Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,804 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 25 Apr 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

   Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill

   As I often used to say when I was on the Government Benches, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with my answer—I am sure there is one. The idea that immigrants to a country as compact as ours would not seek job opportunities in other areas of the UK, should they so wish, is for the birds. Are we talking about border posts at Berwick, or papers being checked on the Caledonian sleeper? We are talking about a party founded over 90 years ago with the sole aim of achieving Scotland’s separation from the rest of the UK—but it still cannot tell us what currency should be used in that separate Scotland. The idea that SNP Members could design an intuitive scheme so foolproof and clever that nobody could take advantage of the situation is absolutely absurd, and nobody takes that seriously. Turning back to the Government, it is a real shame that the Labour Government are choosing to talk out this private Member’s Bill rather than be forced to take a stance, but that is unsurprising, because we are well used to Labour Members demonstrating the utterly supine nature of the Scottish Labour party on Scottish issues. When faced with the madness of the SNP’s gender recognition Bill—this was raised this morning—Labour whipped their MSPs to vote to allow male offenders into women’s prisons. When the Labour leader in Scotland pays lip service to the plight facing oil and gas workers in the north-east of Scotland as a direct result of the Government’s damaging policies, Labour MPs stay silent. They refuse to stand up for women in Scotland; they refuse to stand up for working people in Scotland. Time and again, they refuse to do the right thing. Devolving immigration policy to the Scottish Government is clearly not the right thing, and Labour should have the courage of its convictions and say so. As set out this morning, there is no case for the devolution of immigration. This is an invented exceptionalism. Scotland is no more dependent on immigration than the rest of the United Kingdom, and the purported crises—funding for universities, the rural workforce and the declining birth rate—are not solvable by this supposed silver bullet. This is a lazy solution to a series of complex issues that the SNP in Holyrood have neglected to resolve with the power already in their hands.

   Hansard source
2. 25 Apr 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

   Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill

   I represent a part of the country that relies on tourism for its economic prosperity, and when I speak to the Scottish hospitality sector, it is not immigration that it raises as its biggest concern, but the failure of the Scottish National party—the Scottish Government—to pass on the rates relief for hospitality businesses across the United Kingdom. That is the biggest issue facing hospitality and tourism in Scotland right now, and the hon. Member would do well to raise point that with his colleagues in the Parliament north of the border who have power over that rate of tax. Parcelling out reserve powers to the SNP Government will solve none of the problems raised in this debate, and as I said, the Labour party should have the backbone to say so. A month ago, I was on a Statutory Instrument Committee on the devolution of the operation of some Social Security Scotland competences in order to avoid duplication with the Department for Work and Pensions. I said that in devolving these powers to the Scottish Government “We have created additional barriers, burdens and borders where there were none before, and we have added no benefit whatsoever for those receiving…payments either north or south of the border.”—[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 25 February 2025; c. 5.] By the way, it has cost more than £650 million so far to establish Social Security Scotland, so lessons should be learned by the Labour Government. Just as many Labour Members believed in 1997 that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead, too many UK politicians of all parties, mine included, believe that giving ever more power to the Scottish Government will appease the Scottish National party’s desire for independence. It will not; that is the reason the SNP was founded, and it is a perfectly rational and respectable position to hold, but the desire to break Scotland away from United Kingdom will not be diminished by devolving ever more powers to Holyrood. Far too often, far too little thought is given to the impact of devolution on the policies or functions on which people rely. Is the complex, expensive, duplicative and bureaucratic quagmire brought about by Social Security Scotland working with the DWP in Scotland really to the benefit of those in receipt of benefits? We must ensure that we do not have devolution for devolution’s sake. We must decide whether the devolution of a certain power to the Scottish Parliament will have a beneficial impact on people and businesses in Scotland. If the answer is no, the answer to devolving the power must be no, and the Government should have the courage of their convictions and say so. The Government could have demonstrated that they understood that. They could have forced a Division and voted down this flawed and fanciful Bill. There is no case whatsoever for the devolution of immigration and asylum policy to Scotland, but even if there were, it would not be practicable to do that. It is not viable. Instead of those in the SNP coming up with madcap schemes to sow more division and create more difference across our one nation, they ought to spend more time and money on proposals for investing in Scotland’s underfunded universities, tackling violence in the classrooms, bringing down the length of NHS waiting lists, reducing drug deaths, building desperately needed new roads and bridges, improving community policing and making our neighbourhoods safer; but we see where their priorities lie. It is not just that the plans in the Bill are unviable, would be grossly inefficient and are completely unnecessary; devolving power over immigration to the SNP-run Scottish Government would be to the detriment of Scots and the United Kingdom. We could spend countless hours in this place on statutory instruments designed to realign Scotland with the rest of the UK where needless duplication has already occurred—for example, across the justice system, and across welfare and benefit payments. We do not need more needless duplication to be created by thoughtless legislation. I have set out His Majesty’s official Opposition’s opposition to this motion on the basis of its economic and political impacts, but this is also a matter of principle. It is about whether we ought to be introducing sub-national visa and immigration systems, creating a more powerful sub-national or devolved Government in Scotland. The record of the SNP Government is damning, and we cannot in good conscience allow yet further vandalism.

   Hansard source
3. 25 Apr 2025·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

   Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill

   So far there is very little in what the Secretary of State is saying that I can disagree with. If he does believe that the Bill is unnecessary, why are his Government adopting tactics today to avoid a vote on it? Why do they not have courage of their convictions and vote it down?

   Hansard source
4. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

   Topical Questions

   During the last Parliament, I made a submission, on behalf of the National Association of Retired Police Officers, for a medal to be issued in recognition of the service given by those injured on duty and invalided out of the service. That had the backing of the then Policing Minister, and I understand it also has the backing of the current Policing Minister, but it has now disappeared into a black hole in the Cabinet Office. Will the Minister please dig it out, dust it off and give it a fair wind?

   Hansard source
5. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

   Ukraine War: London Talks

   The Minister’s confirmation that the coalition of the willing will not permit the concession of any Ukrainian sovereign territory to Russia is most welcome, but I am not sure that I understand how that squares with Mr Trump’s current negotiating position, which seems to be based entirely on that. Some 20,000 Ukrainian children have been stolen by the neo-Soviet Union and sovietised. That is a war crime. Did the meeting yesterday make it absolutely plain that no recognition of any concession based on war crimes will be admitted at any time?

   Hansard source
6. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

   Business of the House

   The Leader of the House will probably know that last night, elsewhere in this House, the campaign to return Ukraine’s stolen children was launched, with cross-party support and a very large number of people present. Some 20,000 Ukrainian children have been abducted and taken to the neo-Soviet Union. That is a war crime, as was the bombing of Kyiv and Kharkiv last night, and Putin is a war criminal. Will the Leader of the House consult the Leader of the House of Lords and try to ensure that no person who supports President Putin, however grand, is given a platform that would enable them to address these Houses of Parliament?

   Hansard source
7. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Ukraine War: London Talks

   If the Government could persuade the Nobel peace prize committee to give the award to Donald Trump on condition that he stops siding with the aggressor against the victim, does the Minister think that American policy might revert to one of NATO deterrence, which prevented world war three for half a century after the end of world war two?

   Hansard source
8. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   London Sudan Conference

   I appreciate the pressures on the Minister’s officials, but does the Minister agree that this disaster playing out in Sudan is under-reported, and, therefore, may I encourage him in the future to take every opportunity to come to the House voluntarily with statements, rather than rely on urgent questions, to give him the opportunity, which he has quite rightly taken today, to spell out where we are in this awful situation?

   Hansard source
9. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Business of the House

   I thank the Leader of the House in advance for the very large number of follow-up letters she will be writing after this marathon session. I know that it is probably quite a chore, but we really appreciate that she does it so conscientiously. In a brief exchange about NHS dentistry on 13 March, as part of the formidable campaign being waged by the National Federation of Women’s Institutes on that subject, I was quite impressed when the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that the problem requires, “not simply tinkering with the system as it is, but fundamentally rethinking it”—[Official Report, 13 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1298.] I am sure he is absolutely right about that, so will the Leader of the House urge him to make a statement to the House on what progress he anticipates making on this very important issue?

   Hansard source
10. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    EU Trading Relationship

    Order. It will not have escaped anybody’s notice that this is a popular debate, so I remind all Members to continue to stand if they want to be called. The debate can run no later than 4.55 pm, which gives you about two and a half minutes each. I ask you to exercise some discipline, and we will get in as many Members as we can.

    Hansard source
11. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    EU Trading Relationship

    Order. Ideally, the hon. Gentleman would not sit there because there is no microphone and we are not picking him up. I am sure the hon. Lady heard him and can respond.

    Hansard source
12. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    EU Trading Relationship

    I reassure hon. Members that the clock is not correct—the hon. Lady was not talking for seven minutes.

    Hansard source
13. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    EU Trading Relationship

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for keeping to below two and a half minutes. However, not everybody has, so I am afraid we are going to have to go to sub two and a half minutes each if we are to get everybody in. I am loath to impose a formal time limit, so I ask colleagues to be as disciplined as they can.

    Hansard source
14. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    EU Trading Relationship

    I will call the Front Benchers at 4.25 pm, so discipline will be required if everyone is going to get in.

    Hansard source
15. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    EU Trading Relationship

    I thank all Back-Bench colleagues for their co-operation, which is very much appreciated. We move on to the Front-Bench spokesmen, beginning with the Liberal Democrats.

    Hansard source
16. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    EU Trading Relationship

    I call the Minister. He has until 4.55 pm if he wants it, but if he is feeling generous, he may want to leave the Member in charge a couple of minutes to wind up.

    Hansard source
17. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

    EU Trading Relationship

    Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but we are out of time. I thank all hon. Members who have participated in the debate.

    Hansard source
18. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Ukraine War: London Talks

    Our international relationships the world over are dependent on partner countries’ confidence that we will stick by our word, and that our allies will do likewise. Will the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), convey that message to the United States of America? The world—friends and foes alike—is looking at our willingness to stick by the commitments that we have made to Ukraine. If we renege on those commitments, every single relationship around the world will be undermined.

    Hansard source
19. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Gavin Williamson

    Public Service Reform

    A number of months ago, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced the plan for change and the pillars, missions and various other things that come with it. When will he update the House on how that is going and how the Government are meeting those targets?

    Hansard source
20. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Ukraine War: London Talks

    I welcome fresh members to the list of those of us who have been sanctioned. Why is President Trump treating Ukraine as the aggressor? Will the Minister remind US negotiators that—together with the United Kingdom—the USA signed the Budapest memorandum, assuring Ukraine of its territorial integrity and independence, when that country sacrificed unilaterally its position as the world’s third largest nuclear-armed power?

    Hansard source
21. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    London Sudan Conference

    Might it be expedient if we use our intelligence resources to expose and shame those who are fuelling the conflict through arming the antagonists?

    Hansard source
22. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Public Service Reform

    Can the Minister outline Government plans to reform the funding of fire authorities? That is especially important in Somerset, where changes to employer national insurance contributions, the ending of the rural support grant, the removal of the services grant and the reduction of the pension grant will cost Devon and Somerset Fire Authority nearly £2 million a year, at a time of rising costs.

    Hansard source
23. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Business of the House

    May I associate myself with the comments about the passing of Pope Francis? As a Catholic, I very much appreciate them, and I wish the best to the conclave in selecting our new Pope. As was mentioned earlier, if the current trend continues, more than 1.5% of my constituency will be covered in solar farms. One of my main concerns is about the use of battery energy storage systems, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) mentioned. Green Hill solar farm in my constituency will have a very large one. They pose a huge risk of fire. Those fires release toxic fumes, and putting them out pollutes the waters and takes days—if the solar panels can ever be put out. I know that there may be a debate on the issue, but I also ask the Leader of the House to speak to the Secretary of State about the severe risks posed by BESS, because applications are being pushed through that create serious risks for our communities.

    Hansard source
24. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Rishi Sunak

    Public Service Reform

    I commend the ministerial team, both on the innovation fund and—more importantly—the test-and-learn culture that has been referred to, which embraces a willingness to take risks and iterate. Does the Minister agree that in order for this work to be truly successful and transform our public services, we must also reform our governance and approval processes in parallel, so that they do not inadvertently stifle this welcome method of innovation?

    Hansard source
25. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Priti Patel

    Ukraine War: London Talks

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the talks held yesterday in London on the war in Ukraine.

    Hansard source
26. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Priti Patel

    Ukraine War: London Talks

    For all the talks taking place, it is concerning that a clear and unified front in support of Ukraine, to support a peace on its terms, has yet to emerge. The Minister mentioned the E3 statement on yesterday’s talks, but it consisted of three sentences stating that the talks were productive and successful, and that significant progress was made in reaching a common position on the next steps. Will he tell us exactly what was productive and successful about the talks, what those next steps are, and whether Ukraine is in agreement? Were security guarantees for Ukraine discussed, and was progress made on agreeing what they will be? Was the UK’s long-standing position of supporting Ukraine’s accession to NATO discussed? Following the abhorrent missile strike in Kyiv last night, which killed more innocent civilians, does the Minister believe that Putin is committed to a just and fair end to this conflict? Can the Minister confirm whether the status of Crimea and other Ukrainian territories invaded and occupied unlawfully by Russia was discussed and what the UK Government’s position is? The UK was the strongest advocate for Ukraine regaining all the territory taken by force by Putin and for Putin to lose this war. Is that still the case? There is much debate about the initiatives to end the war by negotiations, but we cannot forget that this war was started by Putin—a murderous, vile autocrat who is being propped up by an axis of authoritarian states trying to extinguish democracy on our continent, and by those who are opposed to our values, including China, North Korea and Iran. We need the Government to leverage British influence in every way possible for Ukraine. Our Ukrainian friends are on the frontline, battling an attempt to reshape the whole international order by force. I condemn the sanctioning of 15 Members yesterday by Russia. To those colleagues, I say this: it shows that you are on the right side of history and that we must always stand up to tyranny. UK sanctions on Russia must stay in place. What is the Government’s position on applying secondary sanctions, and when will the billions of pounds of proceeds from the sale of Chelsea FC be made available for Ukraine? Can the Minister explain why the Government’s £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, backed by the profits of sanctioned assets, is being paid over three years rather than in full now? Finally, what more can the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office do to mobilise British technology, which could be cheaply and quickly applied to adapt Ukraine’s military efforts?

    Hansard source
27. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Priti Patel

    London Sudan Conference

    Let me begin by supporting the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and congratulating him on securing what is a very important urgent question. Many millions of innocent Sudanese civilians have been caught up in what is a barbaric conflict. They deserve peace and dignity. They are facing the most appalling, dire humanitarian crisis. It is a fact that red lines have been crossed in the conflict, and that cannot be allowed to stand. We all want to help chart a course to a meaningful peace for the people of Sudan, and we are aware of the various pillars articulated in the London Sudan conference statement. We all agree on the need for an immediate end to the fighting, on preventing the partition of Sudan, and on the need for urgent humanitarian access. Crucially, the Foreign Secretary’s conference did not see any new practical measures agreed with the African Union and other partners to help the warring parties into a ceasefire and an end to the conflict, and, importantly, to deter the ways in which the conflict is being escalated, because there has been no de-escalation whatsoever. Supporting a transition to a civilian-led Government is clearly crucial, and it must be led by the Sudanese people. What practical diplomacy are the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary doing to help international processes such as Cairo to stay on track and to build confidence among the Sudanese civilian and political forces? Finally, the Minister mentioned the additional £120 million in humanitarian aid announced by the Government for 2025-26. Will he inform us which organisations the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is partnering with for the delivery of this new aid, whether delivery has started and whether it is actually making any impact whatsoever? Will he also confirm that in parallel to announcing this new aid, he is working to keep border crossings open and pressing for the proper safety nets to ensure that this aid ends up with those who genuinely need it, and not in the wrong hands?

    Hansard source
28. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    Q Sir John and Mr Owen, thank you very much for coming this morning. As you know, this is a huge piece of legislation, and we want to scrutinise it to the best of our ability. Thank you for the work that you do in your occupations. We remain consistent in our concern about democratic accountability and processes, and about the balance between speeding up planning delivery and retaining the power of local people to make differences and have their say on nationally important critical infrastructure. First, do you think that these proposals strike the right balance between speeding up the delivery of national infrastructure projects and public accountability? Do you think that democratic and public accountability will remain at the heart of the delivery of that national infrastructure under the Bill’s proposals? Sir John Armitt: Yes. I think this is a reasonable attempt to address the fundamental question of getting the balance right between taking forward the critical national infrastructure that the country needs and local interest. Consultation has always been an essential part of that, and the ability of people to express their views is important. Having said that, it is and will continue to be a very complex area. People on the receiving end of new infrastructure will naturally seek every mechanism in their legal right to challenge where they feel that they will be adversely affected. The Bill seeks to set out a number of remedies for that, and I think one could reasonably expect to see some acceleration, but just how much acceleration there will be in the process only time will tell. Robbie Owen: I broadly agree with that; I think the Bill largely strikes the right balance. Let us not forget that even in the light of the amendments tabled by the Minister yesterday in relation to consultation, there will still be an extensive amount of consultation required—justifiably so—in relation to these projects, involving, among others, the local community. The examination of applications for consent takes place over a maximum of six months, which is a very long time, within which the local community can express their views. The Government are retaining the ability for local impact reports to be produced, which I think is important. I have no fundamental concern that democratic and public accountability will be lost by these changes. I actually think they do not quite go far enough in some respects, but we may come on to that later.

    Hansard source
29. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    I am the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
30. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    Q Thank you all for coming and giving evidence. I have only a few questions, because I know Back-Bench Members will want to ask questions and scrutinise the legislation. First, the legislation obviously aims to speed up grid connections. Charlotte Mitchell, could you outline to the Committee how much consultation you had, as an organisation, in the formulation of this legislation, and give us an overarching view of whether those connections would be sped up and whether you think the Government could go further to enable the elimination of some of the gridlock? How will the legislation in its current form ease the backlog of connections in the UK? Charlotte Mitchell: The set of connection reforms underpinned by the Bill are really welcome. They will move us from a “first come, first served” system to a “first ready, first needed, first connected” approach. Under the “first come, first served” system, we have seen a proliferation of projects in the queue. To bring that to life, there are about 450 GW of capacity in the queue at the moment, and that is about three times what we would need to achieve net zero. It is fair to say that not all of those projects will come forward, and they certainly will not come forward at the pace at which we originally envisaged when they found their spot in the queue. That ultimately means that it is taking a really long time to connect the grid to new projects coming forward, and promoters of those projects are quoted decade-long connection timeframes. We welcome the reforms; we have been part of the discussions and have had a seat at the table, with the National Energy System Operator leading the approach to the reforms. For us, it is really important that the legislation comes forward quickly enough that we can move across to that new system and refocus our resources and priorities on connecting those projects that are ready and have the highest need to be connected to the grid.

    Hansard source
31. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    Q Thank you. My second question is for Dhara Vyas and, if necessary, Christianna Logan. I do not mean to leave Ofgem out, but I am focusing on just two issues, because I am aware that other Members will want to come in. You will be aware that the previous Government consulted on community benefits to infrastructure, and there was a proposal to allow direct payments, which the Government have continued. Do you have any concern, or do you think that that is the result of the industry not doing enough to consult local people when infrastructure was delivered previously? Will an unintended consequence of direct payments to consumers be to undermine your members’ emphasis on making sure that community benefit and community consultation are done adequately? Dhara Vyas: Thank you for the question. I do not think it is a failure of the industry. I think it is a series of consecutive failures of regulation and policy over the past decade, if not longer, that goes beyond the energy industry. It is really welcome to have this unified vision in the energy space for infrastructure build-out, and that goes across the Department, the National Energy System Operator and Ofgem. It is critical that we use all the levers we have to engage with people. The reality is that transmission network operations is a very specific piece in the Bill, and that is the large stuff—the bigger stuff—but it has to be part of the broader conversation that we need to have with people about the placement of assets. Infrastructure is part of that, with substations and of course generation assets. It is about the changes we are going to be making to homes and businesses across the country, and it is also about the difference that investing in this will make for future generations. So, to answer your question about whether it is specifically a failure of industry, I do not think so. It is a failure, and I think we share the blame, but I am really positive about the steps set out, both in this Bill and more broadly, for the energy policy space. It is worth being really clear about the context, which is that we need twice as much transmission network build-out as we have had in the last 10 years. That is a huge scale of work, and we need speed in doing it. The reality is that different communities will have different priorities. For some communities, investment in community spaces might be the right conversation to have; for others it will be about direct payments, or investing in community ownership of assets. It is really about tailoring. Last, and you will all know this far better than I do, while having a significant conversation about how you balance national equity and local diversity is not unusual, it is a newer conversation for the energy industry. As we navigate this, we and all my members intend to work very closely with partners, including Natural England and other environmental groups, as well as local and regional government. It is important that we are honest and open about this shift in the way of working and not fall into the trap of assuming that one size fits all. Christianna Logan: Our research has shown that, in areas where we have previously developed projects, perceptions of the benefits of projects are much stronger and more positive. The big challenge for us now as an industry is the scale—the magnitude—of what we have to deliver, when in many cases, the local communities likely to be impacted have not seen this scale of infrastructure before. We have developed a package of local benefits that come with these projects, whether that is local jobs, contracts for local supply chains or, in fact, new permanent homes that will initially be used to house workers on the project, but then used by communities for their own needs after the projects are completed. Community benefits are an important part of that package, but so too is the very real engagement that we do with local communities. We have made changes around things such as substation locations and overhead line routes as a direct result of that engagement. That is what is building trust around these projects. As Dhara said, we all need to work together to increase understanding of the benefits that the projects bring. Our recently produced national campaign, on which we collaborated across the sector, will help with that. Our own media campaign in the north of Scotland has resulted in a double-digit shift from neutral to positive around these projects among those who have seen the campaign. We cannot achieve this on our own, as transmission owners; we need to work cross-party, cross-Government and cross-sector to be able to help people to understand the real imperative and benefit of undertaking these projects.

    Hansard source
32. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    Q Thank you for that, and congratulations on the work that you are doing. I want to push slightly further—not push you, because you have answered the question, to be fair. Further down the line, do you have any concern that systematic decisions in companies such as yours will have an unconscious bias toward direct payments making it easier to get these projects through, and that the traditional community investment, which would be accountable to that community, will fall aside because the direct payment route is easier than genuine community benefits? Christianna Logan: Genuine community benefits are the most important part of these projects. I think it would be risky to see direct payments as a silver bullet to reduce objection to projects. When you are delivering new infrastructure across hundreds of miles in these types of areas, there will be objections. In this endeavour, we all have to show courage to take forward well-designed projects that have been developed with local communities in mind, taking on board their challenges where we can, while recognising that that will require trade-offs and that we will not be able to appease all objections.

    Hansard source
33. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    Just for the record, that is not my view. There are some concerns. I was not castigating you.

    Hansard source
34. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    May I call you Marian? Marian Spain: Of course.

    Hansard source
35. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    Q Thank you very much for coming and for the work you do. I am sure you will appreciate that this is one of the more controversial areas of the Bill, with Natural England taking on more responsibility under Government proposals. Many stakeholders have said they are concerned about the responsibility that Natural England will be taking on in terms of environmental delivery plans. In particular, the Royal Town Planning Institute has said that it is concerned about whether you will be adequately resourced. The Institution of Civil Engineers is worried about a two-tier system and stakeholders and organisations being resourced adequately. The County Councils Network has also said that it remains concerned over the resourcing of Natural England. Do you believe that Natural England is adequately resourced and has the management structures and systems in place to cope with the extra responsibilities that it will take on? Marian Spain: Yes. We very much welcome this Bill. We think this Bill is absolutely the right thing to give us the growth the nation needs, while not just protecting nature but giving the opportunity to restore nature. My answers will be in that context. This is a Bill we very much welcome, and it is something we have worked very closely with Government on. In terms of resourcing, in principle, yes, the resourcing should be adequate. We have £14 million in this financial year to begin the preparatory work for the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund. That will enable us to start on the first of those EDPs, and I can say a bit more about what we think those will be, if that is helpful. In future, the levy arrangement should allow us to fully recover our costs. It should allow us to recover the costs of doing the work on the ground and also the overheads that we will need to incur to work with developers to do the monitoring, reporting and so on. I think the risk is in the early years of the scheme, when the levy is not yet flowing, but we need to get up front and do those delivery plans so that they are ready when the developers are ready to contribute. We are working with our parent Department, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on a bid for next year’s spending review. The limiting factor will be whether Government are able to put in initial preparatory money. For the district level licensing scheme, we had effectively a rolling fund—Government put money in up front that we then rolled over as the levy came in to fill the gap behind it.

    Hansard source
36. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    Can I come back on that, briefly?

    Hansard source
37. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    Q That is fine. What impression are you getting from Government that they remain satisfied, and are you satisfied as chief executive, that the whole aim of this legislation in terms of EDPs will not be undermined by a gap in funding in the early stage, before you can recover the total costs? I am not criticising you, because you are waiting on Government funding, but you used the words “should” and “may”, and I want to push you on that. Have you started work at this precise time on the preparatory work for EDPs? Marian Spain: To reiterate, the unknown that I cannot answer is the outcome of the spending review and how much the Government as a whole choose to invest in the next financial year. The other thing that this Bill and the other associated planning reforms coming forward will do is to allow Natural England to relieve some of its existing resources from lower impact work and move them into this. It is not all just about new resources. I am confident that we can make that change. I am confident that this will be one of the most important things that Natural England does for the next five years or so. You had another question that I have forgotten.

    Hansard source
38. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting)

    Q Preparatory work on EDPs. Where are you on that? Marian Spain: Work is under way now. As I mentioned earlier, we are doing two main things. We are thinking about the first two environmental delivery plans. This is an opportunity to mention that they are almost certain to be improving the existing nutrient mitigation scheme and turning that into a full-blown EDP and NRF system, and also consolidating the district level licensing scheme—the scheme for great crested newts that we set up five or six years ago. Those can be relatively quick wins, done within this calendar year we believe. We are then looking at what the next EDPs are likely to be. That conversation is live at the moment with our colleagues. We are looking at three issues. We are looking at where development will most need it. Where are the development pressures? That might be major infrastructure or the new towns. Where are the places that are going to most need it? Where is it going to be most feasible—where do we believe we have sufficient evidence to have robust plans that will work and where is the meeting of those two points? That thinking about the EDPs is under way. We are also using this year’s Government investment to set up the systems and the digital systems we will need. The systems developers will need to test their impact and decide if they want to participate. That is the systems we will use to handle the money and to do the essential transparency reporting and monitoring. That will be in place this financial year.

    Hansard source
39. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

    Q40 Thank you for coming this afternoon. I am going to speak slightly more slowly than usual, just to try to drag this out, so that we can go and vote, and the Committee can give you the scrutiny and respect that you deserve. I want to ask a question of the Town and Country Planning Association about the level of public trust in the planning system. The Opposition consistently outlined on Second Reading that we are concerned about democratic oversight and the right of the public and local planning committees to have a decent and worthwhile say on the way in which developments are allowed to go ahead in their own remits and jurisdictions. I notice that your written evidence states of public trust: “If the planning system is to be democratic it is essential that the public has a voice during the examination of plans. This includes for the new, and powerful, spatial development strategies”. Could you elaborate on that view and outline to the Committee what amendments you would like to see, or what emphasis you would like changed, to address your concerns in this area? Hugh Ellis: Certainly. There are two aspects to it. One is that public trust is at a very low level. There has not been a full examination of public participation in planning since the late 1960s. Wherever we go, we find people who are struggling to understand the system, very often struggling with the asymmetry when they come up against the development industry, and struggling with the very limited opportunities that communities have to participate. Those opportunities are described in statute both for national infrastructure and for local planning applications; people are given three weeks. The most important thing to stress is that people are not a source of delay; their voice in planning is due process. Taking out democratic opportunities in the cause of speeding up the process is utterly counter- productive, because where communities resist, they create delay anyway—outside the system. For us, there needs to be a respectful conversation. Of course, we are not arguing for a veto; we are arguing for meaningful opportunities for communities to be involved. That leads to better development, more accepted development and better placemaking. Our concerns about the Bill relate particularly to the scheme of delegation and the shortened consultation periods for national infrastructure. To put that right, we are suggesting that things like the scheme of delegation are not really necessary. Certainly, if you are going to do it, you have to preserve local democratic oversight of major decisions at the local level. To give one final quick example, if you have a scheme of delegation that takes out local demographic oversight of decisions, you also take out the community’s only right in development management to be heard as a planning committee. The point I want to stress is that, at the moment, communities are the people largely excluded from decision making, and we want to give them a powerful voice. That is not anti-development; it is about building legitimacy, consent and certainty for development.

    Hansard source
40. 24 Apr 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

    Q The Opposition absolutely agree with you on that, and we appreciate your frankness in your written representations to this Committee. Continuing with this line of questioning on local planning authorities and their powers with democratic oversight, one of your interesting proposals, Victoria, is an amendment that would allow for a statutory chief planning officer per local planning authority. I find that particularly interesting because I can see the argument that you would have increased legitimacy with one planning officer per local planning authority, despite the fact that we already have those, as there would be one person within each authority who is vested with the power to make those decisions. Can you outline how you see that working with the political structures that are in place in local authorities, bearing in mind what we would argue are the legislative aims of the Bill in removing some of those powers from locally elected councillors and politicians? Victoria Hills: You are absolutely right; one of our core asks, which we believe would be a pillar of the quite systemic change being introduced by the Bill, is to have a statutory chief planning officer in every local authority. If you want to drive innovation, change, and the delivery of a new planning system, with the Bill setting an ambitious drumbeat for how planning will be done going forward, then to mobilise that delivery, you need to ensure that you have the appropriate seniority, experience and professional competency of a senior executive leader, rather than an elected leader. They can work with the elected politicians locally to drive forward delivery of the planning reform that is before this Committee. We feel that many of the changes proposed in the Bill, some of which are quite structural about the way that planning will be done differently in the future, require not only strong elected leadership but strong executive leadership. [Interruption.]

    Hansard source