries are more than just books. They offer computer and internet access, host local community groups and provide safe spaces for those who need it. Library staff, supported by volunteers, are pillars of the community. They help those who are most vulnerable, such as the elderly, children and jobseekers. Even throughout the pandemic, libraries adapted to lockdown, and began to provide online services and activities, including e-books. Those services will have supported many families throughout those difficult times, and many would have struggled without them. I am passionate about all children having access to a quality education, and libraries help to provide that. They provide the environment for children to be curious and have imagination. I am lucky enough to have Harry Potter world in my constituency. JK Rowling’s ability to read previous authors, like the Enid Blytons of the world, would have driven the imagination that allowed her to create the vision that we all enjoy today. Statistics show that about two thirds of children aged 15 visit the library each year in London. They use them in multiple ways by borrowing books, or using computers, printing facilities or study spaces. Nowhere else can offer all those things. I am lucky enough to have six libraries in my constituency of South West Hertfordshire: Abbots Langley, Chorleywood Community, Croxley Green, Kings Langley Community, Oxhey and Rickmansworth. I am a regular user of those libraries, hiring meetings rooms at Croxley Green to meet constituents and to discuss a library link scheme. Croxley Green is a tier 2 library, meaning it is a community-focused, small library. Its library link scheme allows residents to request specialised research from a librarian. It also ran a slipper project, encouraging elderly people to bring in their old slippers to be replaced with new ones to keep them warm in the winter. Rickmansworth library has unfortunately been closed for a number of months due to a refurbishment following a fire. Understandably, locals are concerned because they do not have access to the library services. I know that the county council is providing some of those services off site, but I will continue to work with Hertfordshire county council, whoever the new leader is, to ensure that my community keeps the services that it has had over many years. I do not want Rickmansworth library to be one of the 2,276 libraries that have closed since 2016. Instead of seeing libraries close, we should be seeking plans to open new ones—for example, in Leavesden in my constituency, which does not have a local library. In England and Wales, only 78% of the population are within a 30-minute walk of a public library. We should be investing to increase that percentage. The Conservative Government committed to publishing a public library strategy, which the election unfortunately prevented.
- Hansard source
Future of Public Libraries
I wholeheartedly agree, especially for some of our more rural communities. There are modern ways of solving that problem, including mobile libraries, which allow communities to have access for a few hours each week to a van that drives around, and books can be pre-ordered via an online system. Will the Minister commit the Government to publishing a public library strategy? I am sure that members of the wider community would be keen to hear the direction of travel. I congratulate Hertfordshire library services, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary. We should support all counties to continue offering these services, so that libraries can remain the strong community hubs they have been for so long.
- Hansard source
Engagements
Q10. Whether or not people agree with the Prime Minister’s net zero targets, he must agree that he will not achieve those targets without taking people with him. The cable corridor and substation for the Morgan and Morecambe offshore wind farm is one of the most objected to national energy infrastructure projects in the country. What is angering me and thousands of others is that there is a perfect alternative cabling route further up the coast that would bring local economic benefit, would be more cost-effective as a whole lifecycle project and could connect to existing national grid infrastructure, but no one is listening. Will the Prime Minister now listen, pause the planning inquiry for the existing application and ask the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to consider and cost the alternative route to avoid untold devastation to our coastline and countryside?
- Hansard source
Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response
I thank the Minister for his statement and for advance sight of it. The infected blood scandal is one of the clearest failures of the state and public services in recent years, causing enormous harm over many years to countless victims and their families. Next week marks the first anniversary of the publication of the inquiry’s report, and I add my thanks and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their work and comprehensive report. On 21 May last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) stood at the Government Dispatch Box and made clear his determination to act on the inquiry’s report. I pay tribute to his work and thank him for the advice and support that he has given to me and the shadow Cabinet Office team on this issue since the election. I am pleased that the Paymaster General picked up from where his predecessor left off. As I have said previously, both sides of the House speak as one on this issue, but sadly there is nothing that we or the Government can do that will undo the terrible damage caused by this scandal. No amount of money will bring back those who have been lost, and no amount of lessons learned can make up for the suffering of those who contracted serious illnesses because of contaminated blood, but Ww would be not only failing in our duty, but failing all those who have died and all those who continue to live with life-changing conditions if we did not take up this battle on their behalf. To do this, we must directly address the profound distress, anger and fear that is being expressed by victims and their families at the pace of the roll-out of the full compensation scheme. Victims in recent hearings have referred to the wait as “torture” and “disgraceful”—to mention just a few cases. Of course, the gravity of those concerns has been underscored by the decision to re-open the infected blood inquiry for a further report on compensation. Although we support that decision, we need to make sure that it does not delay the proper compensation for those who have already lost so much. With every week and month that passes, we know that more infected and affected individuals will, sadly, die before receiving their full and final compensation. This underscores the human cost of every single day of delay. Therefore, although I recognise that the compensation authority was set up precisely to be independent of Government in operational matters, I ask the Minister whether he is content with the current pace of delivery and, if not, what he and the Government are doing to help David Foley and his team to speed up pay-outs to dying victims. Let me turn to other recommendations made by the inquiry. May I ask the Paymaster General what progress has been made on recommendation 6 on monitoring liver damage for people who are infected with hepatitis C? On recommendation 8, which is on finding the undiagnosed, what action has been taken to ensure that patients who had transfusions before 1996 are offered a blood test for hepatitis C? Can the Paymaster General update the House on how many such tests have so far been carried out, and what assessment he has made of the additional infected and affected patients who may now be eligible for compensation? The journey to rebuild trust with the victims and their families will be long and requires not only words of apology and commitment but, crucially, demonstrable action that proves that the Government and, indeed, this House, are listening and responding. The acknowledgement that the current compensation scheme has not yet won the full trust and confidence of the community is a start, and I hope the Government will continue to take these concerns seriously to put in place the robust changes that are necessary. We will support them in that work.
- Hansard source
Gaza: UK Assessment
One thing we can all agree on is that we want to see the safe release of the hostages. It is evident that military action, in and of itself, was never going to achieve that. With that in mind, do the Government support or condemn Israel for the most recent escalation of military action? If they are not prepared to condemn it at this stage, how many more innocent deaths must there be before they do?
- Hansard source
Gaza: UK Assessment
As we meet here, in this rather grand Palace of Westminster, the reality on the ground is that Palestinian children continue to die in the rubble. Is it not becoming clear that the central policy of the Israeli Government seems more about protecting the political skin and life of the current Israeli Prime Minister than even saving the lives of the remaining Israeli hostages and saving the lives of Palestinians? I appeal to the British Government to be again on the right side of history, of the law and of moral judgment, and not to back one particular individual, fighting for his political life, back in Tel Aviv.
- Hansard source
Draft Pension Fund Clearing Obligation Exemption (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Yet again, we are in glorious agreement on both sides of Committee Room 9, which is rather fun. The Opposition absolutely agree with the draft regulations; as the Minister rightly says, the work was started under the last Government, and it is important that we continue to support it. However, we recognise the critical role that central clearing plays in safeguarding financial security. The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, which represents schemes with more than £1.3 trillion in assets, acknowledges that there are benefits: clearing reduces counterparty risk, increases transparency and, in normal times, helps to protect members’ savings. However, the evidence from the sector and, importantly, the experience of the liability-driven investment crisis in 2022 show that mandatory clearing presents a real challenge for pension funds. Most UK schemes do not hold large cash reserves, nor should they: the money should be invested for long-term returns for their pensioners. The need to raise cash quickly to meet central counterparty margin calls can force schemes to sell assets at precisely the wrong moment, undermining members’ returns and potentially undermining market stability. The LDI crisis in 2022 made things pretty clear; I remind hon. Members that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister were sacked for creating that chaos. [Interruption.] It’s a fact of life. In the consultation undertaken by the previous Government, many stakeholders argued that a permanent exemption is the only way to provide certainty and avoid undermining the Government’s own ambitions in the Mansion House reforms. If the exemption were removed, schemes would be forced to hold more liquid, low-return assets, including cash, which would reduce the capital available for long-term investment in the economy. I am therefore delighted to support the draft regulations, but I have a couple of questions. First, on divergence from the European Union, the UK has opted for an indefinite exemption period, whereas the EU has allowed it to lapse, so clearing is now in place there, as it is in the US. Respondents to the call for evidence highlighted structural differences between the UK and the EU and US markets. Have the Government looked at the effect that that divergence might have on the competitiveness of the UK pension industry and on the relative stability of markets? My second question is about the long-term intentions as to mandatory clearing. I completely understand that the motivation behind the change is to remove the two-yearly uncertainty. However, the draft regulations provide for a permanent exemption, rather than ruling out clearing in permanency. The difference is a very subtle one, but have the Government considered ruling it out rather than having a permanent exemption? As we are looking at stability for pension funds, I would be interested to hear the Government’s point of view. However, the Opposition certainly do not seek to divide the Committee on this very good policy, which was initiated by the previous Government in one of their more glorious moments.
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)
Could the Minister outline what would happen if a unitary council created a spatial development strategy and then became part of a larger, bigger authority under the devolution? What would happen to their specific strategy, and would that new authority, as a bigger authority, have to create a new SDS across the whole area?
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)
Does the hon. Member agree that nothing in this Bill makes developers build the social infrastructure that he is describing, which many communities desperately need, first—or at all?
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I rise in support of amendments 72, 75 and 82. I await with anticipation what the Minister will say, because surely we can all agree that green belt should be protected and that we should do brownfield first. Sometimes, under the current planning system, green-belt land gets developed on through the back door. Even if a council has an up-to-date local plan, there can be issues if it does not meet its five-year land supply or housing targets in terms of its build-out rates, which the council has very little control over. The council has control over the speed and determination of planning applications. However, it can approve all the applications it wants—it could approve thousands—but if the developer or developers are not building them, the council then gets punished. Someone else will come along and say, “I want to develop on this piece of green-belt land,” and when that goes to appeal, the Planning Inspectorate will say to the council, “You haven’t got a five-year land supply, and you’re not meeting your build-out rate targets.” It is the community and the council that get punished for developers not building what they have been given approval to build.
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and I completely agree. We should do anything we can to strengthen councils’ hands in protecting green belt. I suspect there is broad support for brownfield-first and protecting the green belt. I turn to amendment 82, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). A wider failure of the planning system is that it does not account for the cumulative impact of lots of planning decisions. This amendment goes some way to protecting farmland. It may be appropriate for a field to be developed for a specific farming purpose, but if there is lots of development in farming areas in a specific location and the planning committee does not take into account the cumulative impact, there can be negative consequences—for example, where a floodplain is built on and that creates issues for the field next door. The Government need to grapple with this wider issue of the cumulative impact of lots of development. At the moment, planning committees judge the planning application in front of them and do not necessarily look at the cumulative impact. I hope the Government will support our amendments, in particular amendment 82, which tries to rectify some of those cumulative impacts in order to protect our agricultural land, which is very important for our food security.
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)
The Minister has just said that he wants a default yes on brownfield sites. Is he concerned that if we give carte blanche to developers and say, “You can build whatever you want on brownfield sites,” some of that development on brownfield sites will not be of the quality that I am sure we both want?
- Hansard source
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
The shadow Minister is making some eloquent points. Does he agree that if the Government are intent on bringing in a national scheme of delegation, and changing the role of the planning committee and how councillors interact with the planning process, even more consultation should be done at the stages he is describing so that we can ensure that residents still get their say over development in their area?
- Hansard source
Gaza: UK Assessment
It is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with the slaughter in Gaza, the brutality and cruelty on the west bank, and starvation as a policy. The crimes come daily, such as the recent killing of Mohammed Bardawil, one of only three key eyewitnesses to the slaughter of rescue workers just a few weeks ago, whose bodies were buried in shallow graves. It is clear to everybody that crimes are being committed daily. As a number of Members have pointed out, the UK is a party to international agreements that provide a positive obligation to act to prevent genocide and torture and protect the rights of others. We have an obligation, as a member of the United Nations Security Council and a state party to the Geneva conventions, to promote peace and security. What advice has the Minister taken on the liability that will attach to him as a decision maker? Have the Government received advice on whether the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, any senior officials or previous Ministers may be exposed when the reckoning comes?