debates/debates2025-11-13h conversation_23
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-11-13)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-11-13h conversation_23

Tristan Osborne:What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates in cases of violence against women and girls. \p Ellie Reeves: Tackling violence against women and girls is a top priority for this Government and for me. With the Crown Prosecution Service, I am utterly determined to drive improvements in performance across the breadth of VAWG offences. On domestic abuse, the CPS launched its joint justice plan with policing in November 2024. Over the last year, that has led to a 10% increase in charge volumes and a 7% increase in conviction volumes. Before the end of the year, the CPS plans externally to launch its own VAWG strategy, which aims to drive similar improvements across other VAWG offences. \p Peter Prinsley: In my constituency, I recently visited an inspirational charity called Restore, which provides vital refuge for women fleeing domestic abuse. When I spoke with the dedicated staff there, I was concerned to learn that victims of domestic abuse in rural areas such as parts of my constituency are only half as likely to report their abuse as others. What steps is the CPS taking to ensure that victims in rural communities such as mine are confident to come forward? \p Ellie Reeves: I thank Restore for its excellent work—the organisation has been diligently supporting victims of domestic abuse for decades now. Under the joint justice plan, CPS areas and police forces have worked together to tailor their response to domestic  abuse, addressing local priorities and community needs, including those in rural areas. In the new year, police and CPS will hold a joint knowledge-sharing event on domestic abuse in rural areas, to build improved understanding of the barriers these victims often face. \p Joe Morris: In 2024-25, Northumberland domestic abuse services supported 555 adult survivors of domestic abuse and responded to thousands of domestic abuse incidents. Sadly, many of those incidents involved children. Will the Solicitor General meet me and Sharon Brown from NDAS—who is sat in the Public Gallery—to discuss steps for improving support for victims of domestic abuse in rural areas? \p Ellie Reeves: My hon. Friend’s question provides another example of the enormously important work that organisations such as NDAS do to support survivors of domestic abuse. I welcome Sharon to the Gallery today, and pay tribute to her and her colleagues. I would be delighted to meet her and my hon. Friend to discuss what more can be done to support victims in rural areas, particularly with our CPS colleagues. \p Tristan Osborne: Prosecutions and convictions for domestic abuse dramatically fell under the last Government, which impacted constituents across all of our areas, including in Chatham and Aylesford. What steps are the Government taking to increase the level of prosecutions and convictions for this heinous crime? \p Ellie Reeves: For several years now, the CPS has maintained a high and steady charge rate of around 80%, and a conviction rate of 75%. This Government are taking radical action to ensure that more cases come into the system and progress through it. We have introduced Raneem’s law, which embeds domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms, and have launched domestic abuse protection orders, which go further than any other order to protect victims. \p Roger Gale: Will the Solicitor General discuss with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Secretary how best the Metropolitan police may be encouraged to expedite their inquiry into the crimes of those who aided and abetted Mohamed Fayed, so that—for the sake of those who suffered violence and rape at this hands—they can be brought to book? \p Ellie Reeves: The right hon. Gentleman raises a really serious and important case; I am sure the thoughts of the House are with the victims. As he is aware, I cannot speak to cases in which there are live criminal investigations, but I am grateful to him for raising this extremely important issue, which I and other ministerial colleagues are following closely. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: Prosecution rates in cases of violence against women and girls are harmed by the requirement that the police provide the CPS with redacted evidence under the general data protection regulation. Given the wider delays already affecting our justice system, does the Solicitor General agree that it would be prudent to remove the GDPR-related redaction  burden from the police, thereby improving the efficiency of the CPS’s work and reducing the unnecessary workload on policing? \p Ellie Reeves: That is certainly something that I would be very happy to discuss with CPS colleagues and to provide a full response on. \p Will Forster: Today has seen the publication of the safeguarding review into the murder of my 10-year-old constituent Sara Sharif. The findings of that inquiry are what I feared—that the state, especially Surrey county council, could have protected her and saved her life, but did not. Will the Solicitor General please meet me to ensure we can urgently implement the 15 recommendations of that report in order to protect children and girls in future? \p Ellie Reeves: I thank the hon. Member for raising a— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can I just say to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) that the question was being answered, and as a senior Member, he should know better than walking in at that point? \p Ellie Reeves: I thank the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for raising an extremely serious and tragic case. It is important that it has been raised in the House. I will certainly look at those recommendations closely and ensure that he gets a meeting with me or the relevant Minister. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Solicitor General. \p Helen Grant: I also welcome the right hon. Lady to her place. She is the third Solicitor General I have sat opposite in the past 12 months, and I look forward to working with her constructively where we can and to having healthy debate in this Chamber in the weeks and months to come.

I associate myself with the right hon. Lady’s remarks on the sad passing of Baroness Newlove. I had the honour of working with her when I was the Victims Minister. She was a great champion of victims and she will be sadly missed.

Violence against women and girls is a scourge. It wrecks families and ruins lives. One of the most sickening aspects of it is cruelty to and abuse of children. There is   currently no national mechanism to track down and monitor serious child cruelty offenders after service of their sentences. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), said this of the Sentencing Bill on Report:

“A problem in the system has been identified, and we are determined to fix it. It simply cannot be right that some horrific child abusers can have access to children—to live with children or work with children—at the end of their sentences without any system of monitoring or notification”.—[Official Report, 29 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 409.]

The Minister went on to welcome the offer of cross-party talks and promised to work “at speed” to establish a child cruelty register. Can the Solicitor General please update the House on what concrete steps have been taken since then? \p Ellie Reeves: I thank the hon. Member for raising the extremely important issue of child abuse. I will work with the Minister to respond to her in full on the points that she raises today. \p Helen Grant: The campaign to introduce a child cruelty register has been led tirelessly by Paula Hudgell, the adoptive mother of 11-year-old Tony Hudgell. Sadly, Paula has now been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Tony was just 41 days old when his birth parents abused him so badly that he had to have both his legs amputated. Tony will live with the consequences of those injuries for the rest of his life. Will the Solicitor General agree to work, and at speed, with her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice? They seem keen to support Paula’s campaign, hopefully with an amendment to the Sentencing Bill in the House of Lords. We must take this opportunity to close this dangerous safeguarding gap so that all our children and families can be protected from repeat abusers. \p Ellie Reeves: I thank the hon. Member for raising the tragic case of Tony Hudgell. I know that his parents, along with the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who is no longer in his place, have campaigned tirelessly for Tony and his family. I am very sorry to hear about Paula’s diagnosis, and I am sure that the thoughts of the House are with her and the family. I will take this matter away and do everything I can, along with Home Office and Justice Ministers, and we will respond in full to the points raised by the hon. Lady. \p Jesse Norman: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business? \p Alan Campbell: The business for the week commencing 17 November will include:

Monday 17 November—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.

Tuesday 18 November—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

Wednesday 19 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Border Security, Asylum And Immigration Bill, followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Property (Digital Assets) Bill [Lords].

Thursday 20 November—Debate on a motion on the subject of international Men’s day, followed by debate on a motion on an injury in service award. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 21 November—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 24 November includes:

Monday 24 November—Remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (day one).

Tuesday 25 November—Remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (day two).

Wednesday 26 November—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver her Budget statement.

Thursday 27 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 28 November—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 1 December includes:

Monday 1 December—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 2 December—Conclusion of the Budget debate. \p Jesse Norman: I am sure I speak for many Members when I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the whole of the Speaker’s Office for the work you have put in to make this past week of remembrance so memorable. The gardens of remembrance, the projection of images from the second world war on to the Elizabeth Tower, the wreath laying in Westminster Hall and much else—all these things, I know, took a huge amount of organisation, co-ordination and hard work, so I thank you and your office. I draw colleagues’ attention to the launch of the project to build the remembrance clock at the national arboretum, and hope that they will dig deep to support that.

In the spirit of exchanging news stories that have developed over the past two or three weeks, I will, if I may, set out a raft of intriguing items. Nine former  four-star generals have condemned the Government’s treatment of veterans on Remembrance Day. One million more people than a year ago are now claiming universal credit without any requirement to look for a job. The Chancellor gave an unexpected early press conference—apparently to prepare people for major tax rises—and the Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday the rise in national insurance. Junior doctors have announced a five-day strike, starting tomorrow, in pursuit of a 26% pay rise, on top of the woefully inadequate—as they see it—29% received last year. No. 10 Downing Street has insisted that the Prime Minister has full confidence in Morgan McSweeney, and that he—or perhaps Mr McSweeney —will still be Prime Minister at the next election.

It has rightly been said that our country has moved from being post war to being pre-war. In recent weeks, we have seen a marked escalation of the conflict in Ukraine: Russian forces have made gains in and around the city of Pokrovsk, threatening to cut transport routes and displace thousands more civilians, and missile and drone attacks on energy and transport infrastructure have intensified, with serious consequences for Ukraine’s ability to sustain its economy through the winter. These developments follow reports of a significant increase in Russian arms production and continued circumvention of sanctions through covert oil and gas shipments. At the same time, international aid flows have slowed, and Ukrainian forces are facing actual or potential shortages of money, ammunition or equipment.

All that, I suggest, underlines the need for Parliament to take stock. Three years into the conflict, the nature of the war is shifting, and now demands renewed strategic co-ordination among Ukraine’s allies. In that context, I ask the Leader of the House to commit to keeping back 4 December for the Backbench debate on Ukraine requested by my brilliant hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and agreed by the Backbench Business Committee.

By my calculation, we have not had a general debate on Ukraine on the Floor of the House since February this year, and not on a substantive motion since 2023. The debate would allow the House to review the current worrying state of military preparedness and humanitarian situation, the position on frozen Russian financial assets held in Europe, the status of occupied territories that Russia wrongly claims for itself, and the Government’s approach to long-range defensive support and sanctions enforcement. Right hon. and hon. Members could examine the diplomatic context, test Government policy and cross-departmental co-ordination, and bring the diverse range of expertise and knowledge across the House to bear on a crucial issue facing the entire continent of Europe. Above all, it would allow this House of Commons, as an institution, to brief itself in full and demonstrate the strong sense of unity that exists in this country on the vital defence of our sovereign ally, Ukraine. The House has been steadfast in its support for Ukraine, and rightly so, but, as the conflict evolves, we must ensure our response evolves with it. It is possible that the Leader of the House’s genius for prognostication and intelligence-gathering may have already caused him to form a supportive view of this request, but, if not, I ask very much that he have the Government make time on 4 December for that timely and important debate. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Leader of the House. \p Alan Campbell: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, sorry. It is very early in the day.

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his remarks. I join him in thanking you, Mr Speaker, and indeed all House staff, for this week’s work on remembrance events, which provide an opportunity for us, not just as a House but as a nation, to come together each year to pay collective tribute to those who have served and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I also join the shadow Leader of the House in drawing the attention of Members to the remembrance clock at the National Memorial Arboretum, which will serve as a permanent memorial to MPs, peers, journalists and staff who died in war, conflict, and because of acts of terrorism. Mr Speaker, I know that you and the Lord Speaker have written to Members regarding this, but I join the shadow Leader of the House in suggesting that, where possible, colleagues may wish to contribute to that fund.

I also draw attention to the fact that the Government have today published their response to the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration, setting out plans to mark that period in our nation’s history. My thoughts, and those of the Government, are with the many families who suffered the devastating loss of a loved one during that time. I know that there are members of Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice in Parliament today, and we thank them for all they do to provide support to others in their grief. The commemorative programme will ensure that, as a country, we do not forget.

This month also marks a number of important awareness campaigns. November is Men’s Mental Health Month, which raises awareness, tackles stigma surrounding men’s mental health and encourages men to seek help and support when they need it. We also recognise Islamophobia Awareness Month. Islamophobia has no place in our society; the Government are clear that we must challenge and eradicate all forms of Islamophobia and ensure that everyone feels safe in their community.

I will come to the shadow Leader of the House’s points in a moment, but I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming the Transport Secretary’s announcement yesterday about plans aimed at reducing long waiting lists for driving tests and preventing slots being sold on at inflated prices. That is good news as not only do many of our constituents take a keen interest in the issue, but many Members across the House have raised it during business questions and on other parliamentary occasions. It is evidence, if we needed it, that the Government are listening to those concerns and are taking action.

I will turn now to the shadow Leader of the House’s remarks and, to some extent, put aside his knockabout—except to point out, of course, that it is true that more people are moving across to universal credit, because it was always planned that people would move across in the new system. There is no great surprise there.

On the more serious point that the right hon. Gentleman raises, we stand firm in our support for Ukraine and its sovereignty. I am talking not just about this Government but this House: it is important that we get an opportunity to discuss these matters. I will take seriously his reasonable request that we have a debate—certainly before the end of this year—because the Government do stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine. We have a good record of bringing the matter back to the House, particularly  through statements, so that the House is updated on any developments, but I do want to give the House an opportunity to debate the matter more fully. \p Marie Tidball: Two families in High Green in my constituency have now waited two years for a scheme of works to their social houses, which was originally estimated to take just 12 weeks. This is completely unacceptable. I visited them last week and saw that the work that has been completed is substandard, creating damp and mould issues and causing damage to property and personal possessions. This has left families with a horrific impact on their wellbeing and mental health. As the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 has now become law, will the Leader of the House tell me how I can secure a meeting with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to discuss how he can further empower Sheffield city council to hold contractors to account under the new decent homes standard in that Act, to enable the works to finally be completed to a high standard for my constituents in High Green? \p Alan Campbell: My hon. Friend is a doughty advocate for her constituents. This sounds like an untenable situation for some of her constituents. She is absolutely right to say that the Renters’ Rights Act will transform the experience of private renting, and we have also brought Awaab’s law into force in the social rented sector. I will ensure that she gets a meeting with a Minister, so that she can make her case directly and find out more about what the Government intend. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Bobby Dean: Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I join the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in thanking you and all the staff for playing a role in organising the remembrance events of the past week?

I, too, would like to focus on Ukraine this week. Russia’s war is rumbling on and we are about to enter a long and cold winter, in which it looks like temperatures will drop below minus 20°C. We hear that Vladimir Putin has a vicious plot to attack the energy infrastructure of Ukraine, threatening the heat supply to the very homes in which families are trying to survive. As Russia makes advances, it feels like Britain and its allies have reached a bit of a stalling point. We are standing around worrying whether it is legitimate to seize Russian assets, and we are worried about potential future legal claims by the Russian state. All the while, Putin is pouring petrol into his war machine. I feel that the time for deliberation is surely over. Several legal routes have been proposed, and it is now time to act.

In the meantime, one of the weapons that we have in our armoury is the sanctions regime against Russia. It is important not only to impose these sanctions, but to enforce them. It was quite shocking to learn this week that the Government were unable to explain why over £30 million-worth of Russian planes were imported into the UK. I note that the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation is much smaller than its equivalents in the US and the EU. In the debate that we may have about Ukraine before the end of the year, I wonder whether we could focus on the role of OFSI and determine  whether it is adequate, and whether it has the resources to properly deal with the scale and importance of the UK sanctions regime. \p Alan Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is right: addressing Ukraine’s financial needs is vital to ensuring that the Ukrainians can continue to defend themselves against Russian aggression. I can confirm that the UK is determined to make progress on this issue at pace, but I am sure he understands that it involves working with other partners in this regard. There is no intention not to move at pace, but other people are involved in this discussion as well. Regardless of whether Russia has a plot for a new stage in the campaign or not, we continue to bolster Ukraine’s armed forces and to increase pressure on Russia to come to the negotiating table, because we all want to see an end to the conflict.

The hon. Gentleman mentions sanctions. We are pleased that the United States has joined the UK in sanctioning Lukoil and Rosneft, which is very important, but as he points out, it is important that we enforce those sanctions. He raises some interesting points about whether the regime is robust enough. If we are to have a debate before the end of the year, this is the very sort of thing that he might want to raise himself. \p Cat Eccles: Children and adults across Stourbridge and the wider Black Country are being prevented from accessing vital care and support because all new shared care agreements have been stopped since the start of September. The Black Country integrated care board has placed the blame on GP surgeries, but I have since discovered that this was at the instruction of the ICB. With some children out of school and some adults out of work without further support, does the Leader of the House agree that ICBs need to prioritise funding for these patients, not leave them waiting any longer? \p Alan Campbell: Yes, I do agree. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that everyone has access to the care and support they need, and we recognise that demand for such support has grown nationally, which is one of the reasons why we have invested over £1 billion in special educational needs and disabilities to create a system that supports every child. However, as the House will know, we intend to take this matter forward with a consultation and ultimately legislation. The ADHD taskforce published its final report last week, and I will ensure that the House is updated on the Government response. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the acting Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. \p Martin Vickers: The Chairman sends his apologies for his absence today. When we met on Tuesday, the Committee again had great difficulty in allocating time to the many applications that we are receiving. I make the usual plea to the Leader of the House for as much time as possible so that we can accommodate all the various applications. I welcome his acknowledgment of the need for an early debate on Ukraine, which came before the Committee on Tuesday via an application from my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin).

In addition to the debates that the Leader of the House has announced in the Chamber next week, in Westminster Hall there will be a debate on Tuesday 18 November on the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, and debates on Thursday 20 November on inequalities faced by unpaid carers and World COPD—chronic obstructive lung disease—Day. I urge Members who want debates to coincide with specific events to apply early, because we are now looking to allocate time for debates in February and March.

Turning to my own question to the Leader of the House, yesterday—I am sure along with many other Members—I attended the drop-in session organised by Samaritans and the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. I was shown the template letters produced by AI that, in effect, encourage particularly young and vulnerable people to consider suicide, which is an appalling state of affairs. I recognise that Ministers are looking at all aspects of the digital world and so on, but I am sure the whole House agrees that we must take urgent action to combat this. I hope the Leader of the House will arrange a statement by a Minister on how the Government intend approaching it. \p Alan Campbell: On the question of Backbench Business, the hon. Member will know that I have committed to making sure that the Committee has the time it needs. He will also know that this is a busy time of the year: there is plenty of legislation, not least the Bills coming back from the other place, and we are approaching Budget season. However, I take very seriously the points he makes because inevitably the issues that Members want to raise are serious matters.

On the hon. Member’s second point, I thank him not just for raising that question, but for the tone in which he raised it. He has done a lot of work on these matters, which are incredibly serious because of their impact on our constituents. I, too, commend Samaritans, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate and all other organisations that support people on these issues. I will ensure that he gets a response from the relevant Minister on what we intend to do to combat this matter, and if it is appropriate, a statement to the House. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. To help the House, I am going to run business questions until 11.45 am, as we have a lot of business today. If we can speed up the questions and answers, I hope we will get nearly everybody in. I call Baggy Shanker to give the best example. \p Baggy Shanker: ASG’s 100-strong Derby workforce show exactly why we are a proud city of makers, but the Jaguar Land Rover cyber-attack has left them on a cliff edge with no certainty of work. Does my right hon. Friend recognise the vital importance of companies such as ASG across the supply chain, and does he agree that we must do as much as we can to help prevent such cyber-attacks? \p Alan Campbell: Yes, I do recognise that. Cyber-security is a key priority for the Government. We are working with the National Cyber Security Centre to provide businesses, including the companies my hon. Friend talks about, with the tools, advice and support they need to protect themselves against cyber-attacks.  The Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill was introduced to Parliament yesterday. It will ensure that the UK is better protected to face down cyber-criminals and state-backed actors. \p Esther McVey: Will the Leader of the House encourage the Health Secretary to break off from his leadership bid to come to the House for a few minutes to explain what progress is being made on ensuring that Knutsford gets the new medical centre that health professionals, the public and I believe is essential? \p Alan Campbell: The Health Secretary is no stranger to coming to this House to update it on the excellent work that he and his Department are doing. I do not have knowledge of this specific case and I wonder whether it is one of those centres that was promised by the previous Government when the money did not exist, but I will draw it to the attention of the Health Secretary. Perhaps the right hon. Lady may wish to meet him to make the case herself. \p Gareth Snell: I welcome the words from the Leader of the House about the covid memorial response. Last Friday in my constituency, I met some bereaved families, led ably by my constituent Lynn Jones, whose husband Gareth sadly passed away. We are working on a local covid memorial in Stoke-on-Trent. May I encourage the Leader of the House to hold a statement on today’s announcement, so that this House can remember the names and the lives of those who are lost, and explore with the relevant Minister how the aspiration set out today can be translated into memorials up and down the country? \p Alan Campbell: I think we should go one stage further and have a debate, perhaps through a Backbench Business debate or an Adjournment debate, so that not only can a Minister go through what has been announced, but, because these issues affect every Member of this House, we are all able to raise relevant constituency cases as the House comes together to remember what were very, very dark days. \p Helen Maguire: Queen Elizabeth’s Foundation for Disabled People, a charity based in my constituency with nationwide partners, has been active for over 90 years. It has gone into administration and is now on day three of a 28-day wind down, causing severe disruption to the 20,000 disabled people a year it supports. One family member told me that she has not slept properly since hearing that the charity will close. The organisation has treated 132 NHS patients in the past year, and there will be an overall loss of 48 NHS beds.[Official Report, 18 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 652.] (Correction) The NHS has agreed to buy the building, but it will not be using it immediately. Another offer from a separate charity would allow it to keep operating, but its hands are tied by the Pension Protection Fund. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Government must urgently set out plans to save this essential service for disabled people, rescue 250 jobs and meet urgently in the next week to discuss the situation? \p Alan Campbell: I will draw this issue to the attention of the relevant Health Minister to make sure the hon. Lady gets the response she needs. \p Natalie Fleet: Special educational needs families in Bolsover and across Derbyshire are let down by our dire education services that were ripped to ruin by the Tories and are now being failed by Reform. I met families earlier this year and heard heartbreaking stories of how they and their babies are being let down. It was horrendous. They are being ignored by the Reform council: letters are not being responded to and cases are not being progressed. Children are out of education as a result. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that Reform Derbyshire county council must improve its special educational needs services and deliver for children across Derbyshire? \p Alan Campbell: Yes, I do. I said in an earlier answer that the Government take SEN reform very seriously indeed, because the system is broken. However, it is even worse where local authorities have a responsibility to do better and they do not do it. Typically of Reform, it over-offers and underachieves. I hope it gets the powerful message that my hon. Friend has delivered today. \p Bernard Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House and others for pressing the case for a Backbench Business debate on Ukraine. I also thank the Leader of the House for considering the matter favourably. May I just emphasise the importance of having a motion on the Order Paper for such a debate that raises particular issues such as the missing children, the atrocities, the need for long-range weaponry and the need for increased sanctions? The conflict is at a tipping point and a clear, united statement of solidarity with Ukraine would be an important message to send from this House to Ukraine, to our allies, and to our adversaries. \p Alan Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way he raises this matter. I will give a commitment that if we are able to find time for this debate, I will speak to him and those on his Front Bench to ensure that if the House agrees to the motion in that debate, which I suspect it will, it will be one of unity across the House. \p Alistair Strathern: Last week I had the privilege of visiting Hitchin boys’ school to listen to pupils across the year groups debating how we could do more to protect them from online harm, and I think we could probably learn some things from their thoughtful, considerate and informed approach. The debate was informed by some deep and troubling testimony about the risks they have been exposed to online. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the pupils on having such a fantastic discussion on this important topic, and could we have a debate here about what more the Government can do to protect young people right across the country? \p Alan Campbell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating the pupils of Hitchin boys’ school, who were discussing a topic of huge importance. The Online Safety Act 2023 provides stronger protection for children, and we have launched a study into the effects of smartphone and social media use on children. My hon. Friend may wish to seek a debate in order to make those points to the whole House. \p Greg Smith: We are in a farming emergency with the family farm tax, the early cutting off of the sustainable farming incentive and the watering down of measures to prevent equipment theft from farms, yet this morning, Members across the House who wanted to question Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were unable to do so because the Government persist in keeping DEFRA questions at just 40 minutes. Will the Leader of the House look at extending DEFRA questions to a full hour so that rural communities are not left behind? \p Alan Campbell: I will look at the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, but as he knows, if one thing expands, something else is squeezed. I will look at that, but it might not be as easy as he suggests. \p Carolyn Harris: Last week during International Trade Week, my dear and hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and I jointly hosted a regional export trade seminar for businesses from across south Wales. As proud trade envoys, we were delighted to work with the Department for Business and Trade to offer Welsh small and medium-sized enterprises the opportunity to learn more about export opportunities and the support available. Will the Leader of the House join us in thanking DBT colleagues, Ministers and the businesses that attended for their commitment to ensuring that the UK is front and centre of global trade markets? \p Alan Campbell: I thank colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade for their excellent work and thank the businesses for taking part, because they are the key to growing our economy. I also place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend and our other trade envoys for their excellent work. \p Helen Morgan: Sixteen years of Conservative mismanagement of Shropshire council combined with successive Governments’ failures to understand the needs of rural local authorities have left Shropshire council with a dire financial emergency and in need of exceptional financial support. The situation is critical. Can the Leader of the House assist me in arranging a meeting with the relevant Secretary of State and MPs for Shropshire so that we can press the Secretary of State to ensure that Shropshire receives that support? \p Alan Campbell: Yes, I can. \p Polly Billington: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the appalling environmental pollution incident at Camber Sands in East Sussex last week. A few days later, we also had huge sewage dumps in the seas around my constituency, leaving beaches in Ramsgate and Broadstairs effectively unusable. Not only do these incidents have appalling impacts on nature, but they affect people’s confidence in using the sea for health, wellbeing and enjoyment all year round. Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate in Government time on the economic impact of water quality—poor water quality in particular—on our coastal towns and seaside resorts? \p Alan Campbell: As a coastal MP, I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s concern about the state of not just the seas, but our rivers and lakes, and the terrible  legacy that we inherited. We are taking action to clean our waterways up through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. My hon. Friend may wish to apply for a debate—perhaps Backbench Business or Adjournment—both to make those points and to allow colleagues to speak about their experiences. \p Peter Fortune: Residents of Northpoint in Bromley have suffered eight years of disruption and uncertainty due to work to replace cladding on their building. There is a case of serious water ingress, and they have now been waiting four months for a response from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to see if any subsequent work can be funded by the aluminium composite material remediation fund. Can we have a debate on how we can protect leaseholders and ensure that they do not suffer disruption like my residents in Bromley? \p Alan Campbell: I will make sure that I draw that to the attention of MHCLG Ministers. If an answer is awaited, I will make sure that residents get the answer, and perhaps Ministers can explain to the hon. Member what further steps we intend to take. \p Elsie Blundell: Women and girls living with endometriosis are waiting on average nine years for a full diagnosis. That is almost a decade of pain, uncertainty and endurance before they receive the targeted support that they need. Would the Leader of the House agree that the soon-to-be-renewed women’s health strategy must get a grip of these appalling wait times and ensure that all women affected are heard and finally prioritised? \p Alan Campbell: I do agree. It is a debilitating and life-altering condition. As my hon. Friend said, our renewed women’s health strategy will set out our longer-term vision. Members from across the House will have concerns about this issue, so my hon. Friend may want to seek a Backbench Business or Adjournment debate. \p Siân Berry: Ella’s law—the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill—will now not get its Second Reading on 21 November, despite wide cross-party support. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Government make time on Fridays or at other times for more of the most vital private Members’ Bills, such as Ella’s law, or could they adopt the measures into their own Bills—for example the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill? \p Alan Campbell: The House will know that we have had the allocation of 13 sitting Fridays, but if certain reasons were brought forward—if, for example, amendments might have been made to Bills in the Lords—the Government may have an open mind about what sitting Fridays might look like. I also think there is a debate to be had about how we deal with private Members’ Bills, if I am honest. I cannot comment on whether the measures are appropriate to be incorporated into Government legislation, but the hon. Member may wish to draw that to the attention of the appropriate Department. \p Michael Wheeler: Many of my constituents use the Warburton toll bridge to get to work, visit family and go about their everyday lives.  However, residents in Irlam and Cadishead have been arbitrarily excluded from the local resident discount scheme, meaning that they have to pay the full price while many who live further from the bridge receive a 50% discount. To date, Peel Ports has not responded to inquiries I have made on constituents’ behalf. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on the need to ensure that where essential infrastructure is in private hands, appropriate oversight is in place and local needs are properly considered? \p Alan Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I understand his constituents’ frustration if they rely on the bridge in their daily lives. The Government believe that local infrastructure should work for the community that it serves, and I will ensure that the relevant Minister hears about this issue. \p Saqib Bhatti: The Meriden gap is a vital route for migrating wildlife, and it is under huge threat from the Government’s planning agenda and the dubiously vague definition of grey belt. My constituents in villages such as Balsall Common and Berkswell have already made huge sacrifices for projects like HS2. Now villages such as Hockley Heath, Dorridge, Knowle, Marston Green and Meriden are all under significant threat. Will the Leader of the House please write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and try to figure out how we can protect vital routes like the Meriden gap and while not increasing the housing burden when my constituents have already made significant sacrifices? \p Alan Campbell: I will draw that to the attention of the Secretary of State, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a balance, which the Government want to achieve, between protecting nature and making sure that we have the houses this country needs. \p Amanda Martin: During Remembrance Week we rightly honour the service and sacrifice of our armed forces and their families. Children from armed forces families often face unique challenges in education and mobility, yet data on their outcomes and experiences remains limited. There is a need for better recognition of service children in education policy, for improved national data collection and for sustained funding for the professionals supporting them. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on ensuring that service children receive whole-person, whole-journey support and evidence-based investment to help them thrive? \p Alan Campbell: Children of armed forces families do face unique challenges. The Government are aware of this and recognise that we can do better by them than has been done in the past. This would be a good subject for a debate so that Members across the House can share experiences and Ministers can learn more about the way forward. \p Daisy Cooper: In June, I met the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), to press the Government to adopt the measures in my Chalk Streams (Sewerage Investment) Bill. I was delighted by her  commitments, namely that she would investigate whether Ministers already had the powers to instruct water companies to prioritise pipe upgrades in chalk streams and, in any event, would write to those water companies and ask them to do so. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Minister to produce a written statement to update the House on that work? \p Alan Campbell: I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets the update that she seeks. \p Rachael Maskell: When the last Government allowed the sale of Royal Mail to billionaire Daniel Kretinsky’s company, they maintained a golden share, which I now ask Government to use. Services are less frequent, outsourced workers are handling parcels and postal workers feel devalued, with their traditional Christmas stamps downgraded to second class. Will the Leader of the House ask the Business Secretary to make a statement on Royal Mail, a service that should be renationalised, and ensure that our postal workers get their first-class stamps because they are simply first class? \p Alan Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the work of our postal workers and I join her in paying tribute to the dedication that they show particularly at this time of the year, but also throughout the year. I understand the disappointment that workers will feel at that decision and I will ensure that Ministers hear her concerns. \p Andrew Murrison: The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill is in the business statement. Does the Leader of the House accept that that will cause concern for many members of the armed forces and the veterans community, who are worried that in years to come they may be judged by the standards of the day rather than the standards that applied when they were engaged in doing the state’s business? Does he further recognise that there is good evidence now that people are leaving the armed forces, and certain parts of the armed forces in particular, because of those concerns? Will he also ensure that adequate time is provided on Second Reading and in Committee to assure the House that steps are being taken to remove that threat to national security? \p Alan Campbell: We are acutely aware of the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises. That is why we are bringing forward a Bill to replace legislation that was either illegal or unfit for purpose, or both. May I say that my hon. Friend, the former Veterans Minister who is now the Armed Forces Minister has done an excellent job of raising those matters at the heart of Government and seeking to reassure colleagues on them? As the right hon. Gentleman points out, we are bringing forward the legislation and we will ensure that there is adequate time so those matters can be debated properly. \p Jessica Morden: It is the time of year when people are saving for Christmas, which is a reminder that, years ago, thousands of savers lost tens of millions of pounds when the Christmas savings scheme Farepak collapsed, highlighting a big gap in consumer protection. May we have an opportunity in this House to highlight how finally, under this Government,  new regulations will come in from January 2026 due in no small part to my constituent, the former Farepak agent Deb Harvey, working with the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders)? They have been campaigning for years. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking them for helping to ensure that something like that does not happen again? \p Alan Campbell: I am pleased to hear about the successful campaigning by my hon. Friend’s constituent and to thank her for drawing the attention of successive Governments to these issues. I want to repeat what she has said: well done, Deb Harvey. \p John Glen: May I thank the Leader of the House for what he said about reforms to the driving test booking system? I add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) said about DEFRA questions. I wanted to raise the case of Susan Robinson and Maria La Femina, who asked me about sludge use in agriculture and what had happened with the regulations, but for the second or third DEFRA questions, I was not able to get in. It really would be worth considering whether we can extend DEFRA questions to the full hour, so that all colleagues would have the opportunity to keep trying to catch Mr Speaker’s eye. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I think it is important, and it might also help if Front-Bench Members asked quicker questions and gave quicker answers—not on this one, though. \p Alan Campbell: I have nothing to add to what I said earlier about the timing and length of questions, but the right hon. Gentleman has raised that concern. If he gives me further details, I will draw the matter to the attention of Ministers now, rather than wait for change. \p Rachel Hopkins: I am pleased that so many nominations are rolling in for my fifth annual Luton South and South Bedfordshire small business awards. There are two weeks to go—keep nominating. Many of our small businesses are in the retail sector, and retail businesses make up 4.5% of our economy, but too many retail workers face terrible threats and abuse in the workplace. Will the Leader of the House join me in supporting the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers’ Respect for Shop Workers Week this week and its “Freedom from Fear” campaign to ensure that all retail workers feel safe at work? \p Alan Campbell: The Government are committed to supporting small businesses—they are the backbone of our local communities. At the end of this month, we will mark Small Business Saturday, which gives us a further opportunity to celebrate the small businesses in our communities. I join my hon. Friend in supporting and praising USDAW’s powerful campaign over a long period of time, because it is vital that hard-working retail staff are treated with respect. That is one of the reasons why we are taking action through our Crime and Policing Bill to safeguard staff from assault. \p Sarah Pochin: Given that the town of Runcorn in my constituency is the 16th most deprived town in the country, does the Leader of the House not agree that investing in education and young people’s futures is key to changing that statistic? Therefore, may we have a debate in Government time on new higher education facilities in areas like mine? \p Alan Campbell: Improving educational opportunity, including through further education, is absolutely at the heart of what the Government are about in every constituency, not just the hon. Member’s. She might want not just to raise this issue in Education questions, but to call for a debate of her own so that she can further the case. \p Jo White: Bassetlaw’s Member of the Youth Parliament Cameron Holt had one ambition, and that was for financial literacy to be included in the national curriculum. He has been formidable in lobbying the Government and travelling up and down the country to speak in schools and on regional and national TV. The announcement that the national curriculum review will have a new requirement for financial education is welcome. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Cameron for his persistence and hard work? \p Alan Campbell: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Cameron on his hard work—he sounds like a remarkable young man. He is absolutely right to put the effort in. These are crucial skills to master, and we want to reform the curriculum to improve financial literacy, starting from an early age, to help children and young people prepare for the modern world. \p Luke Evans: I wonder if the Leader of the House could help me. We have heard of the concerns about special education needs from Members across the House. My constituency has them, too—the issue fills my inbox. He mentioned that there will be a consultation and a White Paper; the problem is that there is anxiety because they have been delayed. Will he write to the Department to ask for a timetable to be set out, because in my constituency we are seeing an increase in education, health and care plans owing to people’s concern that they may go. There is real anxiety at the moment, and I urge him to help. \p Alan Campbell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the concern that parents in particular will have, but I gently point out that his Government had 14 years to put this right. Therefore, when this Government are taking the issue head-on, which we are, it does take a little bit of time to get it right. We are absolutely conscious of the need for every child to get the support they need as soon as possible, and we are working on a timetable and on what that means. \p Bayo Alaba: On the matter of remembrance, my constituent Frank Turvey’s brother was Lance Corporal Brian Turvey, nicknamed “Topsy”. He was just 20 years of age when he was killed in a terrorist attack in Famagusta on 4 May 1958 while on military police duties in Cyprus, just one day before he was due to return to the UK on leave. Lance Corporal Cameron also lost his life in the same ambush. Frank remembers his mum making a  cake to celebrate his brother’s return when the officer turned up at their family home to inform them of the tragic news. Will the Leader of the House join me in remembering Lance Corporal Brian Turvey and Lance Corporal Cameron and their ultimate sacrifice for this country? \p Alan Campbell: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for raising this matter and for remembering Lance Corporal Turvey and Lance Corporal Cameron and, indeed, all those young men and women who have lost their lives defending our country. Remembrance Day is, of course, an opportunity to remember, but for the families concerned, every day will be a day to remember. On how we can commemorate that going forward, I hope Defence Ministers will listen to what he says about what further measures we can take to remember such sacrifice. \p Christine Jardine: I declare an interest: an employee of mine works for the company that I am about to mention, although they have not been affected by the action taken.

That company is video game publisher Rockstar Games, which has fired at least 30 employees across its UK studios, including Rockstar North in Edinburgh. Several of my constituents have been directly affected, and some came to express their concerns to me last week. They claim that they have been sacked because they were trying to unionise and discuss working conditions in private. Rockstar accused them of distributing confidential information and sacked them for gross misconduct. I have written to Rockstar to ask for information on this matter, but I wonder whether I might have a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss what steps can be taken to support the workforce, and to ask what action the Government are taking— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Please. Does the hon. Member want to prevent other Members from getting in, because that is what she is doing? These questions finish at 11.45 am. I think the Leader of the House must have got a grip of the question. \p Alan Campbell: The sector that the hon. Lady talks about is important to the growth of the economy, but so too are rights at work. Successful companies are those that give decent rights and conditions to the people they employ. I will raise this matter with Ministers and see what action, if any, can be taken to resolve it. \p James Asser: In the summer, I led a Backbench Business debate to mark the fifth anniversary of the covid pandemic. One of our asks was for a database that properly records all the covid memorials around the country. I am delighted that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has launched today an online interactive map that does exactly that. I join the Leader of the House in congratulating Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK, which has done so much to keep victims’ memories alive. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the data released today is circulated to all hon. Members so that it can be promoted in our constituencies and all our local memorials can be properly recorded? \p Alan Campbell: I can give my hon. Friend that undertaking. \p John Cooper: Since coming to this place, I have struggled to find out how much money the UK Government are putting into the A75 road, which runs right through my constituency. I was astonished to find that a Labour candidate had said on social media that the figure was £8.5 million. I asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether that figure was correct—it was not. I was also told on social media that Anas Sarwar, the leader of the Labour party in Scotland, was responsible for that figure. Can the Leader of the House help me get to the bottom of this constitutional crisis, in which someone in another Parliament pulls the strings in this one? \p Alan Campbell: I am not sure that it is a constitutional crisis, but I will help the hon. Gentleman to get to the bottom of how much is being committed. I am pretty sure that it is a lot more than the previous Government committed. \p Perran Moon: This week, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology made the very welcome announcement that animal testing in science is set to be phased out faster, delivering on the Government’s manifesto pledge to strengthen animal welfare. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that, as well as delivering on that pledge, we must now deliver on the related manifesto commitment to end the foxhunting smokescreen and ban trail hunting as soon as possible? To that end, will he help me to secure a meeting with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss the timetable? \p Alan Campbell: I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the Government’s announcement of our ambitious programme for animal welfare—the most ambitious in a generation. I assure him that we remain committed to banning trail hunting; we will consult on how to deliver the ban in the new year. I will ensure that he gets a meeting with Ministers. \p Adrian Ramsay: More than 50 countries have endorsed the tropical forests scheme launched at COP30 in Brazil. It is one of the most significant global initiatives to protect tropical forests. The UK’s decision not to contribute is a shocking failure in emissions reduction, international nature finance and our relationships with South America. Might we have a debate about the important need for the Government to revisit and reverse that decision before the end of COP30? \p Alan Campbell: The hon. Gentleman can seek either an Adjournment debate—that is probably the best route —or a Backbench Business debate to raise those matters and have a Minister set out why that decision was made, if what he says is accurate. \p Laura Kyrke-Smith: Today marks the start of Transgender Awareness Week. I express my solidarity with and respect for the trans community in Aylesbury. When I met a local LGBTQ+ group recently, we discussed the urgent need to end the harmful practice  of conversion therapy. Labour committed to doing so in our manifesto, so will the Leader of the House update me on when that matter will be given parliamentary time? \p Alan Campbell: We are committed to bringing forward legislation to ban these abusive practices. It was, as my hon. Friend says, and is a key manifesto commitment. I cannot give her an exact time, but when the legislation does come forward, there will be plenty of time for debate on the matters that she raises. \p Andrew Rosindell: My constituents continue to suffer from the dither, delay and ineptitude of Transport for London and the Mayor, as the rebuilding of the Gallows Corner junction, which was originally meant to be completed in September, is now delayed to the spring. This is causing chaos in Essex and on the eastern side of London. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to take over this project, so that everyone can get on with their life and travel freely through this junction? \p Alan Campbell: I will raise the issue with the Transport Secretary, to see how it can be resolved. \p Jas Athwal: My constituent Michelle would like to move closer to her children, but as a leaseholder, she is trapped in her property. There is only a short term remaining on her lease, and she has tried to extend it, but the freeholder is demanding a sum that is disproportionate to the property value. On top of that, she would have to cover the freeholder’s administrative fees, making the cost entirely unaffordable. For constituents like Michelle, who are essentially subject to the whim of the freeholder, leasehold reform could not be more urgent. Can the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister to provide an update on the Government’s plans to fix the broken freehold system? \p Alan Campbell: We are committed to making commonhold the default tenure for flats, and bringing the feudal leaseholder system to an end. I will ensure that the House is kept updated as we publish the consultation on banning leasehold for new flats and the draft commonhold and leasehold reform Bill later this year. \p Victoria Collins: Coeliac disease impacts one in 100 people, yet ability to access gluten-free food on prescription is a postcode lottery. For Ted and his mother, who live in Redbourn, that means they miss out, and they have seen costs go up by 40%. Can we have time to talk about the postcode lottery for prescriptions, including for those with coeliac disease? \p Alan Campbell: I advise the hon. Lady to seek an Adjournment or a Backbench Business debate on that. As a gluten-free person, I assure her that I appreciate the points that she raises. \p Jonathan Brash: Like many MPs across the House, I am sure, I have been inundated with correspondence from concerned constituents on the issue of fireworks, be it about their use in antisocial  behaviour, the impact on household pets, or the severe distress that they can cause to the vulnerable, including veterans. The status quo is clearly not acceptable. While I support organised firework events, does the Leader of the House agree that it is time to review all the legislation in this area, and will he grant a debate in Government time on this issue? \p Alan Campbell: I am sure every MP has had correspondence on this, particularly in recent weeks—it is a real issue at this time of year. It is important, however, that the debate and any measures brought forward on fireworks are proportionate. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a good time for a debate, and he might wish to seek either a Backbench Business or an Adjournment debate on the subject, so that others can share their experience. \p John Lamont: My constituent Evelyn Armstrong, aged 104, has recently been awarded France’s highest military honour, the Légion d’honneur, for the vital role she played as a plotter and flight controller in the second world war, when she served in the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force. She is truly an amazing woman. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Evelyn, and can we have a debate on honouring the service of our wartime heroes? \p Alan Campbell: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Evelyn Armstrong, who has been awarded the Légion d’honneur. I also want to acknowledge the way in which the French Government recognise the role of servicemen and women from other countries who helped to liberate France during the second world war. We had an opportunity to discuss that earlier this week, but I am sure there will be further opportunities to talk about that remarkable generation in the months to come. \p Phil Brickell: I was recently contacted by a constituent about Greater Manchester integrated care partnership funding an autism assessment for his son. After waiting eight months, my constituent was informed that his chosen provider’s funding had been cut by the ICP. With his GP’s help, he was able to transfer to a different provider, whose funding has also been cut, and his application is now on hold, with no timetable for a resolution. Given the current NHS waiting times for autism assessment, can we have a debate in Government time on the steps being taken to ensure that children get the reviews they need? \p Alan Campbell: As I said earlier, we are acutely aware of this issue, which is why we are bringing forward proposals to fundamentally alter the special educational needs and disabilities system, but I will raise my hon. Friend’s concerns with Ministers to see what further action can be taken to assist his constituent. \p Joe Robertson: Will the Leader of the House consider setting aside Government time for a debate on regenerating coastal communities, so that we can properly consider issues facing towns like Sandown on the Isle of Wight, including transport connectivity, pressure on tourism, derelict buildings and declining high streets? \p Alan Campbell: As a coastal MP, I absolutely endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said, and if people want to see fantastic regeneration in action, they should come to Whitley Bay. That was the result of the previous Labour Government’s funding and commitment, but the hon. Gentleman’s Government continued it, and it is important that this Government continue it too, as we intend to. This is a really good topic. There are lots of coastal MPs in this place, and I am sure that a debate on the issue, if he sought one from the Backbench Business Committee, would be timely. \p Catherine Atkinson: I was pleased to attend the opening of new mental health facilities at Kingsway hospital in Derby. It marks a huge step forward in the care available for local people, and gives patients greater dignity, privacy, and the support of the surroundings that they need on their journey to recovery. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all those involved in delivering that fantastic project, and will he find time for a debate on how we can continue to improve mental health provision across the country, particularly for adults requiring acute care? \p Alan Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, which is of absolute importance to the Government in the work that they are doing. I join her in congratulating everyone involved in the project that she mentions, as well as those doing fantastic work in quite difficult circumstances across our country. I am sure that in future there will be a debate in which she can discuss the matter further. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: Residents in Chichester living on managed estates have written to me about the exploitative practices of estate management companies, and the service charges that they are charged for work that is funded but never delivered. Fees more than double year on year, and residents have no power to challenge those companies. Will the Leader of the House urgently make time for a debate on the subject, so that we can finally improve outcomes for those residents in Chichester and across the country? \p Alan Campbell: As the hon. Lady says, this is an issue not just in Chichester, but across the country. She will know that we are looking at a range of measures—on planning, leasehold reform and everything else—to ensure that we do not get the terrible cases that we did in the past of people who move to estates being held to ransom. \p Julie Minns: I am sure that Members from across the House will want to thank volunteers and members of the Royal British Legion for their exemplary work in recent weeks. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Keith Richardson, and members of the Carlisle and Stanwix branch of the Royal British Legion, for organising an inspiring number of events in my Carlisle constituency, including, frankly, with respect to the Royal Albert Hall, the best festival of remembrance? \p Alan Campbell: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in thanking Keith Richardson and everyone involved in the Royal British Legion in her proud and beautiful city. The work that they do is important for the local community, and it is replicated by so many people across this country. \p Ashley Fox: The decision by Liberal Democrats on Somerset council to cancel the Cross Rifles roundabout upgrade in Bridgwater has left residents facing severe congestion. Combined with a new one-way system on Salmon Parade and East Quay, it has left Bridgwater gridlocked, and my constituents now face longer and more costly journeys. One resident, Sadie, told me that because of the one-way system, her weekly taxi fare to the supermarket has risen from £7 to £20. May we have a debate on how we can hold councils to account when they cancel Government-funded infrastructure projects without offering an alternative for local people? \p Alan Campbell: Local infrastructure is so important, particularly to rural communities. I will draw this case to the attention of the Department for Transport, but in the business I have announced, and in proceedings on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, there might be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise the issue of how local authorities can be held to account for the decisions they make. \p Douglas McAllister: Hundreds of my West Dunbartonshire constituents, and thousands more across the country, were served notice of the termination of their family protection funeral plan by CMutual and Maiden Life UK. All are members of credit unions, and they are elderly and vulnerable. They have paid in thousands of pounds over the years, but will be left with absolutely nothing on 30 November. Will the Leader of the House agree to an urgent debate on the subject in Government time, and ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to conduct an urgent investigation? \p Alan Campbell: This is an important issue and a concerning situation, and I will draw it to the attention of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. My hon. Friend may get an opportunity to raise the issue during the Budget debate, for which there will be a lot of time. \p Tessa Munt: Some of my constituents have had valuable property stolen from their homes during viewings, and have come to discover that the so-called potential buyers or tenants were not who they purported to be. Estate agents usually check the financial readiness and capacity of potential buyers and tenants, but can we have a debate on the need for estate agents to verify the names and addresses of the people they introduce to new properties, regardless of whether they will be accompanied to a viewing by the agent, so we can stop this brass-necked daylight robbery? \p Alan Campbell: The Government are looking at the whole subject of buying and selling houses, and this issue may be an interesting part of that. The hon. Lady may wish to write to the Minister about it. \p Paul Waugh: Minky Homecare’s ironing board factory in Shawclough, in Rochdale, is the only one of its kind in the whole country. It provides high-quality British-made products and lots of vital local jobs. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that making, selling and buying British products is this Government’s priority, as we support our manufacturers across the country? \p Alan Campbell: British businesses, like Minky Homecare, are vital to boosting the economy and creating jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency—his home town—and he understands that perfectly. The Government are committed to supporting small businesses, wherever they are, in achieving their potential, and to unlocking investment and driving growth. \p Robbie Moore: Earlier this week, there was a large accidental industrial fire on Pitt Street, in Keighley in my constituency. Nine fire crews attended, some coming from as far away as Mirfield in West Yorkshire. Unfortunately, one person was taken to hospital, and there was a huge amount of damage done to local buildings. My thoughts go out to all those affected by the fire, and I want to personally thank the emergency services for their work, and for acting so professionally. Could we have a debate in Government time about recognising our emergency services, and about what more support the Government can give to businesses that are impacted by such devastating fires? \p Alan Campbell: I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to our emergency services, and we send our sympathies to those affected. If he seeks a Backbench Business debate or an Adjournment debate on the subject, he will be able to raise those points himself, but I gently point out that for the past 14 years, many services, particularly fire services, have been starved of the funding that they need, so he needs to understand that this is not a recent development. \p Elaine Stewart: Children in Need has been supporting disadvantaged young people for decades. This support is made possible by hard-working fundraisers up and down the country. Tomorrow night, 17-year-old Eloise from my constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, one of East Ayrshire’s young carers, is throwing herself into a musical theatre challenge on skates, with the cast of “Starlight Express”. She is a brilliant example of community spirit. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the incredible contribution of East Ayrshire’s young carers, who balance caring responsibilities with school and everyday life? \p Alan Campbell: I am pleased to recognise the incredible contribution of East Ayrshire’s young carers, and young carers across the country, whose vital contribution sometimes goes unseen. I wish Eloise skating success with her musical theatre challenge. \p Claire Young: Many of my constituents will be disappointed that small modular reactors will be going to Wylfa, not Oldbury, and disappointed too by the Government’s shambolic handling of the announcement. The news was leaked on Tuesday. The promised calls to me—first from the Minister, then from No. 10—failed to materialise yesterday, and the announcement was in the media this morning. There was no opportunity for this House to question Ministers. My constituents deserve to know more about the future of Oldbury, so will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on this process, in which a degree of contempt has been shown to my constituents? \p Alan Campbell: If the hon. Lady writes to me, I will look into what has happened in this situation and  get an explanation. As she points out, her constituents have a right to know what will happen, and in a timely and organised fashion. \p Martin Rhodes: I was recently asked to visit a shop in my constituency that has suffered over 100 reported robberies since opening last November. These incidents not only involve theft, but threats and attacks on staff. This situation is unfolding against the backdrop of a significant reduction in police presence. The Glasgow division of Police Scotland has lost 218 local officers since 2017. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on the importance of policing in supporting and protecting local businesses? \p Alan Campbell: The protecting of local businesses by the police is very important, not just in Scotland but everywhere else. Policing is a matter for the Scottish Government, but what my hon. Friend describes sounds like an untenable situation, particularly for the business to which he referred. Scotland has had the biggest funding settlement for a very long time, so I hope the Scottish Government have heard his words. \p Alison Bennett: Hon. Members who watched “Newsnight” last night will doubtless have been moved by Sir Michael Palin’s interview about his wife Helen’s final days and passing in a hospice. The package reveals what is known to many Members: the hospice crisis of funding, cuts and beds being closed. In the light of that, will the Leader of the House make time for Members to debate the crisis in our hospices, including the urgent need to reverse the Government’s increases in national insurance contributions and to ensure that hospices are finally fairly funded? \p Alan Campbell: The hon. Lady will know that the changes in the Budget last year were to find the money to support public services, so these are not easy decisions by any means. I know that her concern about hospices and the fantastic work they do in our local communities is felt across the House. She may wish to seek a debate on this issue, because the Government will at that point be able to remind the House that we have in fact put in more resources; £100 million has gone into hospices in the last year. \p Steve Yemm: Ahead of the Budget, will the Leader of the House allow a debate during Government time to discuss the potential economic benefits of releasing the British Coal staff superannuation scheme investment reserve in order to increase the pensions of members of the BCSSS? \p Alan Campbell: As the House will know, my hon. Friend has been a formidable champion for mineworkers in his constituency and their families, and I pay tribute to him for that. The Government continue to meet with BCSSS trustees, and I will certainly draw his question to the attention of Ministers. \p Jim Shannon: I am deeply troubled by increasing reports of the Taliban’s crackdown on women’s education: more than 2.2 million Afghan girls have been banned from attending school beyond primary education. Will the Leader of the House urge the Foreign Secretary to outline what concrete actions the Government  will take to ensure the reversal of the Taliban’s ban, so that Afghan girls can access their fundamental right to education? \p Alan Campbell: We absolutely condemn the appalling erosion of the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan. We have provided £151 million in aid programmes to provide lifesaving support for the most vulnerable people in the country, particularly for women and girls. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a reply from the Foreign Secretary to the very important points that he raises with his usual diligence and excellent tone. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. For those Members who did not get in, we will keep the list for next week. \p Sarah Jones: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on police reform.

Let me begin by expressing my sadness at the passing of Baroness Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner. She was a champion for victims and made a huge difference, holding Government and agencies to account. I extend my sympathies to her family and friends, and I know that she will be a huge loss to the other place.

Last year, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), informed the House of her intention to bring forward a White Paper on police reform. The White Paper will outline a programme of wide-ranging reforms that will drive quality, consistency and efficiency in policing to ensure that it is set up to deliver for the public. Ahead of publication, we are today announcing the first of those reforms.

In order for any institution or organisation to perform to the highest standards, it must be underpinned by strong, effective governance. That is all the more critical when the service in question is integral to the safe functioning of our society, as policing undoubtedly is. Police and crime commissioners have been in place since November 2012. The model was created to increase accountability and build a greater connection between policing and local communities by having a single public official, directly elected by the public, responsible for holding their chief constable to account, setting the local police budget and agreeing strategic priorities for their force through their local police and crime plan.

However, while the role of PCCs has evolved over time to include responsibility for commissioning services for victims, driving local partnerships and—in some areas—responsibility for fire governance, the model has failed to live up to expectations. It has not delivered what it was set up to achieve. Public understanding of, and engagement with, our police and crime commissioners remains low despite efforts to raise their profile; less than a quarter of voters turned out to vote for them in the 2024 elections, and two in five people are unaware that PCCs even exist. Home Office research conducted during the PCC review in 2020 found that 68% of the public in mayoral areas claimed that they could name their mayor, compared with only 16% of people in PCC areas claiming that they could name their PCC.

On an individual level, PCCs up and down the country have sought to provide strong oversight and drive crime prevention activity locally. I place on record my thanks to the individuals and staff in all the offices of police and crime commissioners and at the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners who have done, and will continue to do, their best to improve policing for their local communities. However, the reality is that the PCC model has weakened local police accountability and has had perverse impacts on the recruitment of chief constables. It has failed to inspire confidence in local people, in stark contrast to the mayoral model, which clearly has ultimately been more successful. The Theresa May model has not worked.

The Government announced in our English devolution White Paper that we will transfer policing functions to elected mayors in England by default wherever geographies  allow. Five mayors now hold policing functions, in Greater Manchester, Greater London and across Yorkshire. In those areas, we have seen the benefits of the mayoral model, including greater collaboration, visible leadership and local innovation. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to create as many strategic authority mayors with policing functions as possible in this Parliament. However, due to the nature of how public services are organised across different areas, the process of establishing mayors across England is a complex one.

I can therefore announce today that we will abolish police and crime commissioners at the end of their current term in 2028 and transfer functions to mayors wherever possible. In areas where plans do not yet allow for a transfer of policing to a mayor this Parliament, we will establish new policing and crime boards to bring council leaders together to oversee the police force in their area until such time as mayors are in place in England. Those boards will replicate the benefits of a mayoralty before the formal transfer can be realised, with in-built, local collaboration, public accountability and a greater ability to join up budgets and local services. They will comprise local authority upper-tier leaders, co-opted members with appropriate skills and experience, and—if they are in the force area—mayors.

Preventing crime is everyone’s business, and giving local leaders these responsibilities will help create thriving town centres, help businesses to succeed and help people to walk without fear in their communities. We are absolutely clear that these boards will not be a return to the bureaucratic and invisible committee-based oversight of policing that existed before the establishment of PCCs. We will ensure that council leaders are empowered to exercise police governance functions. Boards will be supported by a policing and crime lead, akin to a deputy mayor for policing and crime, to carry out day-to-day activities on their behalf. This will mean that every area will have a visible, nominated lead who will be dedicated to the oversight of policing in their area.

Over the coming months, we will work with local government and policing to design new structures that will provide effective oversight of policing. As part of these reforms, we will also work with those in local government and policing to drive down the support costs of policing governance. We will no longer run separate policing elections, and we will also abolish police and crime panels, the current structure that performs scrutiny functions for PCCs. We estimate that at least £100 million will be saved this Parliament by moving to these new arrangements. Once delivered, these changes are expected to achieve savings to the Home Office of around £20 million a year, enough to fund around 320 extra police constables. Further detail will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper, and we will bring forward the necessary legislation as part of our broader police reform proposals as soon as parliamentary time allows.

There are no plans to create mayors in Wales. We wish to harmonise arrangements across England and Wales as far as possible, and we will therefore work with the Welsh Government to ensure new arrangements to replace PCCs provide strong and effective police governance for Wales, recognising the unique nature of Welsh  arrangements. I also clarify that these reforms will not affect governance arrangements for the City of London police, which is governed by the City corporation.

Before I conclude, I stress that the decision we are announcing today is based on the shortcomings of the PCC model, not the PCCs themselves. PCCs have done and continue to do important work, and I will engage constructively with all of them until the end of their terms. I specifically thank the chairs of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners past and present for their endeavours: Nick Alston, the late Sir Tony Lloyd, Mark Burns-Williamson, Katy Bourne, Paddy Tipping, Marc Jones, Donna Jones, and the current chair Emily Spurrell. We recognise that this is a significant change, especially for the policing and local government sectors, but it is necessary. As a Government, we have a responsibility to do what is right for our communities. If there are steps we can take to improve outcomes for law-abiding citizens, we must act, because in the end, whatever police reform measures we pursue, our primary motivation is, and will always be, to keep the public safe. I commend this statement to the House. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Home Secretary. \p Chris Philp: I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Minister mentioned at the beginning the Government’s plans to bring forward a police reform White Paper. That was announced, from memory, about a year ago, but there has not been a single sniff of that White Paper. Can she tell us when we can expect it and why the Government are so bereft of ideas that they have taken a year or more to publish it?

Today’s statement about police and crime commissioners represents tinkering around the edges from a Government who are failing on crime and policing. They are simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. This Government are failing. Police numbers are falling. They fell by 1,300 during Labour’s first year in office on a like-for-like, March-to-March comparison. Police numbers are not only continuing to fall, but will drop even more this year. Crime under this Government is surging: shoplifting is up by 13% in this Government’s first year to record levels, leaving shopkeepers in difficulty, and we have seen theft from the person going up by 5% and sexual offences going up by 9%.

If it were not enough to see all those crime types surging under this Labour Government, senior police officers are warning that they face a funding crisis. Indeed, the chief constables of our four largest forces—Merseyside, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and the Metropolitan police—all said publicly just a few months ago that they face a funding crisis under this Labour Government.

It is clear that this Government are failing on police and crime, with falling police numbers, increasing crime and a funding crisis, yet the Policing Minister comes to us today with some minor tinkering around the edges. The Government say that they want to transfer PCC powers to mayors where they exist and where the territories are coterminous. Broadly speaking, that is the approach the previous Government took. In fact, I recall transferring one of the Yorkshire forces, I think, into the mayoral model a year or so ago. She asserts that the mayoral  model is superior to regular police and crime commissioners, and I wonder what evidence she can produce to support that, because the biggest police and crime commissioner in the country is the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who is also the worst PCC in the country. Knife crime is up 86% under Sadiq Khan, and the Met has the lowest clear-up rate of any force in the country at a lamentable 4.7%. He has closed down half the front counters in London, and police numbers are plummeting. How can the Minister make such an assertion?

For areas outside mayoralties, the Minister proposes essentially to abolish PCCs and replace them with some kind of committee comprised of local councillors. Will those have the same powers as police and crime commissioners? It is implied that they will, and if so, it will not save any money, other than from the election and the police and crime panel, which are very small costs. As far as I can see, this proposal will not save any money, but will remove a directly elected public official—the police and crime commissioner—who is accountable to the public and would certainly be more visible than some faceless committee of local bureaucrats. That is a retrograde step.

In the Government’s announcement today, they are tinkering around the edges. They are rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic while crimes such as shoplifting rocket, police numbers fall and the police face a funding crisis made in the Home Office. \p Sarah Jones: I am not sure whether or not the shadow Home Secretary is in favour of this announcement—it is not entirely clear. Perhaps he can come back when he has made up his mind.

The right hon. Gentleman asked several questions that I am happy to reply to. He asked when the White Paper on police reform will come out. It will be this year, I can assure him. We have been working with local police chiefs, police and crime commissioners and the staff associations on what the reform will look like, and we are making the final changes to our reform agenda. As a former Home Office Minister, he will know that we need to make many improvements in respect of performance, accountability, technology, and the structure wherein we have 86 decision makers across the country who, basically, ensure that there are huge inefficiencies in the system while performance and productivity do not rise as fast as they should. Again, I assure him that there will be a significant White Paper that we bring out before the end of the year.

We made the announcement about police and crime commissioners today so that we can continue to work in good faith with the commissioners as we finalise our reform programme. It was right to tell them as soon as we could. I spoke to them at some length this morning, and will speak to them again, not least at their conference next week.

The shadow Home Secretary talks about crime rates. I do not have to remind the House of his and the former Government’s record in office. They cut 20,000 police and recruited 20,000 police, so we now have a police workforce that is very new, large numbers of whom have been in post for only a couple of years. Despite the recruitment done at the end of the Conservatives’ period in government, prosecution rates did not improve. The system is so unproductive, so inefficient and so badly managed that we need to make huge reforms. We have  been making progress since we came to power—for example, just a couple of weeks ago, we announced an 18% fall in knife murders, 60,000 knives have been taken off the street, and knife crime has fallen by 5%. We are surging neighbourhood policing capacity, which was decimated under the previous Government, and we will have 3,000 extra police in our neighbourhoods by next April.

The shadow Home Secretary asked about the evidence of mayoral success. I encourage him to talk to the mayors and deputy mayors responsible for police and crime. The ability of a mayoral system, with all the public services beneath it working together more collaboratively and more effectively, is clear to see, so I suggest he has a look for himself.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether powers will be transferred to the new models. They were. The new model will not be a faceless committee of local bureaucrats. Its members will be the leaders of the councils and a senior police and crime lead, who will drive the day-to-day work. Accountability will remain, as will the statutory responsibilities. This is an opportunity for us to work across local government and with other partners to make sure that we drive the best possible system.

A saving of £100 million is, I think, quite substantial, not “tinkering around the edges” as the shadow Home Secretary suggests. If he waits a few more weeks, he will see the reform agenda that the Home Secretary is designing in its totality. It will put policing on a much better footing than he left it. \p Lewis Atkinson: What the people of Sunderland want is visible and responsive policing. There is no doubt about the decline in recent years. Northumbria lost 1,100 officers under the previous Government. How will the Minister ensure that the savings resulting from these changes are reinvested in the frontline, to improve neighbourhood policing in places like Sunderland? \p Sarah Jones: That is of course the aim of this Government: we want to put policing in our communities, where people expect it to be, and make sure that the police are not, as they currently are, spending hours and hours of their day on bureaucratic, very outdated, very unproductive tasks. Indeed, in many cases police officers are actually doing the job of police staff, which is ludicrous. We need to work with our police chiefs to change that, ensuring that our police officers are doing the roles that we need officers to be doing, while the very important crime fighters of our police staff are doing what they need to be doing. That is not currently the case, but we are working hard to make sure that it will be. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Ben Maguire: I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the news that police and crime commissioners are being scrapped. We have been calling for it for years, and I personally called for this in one of my first contributions in this House, after the PCC election turnout in Cornwall was abysmally low, at just 18%. The model was a failed Tory experiment that has cost taxpayers dearly.

The Minister is right to point out the countless flaws in the overly politicised PCC model, which has diverted much-needed funding away from frontline and community policing. PCCs cost the public millions in council tax every year, yet the impact on their local communities has been negligible. However, transferring the role to mayors is not the answer; it would give even more power to single individuals with dubious democratic mandates and little scrutiny or accountability. The Government must learn the lessons of this expensive and failed experiment.

Instead, the Government should see through their plans for these “temporary” local police and crime boards, but give them the powers on a permanent basis. They should ensure that the money saved from PCCs goes where it is needed most: getting more officers out on our streets and repairing the damage done by years of Conservative mismanagement and underfunding. That is particularly urgent in the light of the slow progress the Home Office has made on its promise to deliver 13,000 new neighbourhood officers; only 200 were added last year, while the number of officers in frontline roles went down.

Will the Minister commit to investing the money saved from these unnecessary PCCs straight into frontline policing and towards proper, effective community policing? Could she outline the safeguards that will be put in place to hold mayors to account with their new-found policing responsibilities? Finally, could she elaborate on her estimated £100 million in savings from scrapping PCCs—has that figure been independently verified, and can she confirm that the funds will be not just transferred to mayors’ budgets but spent on frontline policing? \p Sarah Jones: May I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his robust attack on a policy that his own party introduced as part of the coalition Government in 2010?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman that the impact of our police and crime commissioners has been negligible. I do not think that is true. In many cases, they have done a good job in quite difficult circumstances. The innovation we have seen from our PCCs and the partnerships that they have sought to build have been good. It is not the individuals and teams that we are criticising today; it is the structure.

The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. The PCC election savings sadly will not be coming to the Home Office; they will obviously, and rightly, go to the Treasury. The savings that we are making, through police and crime commissioner functions and the efficiencies we want to drive, are significant—at least £20 million—and we want to reinvest that back into policing, as I think everybody would want us to do.

The hon. Gentleman talked about making sure that the right safeguards and the right model are in place. Police and crime commissioners will continue for the next two years in the areas where we do not already have mayoral processes in place, so we have a good amount of time to work with colleagues on how the new structures will work. That said, there is already a process under way of moving police and crime commissioner functions into the mayoral structures; that is already happening.

At the moment, there are 37 police and crime commissioners. Six force areas will move to the mayoral model in 2027, and there will be more in 2028, depending on how the Bill progresses. The idea is that we see this progress, apart from, as I said, in Wales, which has a different system and does not have the mayoral model. \p Stella Creasy: I welcome the work that the Minister is doing on reforming how the police can engage with our local communities, because all of us want to see a closer relationship in that regard. May I press her on what lessons she is learning for my part of the world? In London, the challenge is at a borough-wide level. My own borough commander now requires me to submit freedom of information requests to find out about policing in my local community, and will only meet me twice a year. Panels of people are selected to meet the police, and often their presentations are death by PowerPoint to my local community. The Minister makes a very powerful case about police reform. What lessons can we learn from this process—not just in restructuring to work with mayors, but to work at a very localised level so that we can restore people’s confidence in policing? \p Sarah Jones: London is different in many ways due to its size and scale, and policing is therefore structured differently. I expect all local leaders to meet their Members of Parliament regularly, because that is how we can hold them to account and work together. Members of Parliament attend surgeries, have public meetings and talk to our communities, so we understand a lot of the issues that police chiefs face, and it is helpful for them to have those conversations and to learn from one another. I encourage all our police chiefs to make sure that they have good relationships with their local Members of Parliament, because those relationships make up a very important part of our structures. \p Edward Leigh: The Minister mentions our excellent police and crime commissioner in Lincolnshire, Marc Jones, and perhaps she might pay tribute to him again. The poor man is tearing his hair out. His force is nearing bankruptcy, and our chief constable says that

“Lincolnshire is the lowest funded force in the country”,

with the lowest number of officers and staff per head of population. There is no point in having another reorganisation and just replacing Marc Jones with Andrea Jenkyns unless we get proper fair funding, so will the Minister commit herself now to funding Lincolnshire police properly? \p Sarah Jones: I am very happy to pay tribute to Marc Jones. I have met him to talk about these issues, and there are particular challenges in Lincolnshire that we are looking at very closely. The funding settlement will be announced in the usual way before the end of the year, and we are talking very closely. I am very aware of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises. \p Jonathan Hinder: I welcome this decision and think that the abolition of PCCs is sensible. The role was ill defined and poorly understood by the public, as the Minister has mentioned, and it failed to add sufficient tangible value to justify its existence. However, I echo the Minister’s comments  about the individuals who have served, particularly Clive Grunshaw, who is the current police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, and indeed the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), who is not in his place but who served as the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Lancashire.

As the Minister mentioned, the introduction of PCCs had an effect on the recruitment of chief constables. Their one-on-one relationships were too fraught, and it meant that a small falling-out could lead to chief constables being fired. Can she talk about how we can get more high-quality candidates to apply to become chief constables, and about how their relationship with the deputy mayors might operate? \p Sarah Jones: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to our local police and crime commissioners, including Clive Grunshaw, for their work. He is absolutely right to say that there have been challenges. There has been a reduction in the number of years for which police chiefs serve, from about five to about two and a half—so something is happening there. There are also fewer people applying for such jobs as they become available. We want really healthy competition for these roles, which are very significant and important to us. Where there is a large force and only one applicant for the role, something is not working as it should.

My hon. Friend is right to ask questions on the wider question of leadership; we could have a whole debate about that. The former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, is conducting a review for us on how we improve leadership from top to bottom across the entire policing system. Our reform agenda is looking at performance across the board within policing, and at the welfare, training and support that have to go alongside it. We ask a lot of our police, and we do not always give them the support that they need. Those two things, hand in hand, will form a major part of our reform programme. \p Roger Gale: May I first pay tribute to Matthew Scott, Kent’s police and crime commissioner, who, over many years and through working closely with chief constables, has seen a successive increase year on year in the number of police officers in Kent that he has managed to fund. While I am on my feet, and as one of the few Members of this House who have actually held a warrant, may I also pay tribute to Kent constabulary, which continues to do a superb job under the existing system?

The only example that we have of a mayoral system is in London, and it is a disaster. It has failed. I am sorry, but for the Minister to say that the model of the police and crime commissioner is broken, while seeking to praise the police and crime commissioners, is little short of disingenuous. At the moment, Kent has a basket-case county council, but it is likely to have three unitary authorities and no mayor. Who is going to replace our excellent police and crime commissioner, and how will they do the job? \p Sarah Jones: To correct the right hon. Gentleman, there are five deputy mayors within the mayoral system that we have already—not just in London, but in Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and York and North Yorkshire. That model is working really well. I suggest that he talk to someone like Tracy Brabin, who  is bringing together all the different agencies under her model, and the system works very well. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has done an excellent job in working with police forces across the capital to keep us safe. I also pay tribute to Kent’s police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott.

The right hon. Gentleman asks what the arrangements will be where there is not a mayor. The higher-tier authority leaders will provide the board, and there will be a paid person who is the police and crime lead. In some cases, it may be that they are the police and crime commissioner if local authorities make that decision, but it will be for local authorities and leaders on the board to make the decision. That is how the funding model will work where there are not mayors. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I inform Members that I plan to run this statement until no later than 1 o’clock, so we need to have short questions and short answers. \p Rachel Hopkins: I welcome the Minister’s announcement that she will abolish police and crime commissioners, which is the right move. That said, may I place on the record my thanks to John Tizard, our Bedfordshire PCC? He has always worked constructively with me, and I know he will continue to work constructively until 2028. May I press the Minister on the steps being taken to ensure a smooth transition from PCCs to mayor-led or council-led oversight, particularly in areas such as Luton South and South Bedfordshire, where we do not have elected mayors? \p Sarah Jones: I join my hon. Friend in praising John Tizard for the work that he is doing and will continue to do. As I set out, and subject to legislation, the police and crime commissioner model will be abolished at the end of the existing term of office, in May 2028. The transition to the new governance arrangements will be overseen by a small programme team in the Home Office and me, and the legal framework to bring about those changes is expected to be included in a second-Session police reform Bill, subject to parliamentary time. Primary legislation will be needed to make those changes, and we will introduce that as soon as we can. We will be working very closely with existing police and crime commissioners, local authorities and the Ministry of Justice.

One function that our police and crime commissioners fulfil is commissioning victim services, which is incredibly important. When we transition those functions, we need to ensure that we do not drop any balls and that we keep on doing the important work that we need to do, so I am very happy to have more conversations with colleagues about how the model will develop over time. We will ensure not just that we save money and introduce a better system, but that we make people safer in our communities. \p Sarah Olney: In my constituency of Richmond Park, our policing force has been decimated. We used to have three police stations, and now we have none. The next nearest police station is facing the closure of its front counter, and the Royal Parks police force has been scrapped. People in my constituency  have no faith that common crimes such as shoplifting, burglaries or antisocial behaviour will be resolved or that offenders will be apprehended. With this in mind, does the Minister agree that the greatest reform needed to improve policing efficiency is sufficient funding, and what conversations has she had with the Mayor of London about bolstering the resources available to the Metropolitan police? \p Sarah Jones: Funding is enormously important, and we are providing our police with a real-terms funding uplift this year. We are going through the allocation process at the moment, and we will make announcements in the usual way before the end of the year. I do stress that money is incredibly important, and we are providing more of it, but if we look at the day-to-day activities of many of our police officers, they are not productive, and they cannot be because of the ancient systems that are in place. As an example, if officers download data from a mobile phone, which they need as part of the evidence for a crime, they will be given it in an Excel spreadsheet and they have to ctrl+F to find the things they need. It is extraordinarily unreformed as a system. There are pockets of great innovation, but it is not the same across the whole system. We have to drive efficiencies, and officers are crying out for us to do that to enable them to do the jobs we expect them to do. Yes, money is important, and the Mayor of London has put more funding—much more money—from his own budget into policing, but we need to ensure the police are doing what we want them to be doing. \p David Williams: In Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, proposals have been put forward to take our incredibly hard-working police community support officers off the beat during the evenings. I am campaigning against this, alongside my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), and hundreds have signed our petition to save our PCSOs. I therefore welcome today’s announcement to abolish the role of police and crime commissioner. Does the Minister agree with me and my constituents when they tell me that the money would be better reinvested in visible frontline policing? \p Sarah Jones: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I think the PCSO model is extraordinarily successful, not just because the model is slightly cheaper and therefore we get more bang for our buck, but because they do an incredibly important role. They do not have the same powers as police officers, but they have the ability to go in and build relationships with their community to reduce tensions, and in building those relationships, they can predict, see, understand and give everybody else the intelligence we need about the crime happening in our local communities. I think they are really powerful, and one of the awfully sad things that happened under the last Government is that that model was completely decimated. I want to see more PCSOs on our streets because, as I say, they play a fantastic role. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: The train attack that took place in my Huntingdon constituency on 1 November was mercifully prevented from being far worse by the swift actions of Cambridgeshire constabulary  in neutralising the threat and placing the suspect in custody within eight minutes of the 999 call being placed. However, the Government are lucky that that was the outcome. Cambridgeshire is the fourth worst funded police force in England and Wales, and it does not receive the south-east allowance. The current police allocation formula uses data from as far back as 2001. I know that our current PCC, Darryl Preston, and the current mayor, Paul Bristow, share my concern that our police are not adequately resourced, and we went through this last year with the Policing Minister’s predecessor. What commitment can the new Policing Minister offer me that she will completely overhaul the formula as part of the forthcoming police funding settlement, and give Cambridgeshire the fairer funding it needs? \p Sarah Jones: I join the hon. Gentleman in praising Cambridgeshire constabulary for the way it responded in incredibly difficult circumstances. The quick wit of many—including, of course, the people working on the train such as the train driver and others—saved lives, and we are all very grateful for that. The hon. Gentleman makes a point about funding, and the funding allocation will be made in the usual way before the end of the year. I appreciate the points he made, but there is more money going into policing this year and we will ensure that it is given to where it is needed. As I say, the police reform programme is designed to transform how we do policing so that we can become much more effective and productive in the future. \p Alex Mayer: I, too, thank John Tizard for his tireless work in securing extra resources for Bedfordshire police. I tend to agree that the mayoral model is the best way forward. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that we redouble our efforts to move at real pace to ensure there is a mayor in every area of England, rather than let one council block the ambitions of the rest of the area? \p Sarah Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming this announcement. The transition to the mayoral model is complex, and people will have different views, opinions and fights locally about what comes next. I believe the mayoral model to be a good one. I think most people see the benefits, and on the whole this Government are in favour of ensuring we have the mayoral model where we can. I certainly think it is the best model for policing. \p Gavin Williamson: The last Labour Government forced through the merger of Staffordshire ambulance service with West Midlands ambulance service, and Staffordshire ended up with a poorer service. There will be and is real concern in Staffordshire that these reforms could lead to a merger and the takeover of the Staffordshire police force by the West Midlands police force. Can the Minister assure the House that that will not happen? \p Sarah Jones: The announcement today is on police and crime commissioners, which will not change those boundaries. \p Andy McDonald: I thank the Minister for her statement. I whole- heartedly agree that the public have not bought into this model, but that does not mean there has not been some  excellent work done by PCCs and their staff with great commitment and professionalism. Will she join me in thanking Matt Storey, the Cleveland police and crime commissioner, for the sterling work he has done in engaging with young people. She heard from some of those young people just two weeks ago, and the voice of youngsters is being heard in Cleveland. Could she also say something about the services commissioned by PCCs, especially in the areas of sexual assault, domestic violence and drug rehabilitation? People today will be in shock about this decision, and they will want some reassurance that their good practice will not be lost in the transition, \p Sarah Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful question, and I join him in paying tribute to Matt Storey. I met him, and a group of young people he brought to see me, who were also incredibly thoughtful, and he is doing some excellent work. He points to the challenges of transitioning all these services. We are already learning lessons because, where the mayoral model is coming in, we are already transitioning from the police and crime commissioner model to the deputy mayor model, and we are learning as we go. There are statutory responsibilities for commissioning, such as victim services, and he mentioned sexual abuse and serious and domestic violence services as well. We will ensure that those statutory functions are maintained, and we are already talking to local authorities, our PCCs and other Departments to ensure we get that exactly right. I welcome any thoughts from hon. Members on that. \p Rachel Gilmour: I welcome the Government’s decision, which I think is long overdue. I thank Clare Moody, the PCC for Somerset, who has worked very hard with me over the last 18 months and has visited my constituency three times. She is an inspiration. May I seek some reassurance on behalf of my constituents that extra resources will be put into tackling rural crime? As a result of the austerity under the last Conservative Government, people in my constituency have had bullocks, sheep and, in one incident, an entire flock of 1,500 chickens rustled from their farms. \p Sarah Jones: I am very sorry to hear about the incidents of crime that the hon. Lady mentioned, and I am very happy to talk more to her about that. Rural crime is incredibly important, and we are working hard on the rural crime strategy. I join her in praising Clare Moody for the work she has done, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for recognising that the work of our police and crime commissioners has in many ways been excellent. \p Sonia Kumar: I welcome the Labour Government’s progress on policing, including Dudley town centre’s new police station, which will open this year, and the new police officers being redeployed to Dudley borough in April. Given the urgent need for police reform, will the Minister go one step further and commit to reviewing the west midlands’ outdated funding formula, which does not align with local crime and deprivation levels? \p Sarah Jones: My hon. Friend is right to raise the funding formula. As I said, the allocations will be set in the usual way this year. The White Paper on police reform will introduce some significant changes to how  we do policing, making it much more efficient, productive and targeted at the crimes we want our police to be focused on. We will have more on that in due course. \p Simon Hoare: May I put it on the record, on behalf of my constituents, that both Martyn Underhill, the initial Dorset police and crime commissioner, and the current PCC, David Sidwick, have done sterling work with their teams to protect and look after my constituents over the years that they have served? Following up on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I urge the Minister to use the savings that she believes she has made in making this announcement today to support rural police funding where there is a differential between rural and urban. The early part of her statement noted that the police and crime commissioner model was created to increase accountability. She talks about oversight with the new arrangement in non-mayoral authorities. Will she say a little more about to whom the chief constable would actually be accountable in terms of hiring, firing and delivering on the priorities of local communities? \p Sarah Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and join him in praising Martyn Underhill and David Sidwick for their work. The police and crime commissioners have a very important function to hire and sometimes remove their chief constables. That will be passed on to the policing and crime board and the police and crime lead who will navigate day-to-day working. They will set the proposed budget, agree the policing precept and be responsible for hiring the chief. \p Jonathan Brash: I welcome today’s announcement, particularly the savings that have been identified. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can use the savings in the Cleveland area to reverse the disgraceful decision in 2019 to close Hartlepool’s custody suite? So far, there is an unwillingness to look at reopening the suite. Will she meet me to look at options for how we can make it happen? \p Sarah Jones: I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. Of course, local decisions will be made locally and there are limits to what I can do in that way, which is absolutely right. The ability of the police to make their own local decisions is sacrosanct, and we need to ensure we maintain that, but I am very interested to hear how we can ensure he has the right services for his constituents. \p Greg Smith: In Thames Valley, we are fortunate enough to have a model that is working under the leadership of Matthew Barber, our police and crime commissioner. Police numbers have gone up, and he has led the creation of the country’s best rural crime taskforce and brought in other great initiatives on things such as shoplifting. Instead of throwing the whole system up in the air and scattering it back out across the country with different models for different areas, why not take the police and crime commissioner models that do work and make them the norm for everywhere, and not just in areas that are failing? \p Sarah Jones: I join in the praise for the hon. Gentleman’s police and crime commissioner, particularly on the rural crime taskforce. I have been very clear on a  number of occasions that I am not criticising the work those individuals have done, but we believe the model has not worked. \p Amanda Hack: I thank the Minister for her statement. My constituents want a focus on neighbourhood policing, improving standards and a major police station in the local area. However, after an excellent PCC in Lord Willy Bach, and Sir Clive Loader before that, our current PCC has created an office mired with controversy. Will the Minister confirm that in the council-led model, the focus will get back to policing and public service, as well as improving accountability and partnership? \p Sarah Jones: I can absolutely confirm that the focus will be on providing the best possible service to our communities. That means neighbourhood policing and giving the police the powers they need to fight crime, while also holding them to account for everything they do, because their role is incredibly important. \p Ann Davies: May I thank Dafydd Llywelyn for his excellent for his excellent work, especially on rural crime and domestic abuse, and take the opportunity to welcome Ysgol Gynradd Nantgaredig to the Gallery today? Today’s statement makes clear the absurd complexity of an England and Wales justice system. The UK Government will look to the Welsh Government to help replace the PCC system in Wales, but they have refused the same Government powers over policing. Does the Secretary of State now concede that the Welsh Government is the best place to control policing in Wales, and that devolving the entire justice system to Wales makes logical sense? \p Sarah Jones: I thank the hon. Lady for the promotion— I am just a Minister, not the Secretary of State. We are very conscious that the system in Wales is different from the system in England, which is why we will take some time talking to stakeholders there, not least because Wales is not having a mayoral model. To be clear, this announcement is not about the devolution of policing, but structural changes to a model that simply was not working. \p Jeevun Sandher: I welcome today’s reforms. Across Loughborough, motorbikes have been stolen for years and years; it is a huge scourge. I am really glad that a recent police operation helped to seize some of those bikes, and I really glad that we are getting more police and more powers, but there is clearly a lot more to do. Will the Minister set out how today’s strengthened governance will make my constituents safer and stop their motorbikes being stolen? \p Sarah Jones: My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point that a lot of his constituents care very deeply about, and he is right to bring it to this place. The savings we will make from the programme will fund up to 320 police constables, or 430 PCSOs, showing the value for money that they bring. We will ensure that the savings go into policing. The particular crime he talks about is pernicious. and we are talking with police chiefs to ensure we can tackle it. I am very happy to have more conversations with him. \p Andrew Murrison: Will the Minister pay tribute to Philip Wilkinson, Wiltshire’s PCC, who has realigned policing in my county with the priorities of my constituents? Will she account for the difference between the £100 million that she says in her statement this measure will save, and the £20 million she cited in response to an earlier question? Will she do all she can to ensure that the new formation is less bureaucratic than that which preceded it? At the moment, it rather looks like it will be much the same but without the PCC. \p Sarah Jones: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and I join him in paying tribute to Philip Wilkinson for his work. On the two figures I mentioned, the £100 million and the £20 million, the lion’s share of the £100 million is in the cost of the elections that we hold and the £20 million is what we will make in initial savings from this programme, where we want to drive efficiencies. We believe that the elected model has not worked, which is why are getting rid of it, but we are very mindful that we will have to ensure that important statutory functions are maintained. \p Jessica Toale: I associate myself with the Minister’s comments on recognising the commitment of PCCs across the country. Despite being from different parties, the Dorset PCC David Sidwick and I have always worked constructively together, and he has been a doughty advocate for the funding we need to police the county effectively. On that note about funding, can I ask the Minister to look again at the police funding formula? Not only does it fail on rurality, as the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) says, but it also fails on the summer seasonal pressures facing my constituency, where upwards of 10 million people visit every summer. \p Sarah Jones: I thank my hon. Friend and join her in paying tribute to the Dorset PCC. There are PCCs who have worked really well across the party political divide, and we should pay tribute to them for their work and for how professional they have been. She raises a point about the police funding formula, which I know many Members are concerned about. As I said, the funding formula allocations will be announced before the end of the year, and we will also be announcing a major programme of reform. \p Calum Miller: I thank the Minister for her statement. In 2021, Thames Valley police closed the front desks at Bicester and Kidlington in my constituency, removing a key means for local residents to report to local officers antisocial behaviour, vandalism, mobile phone theft and other crimes that blight and damage their lives. Does the Minister agree that the money saved from today’s announcement should be put towards reopening the front desks at Bicester, Kidlington and elsewhere? \p Sarah Jones: It is for local police areas to decide how they use their funding. Our priority, to be frank, is to get our police officers out on to our streets to police our neighbourhoods and communities, which is why improving neighbourhood policing is a top priority for this Government. Of course, police stations provide an important function, and there needs to be provision for people who cannot get to the police by any other means, but our priority is to get our police on to our streets. \p Ben Goldsborough: Norfolk, which is already progressing through local government reorganisation and devolution, has several existing partnerships working to protect and support victims of crime. Will the Minister meet me and Sarah Taylor, Norfolk’s police and crime commissioner, to discuss how we can ensure that these arrangements continue to serve the people of Norfolk? There are worrying signs that some partners are withdrawing services because of these reorganisations. \p Sarah Jones: I am always happy to meet and talk about these issues. The transition will happen in 2027, and we need to ensure that we learn from previous transitions and that we do not drop any balls with regard to the services we are providing to local people. \p Lincoln Jopp: I thank the Minister for her statement, although it will have caused some consternation in my constituency. Spelthorne is in Surrey, which is being carved up into two unitary authorities, and recent so-called clarifications by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have stated that there are no promises as to whether they will get a mayor. I ask the Minister to use her good offices to go to that Department and say, “I’ve taken away their PCC—it’s up to you now to make a decision as to whether or not they are going to get a mayor.” \p Sarah Jones: I obviously talk to my colleagues in MHCLG often, but I will leave to them the decisions they make in the areas they are responsible for. I am, however, happy to pass on the hon. Gentleman’s comments. \p David Taylor: I welcome today’s announcement. I want to ask about the transfer to council and mayoral oversight in the context of a challenge I have locally. I have an amazing local police force in Hemel police. Officers often encounter instances of individuals and families who are responsible for antisocial behaviour affecting their neighbours where the landlord of the house or site is the district or county council, but those offices—the county council in particular —are not upholding their responsibilities as a landlord to deal with antisocial behaviour, and the police are therefore struggling to deal with some of these issues despite their best efforts. I wonder whether the Minister would outline how the changes today might tackle that specific problem. \p Sarah Jones: My hon. Friend is right. Preventing crime is everybody’s problem, and we need to ensure that everybody feels the responsibility of that and works effectively together to tackle crime. Our police cannot arrest their way out of a lot of the challenges that we face. In the example my hon. Friend gave, we rely on the local authorities, which are the landlords of those properties, to ensure that people are behaving as they should. We are endeavouring to ensure that the police, and the local authorities, have the right powers to take action in a speedy fashion. We genuinely believe that if organisations are brought together in the models we are suggesting today, that will improve joint working. \p Siân Berry: The Government are creating new boards from council leaders, but abolishing, not restocking, the police and crime scrutiny panels.  Does the Minister recognise that this risks creating a chasm of scrutiny right when police reform is most urgent on issues like racism, misogyny, police conduct and the ill-governed use of AI? Does she not see a role in better scrutiny for elected local opposition leaders? \p Sarah Jones: I think that the accountability that comes with the leaders of our councils, who are of course elected, will be powerful, but I am happy to work with the hon. Lady to ensure that she gets what she wants to see locally. I think that the provision of local authority leaders coming together will be powerful. On her wider points about misogyny, behaviours in policing and AI, we are working on reform through our White Paper to tackle some of those significant challenges. On AI, we will shortly be bringing forward consultation on providing a framework within which it is used. \p Cat Eccles: I thank the Minister for her statement. I pay tribute to the West Midlands police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, who has served diligently and ably since 2021. He has always been community focused; he worked with me to secure a police hub in Stourbridge and helped me to negotiate with police estates to retain the old Brierley Hill police station for community use. I am proud to call him not just a colleague, but a friend. He has also reformed victim services, championed youth commissioners and overseen a reduction in all types of crime across the region. Will the Minister join me in thanking Simon for all his work and assure me that good work already established will continue? \p Sarah Jones: I absolutely join my hon. Friend in praising Simon Foster and the work he has done. She is absolutely right to say that we need to ensure that where there is good work, we carry on.

I wish to correct what I said in my previous answer: when I talked about AI, I was talking specifically about facial recognition. \p Siân Berry: As was I. \p Sarah Jones: As was the hon. Lady. I just wanted to be clear about that. \p Nick Timothy: In Suffolk, the police and crime commissioner’s powers will be transferred to a combined mayoralty for Suffolk and Norfolk; the mayor will be responsible for the two police forces. This is only one step away from a full-blown merger of the two forces, which local people are very concerned about. Will the Minister take this opportunity to categorically state that the Government will never allow a police merger between Suffolk and Norfolk? \p Sarah Jones: Just to be clear, the arrangements we are announcing today are not changing the 43 models at all. We will bring forward reform, which hopefully the hon. Gentleman will support, and he will have the time to consider it when it comes forward. \p Amanda Martin: Will the Minister join me in thanking our hard-working named neighbourhood police officers across Portsmouth North, PC Jamie Christian, PC Chris Middleton, PC Nicholas Joyce, PC Ben Treend, PC Hannah Kelleher, PC Matt  Lamper and PC Susan Smith, for their continued dedication to keeping our community safe? As we look at reforms to police governance, will the Minister ensure that any savings made by abolishing the PCC role are reinvested directly in the frontline? More broadly still, will she meet me to discuss how we can fund our policing more fairly, given Hampshire’s unfair allocation? \p Sarah Jones: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and talk about the services that she needs in her local community. We will of course ensure that the money we save is directed to frontline policing, because that is where it needs to be. I join her in praising her local police force for everything it does. \p Tessa Munt: I welcome this statement. I have always been opposed to diverting taxpayers’ money to police and crime commissioners and their offices, and away from officers who can fight rural crime in our area. I have a couple of concerns. First, what will happen if a police force area like mine is split between two mayors? Secondly, could the Minister write to me to confirm the number of police officers that Avon and Somerset force might expect to employ, and to say whether this will happen by the end of the decade? Rumour has it that the previous police and crime commissioner had 28 or 29 staff, which is a lot of money. \p Sarah Jones: Police and crime commissioners make their own decisions about how many staff they have; on average, I would say that they have between 20 and 50. Many of those staff do excellent work, and I pay tribute to them. Many carry out functions that we will need to continue; they are commissioning victim services, for example. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to talk about her area; there are complexities to do with the mayoral model and how it is playing out that I am happy to discuss. \p Shaun Davies: I pay tribute to the Conservative police and crime commissioner for my area, John Campion, with whom I have worked well over the past 10 years. In fact, we are meeting the Minister next week to discuss local policing. Can she confirm that the savings that this initiative will provide will go to community policing? That will allow West Mercia police to reverse the 8 pm PCSO cap that it recently imposed; PCSOs have been barred from the streets of Telford and West Mercia after 8 pm. \p Sarah Jones: As my hon. Friend says, we are meeting next week, so we can discuss this matter then. I am very happy to join in his praise for his Conservative police and crime commissioner. As I said, we praise PCCs that have worked cross party, and we want that cross-party work replicated in the replacement models. I am happy to have another conversation with my hon. Friend about his local force and the services that his constituents need. \p Lewis Cocking: As a former deputy police and crime commissioner, I know the hard work that police and crime commissioners do, and I know that the Hertfordshire police and crime commissioner, Jonathan Ash-Edwards, does all he can  to keep Hertfordshire residents safe. The Government’s English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill bans councils from making decisions by committee and forces them to change to a strong leader model. Can the Minister explain why the Government think it is appropriate to have police governance by committee, but not local authority governance by committee? \p Sarah Jones: That is a question for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I would expect it to answer it with reference to the structures that exist in local authorities. We believe that the mayoral model is the best model when it comes to policing. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he did when he was {deputy} police and crime commissioner. While we believe that the mayoral model is best, where we cannot have that model at this point, we will have a committee, led by leaders of the council, which I think is right. \p Allison Gardner: In Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, we have a police, fire and crime commissioner. While I welcome the Minister’s statement, I worry about the impact on our fire service. Could she reassure me that we will consider the fire service as well, and how oversight of it will be transitioned in areas that now have a mayor, like my area? \p Sarah Jones: In 2017, new powers were introduced to enable police and crime commissioners to have a fire-related role. We have the Minister responsible for fire, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), on the Front Bench right now. The transition to the new structures will relate to fire as well as policing; the role will move to the new police boards. \p Sarah Pochin: While we Reform Members welcome the abolition of police and crime commissioners, will the Minister explain how these reforms will deliver clearer accountability for policing, particularly in areas like my constituency, where a strategic policing board is likely to be necessary, given that the PCC in Cheshire has proved to be one of the starkest examples of failure? He has achieved no meaningful improvement when it comes to crime or policing, and devotes his time to political campaigning. \p Sarah Jones: I repeat that I am not here today to criticise the PCCs; I think that they have done a really good job. It is the role and the elected function that is not working. The hon. Member is right to ask about accountability. It is incredibly important we have the right accountability for our police, who have very significant powers and do an incredibly important job keeping people safe. Our expectation is that in the mayoral model, accountability will lie with the mayor; in the board model, the leaders of the council will provide the accountability. We are also looking at how accountability is delivered at national level—this will be in a White Paper that will come out—so that we know exactly what our police are doing and how they are doing it, and so that the inspection regime is beefed up. \p Alex Barros-Curtis: May I place on record my thanks to South Wales police and crime commissioner Emma Wools and her team, and Alun Michael before her, for the great work they have done  for my community in Cardiff West? I note what the Minister said about the unique arrangements in Wales, so can I ask that when she consults the Welsh Government, as she is right to do, she also consults Welsh Labour MPs, to ensure that we get the best possible arrangement for Wales? Will she meet me and other Cardiff MPs to talk about a fairer capital city funding deal, and whether some of the money that will be saved through this reform could be ploughed into Cardiff? \p Sarah Jones: I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and other MPs. I appreciate that he supports the approach that we are taking in Wales. I pay tribute to his police and crime commissioner—and of course to Alun Michael, with whom I am in regular correspondence, as I suspect many of us across the House are—for all their work. Alun Michael was a real shining light for the PCC model, and we should thank him for that. \p Rebecca Paul: I thank the Minister for her statement, and for recognising the great work that has been undertaken by many PCCs across the country. I want to take this opportunity to recognise Lisa Townsend, our excellent police and crime commissioner in Surrey, and her deputy Ellie Vesey-Thompson. We need to be aware that there are employees who support all PCCs’ activities who now know that their roles are going in the next few years. It is good to put on record that we thank them for everything they have done. Can the Minister confirm what the announcement means for Surrey, given that we are moving to a unitary model, but that the Government are yet to confirm solidly that we are getting a mayor? \p Sarah Jones: I join the hon. Member in praising her local team. She is right to talk about staff. There are about 1,000 staff who support police and crime commissioners. We will work with them to transition—where they need to be transitioned, and where they carry out statutory functions that we need to continue—to local authorities. It is not by any means the case that they are all losing their jobs. It is very important to stress that the function continues as is for the next two years. We will continue to work with staff, and I will be talking to police and crime commissioners about the transition a lot, I suspect.

The hon. Member highlights one of the challenges of the move to the mayoral model: there is legislation going through Parliament, and some decisions are yet to be made. I am very happy to work with her on how things will work going forward, but we are very clear about the model that we want to introduce. Where there are moving parts, we will work as best we can to make sure that we get the right outcomes. \p Tom Hayes: Having sat on a police and crime panel, let me say that I am thrilled to see the abolition of the police and crime commissioner model. This will save £20 million a year, which is the equivalent of an extra 320 special constables. In my area, the Liberal Democrat council is introducing pointless town councils, which raises local taxes. We as a Labour Government will bring down local taxes by abolishing the PCC role, which is very good news.

I want to put on record my thanks to Dave Sidwick, who has been an excellent police and crime commissioner. He is Conservative, and I am Labour, but it does not  matter. We work together in service of the public, and that has yielded very good results. I must confess to having regularly experienced difficulties accessing my chief constable in Dorset. Could the Minister please set out what she thinks are reasonable expectations when it comes to a chief constable engaging with local Members of Parliament, particularly on important issues to do with policing and community safety? \p Sarah Jones: I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy): it is incredibly important that chiefs have a good relationship with their local Member of Parliament. It is a two-way street; Members of Parliament bring a huge amount of insight, from all their conversations with constituents, about what is important to their local community and what its fears are, and about where crime is occurring. It is very important that police chiefs have that relationship with them, so that we can help each other to deliver better services. \p Steffan Aquarone: Sarah Taylor, the Minister’s Labour colleague and Norfolk’s police and crime commissioner, has been turning things around in Norfolk, where PCCs have a very chequered history. She is taking real action on road safety. Under the Conservatives, PCCs sacked all the PCSOs, tried and failed to take over the fire service, and had no rural crime unit in a rural county. One decided that the commute was too long and stood down. How can we ensure that, in future, money goes to my residents’ priorities, such as vital safety improvements on the A148? \p Sarah Jones: The hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of road safety. I am working very closely with colleagues in the Department for Transport on reforms in that space, which we will bring forward soon. I can assure him that we will put the money that we save into the frontline services that the public expect. \p Christopher Vince: I thank the Minister for her statement. It falls to me, the only Essex MP in the Chamber, to put on record my thanks to Roger Hirst, police, fire and crime commissioner for Essex. I had the pleasure of standing against Roger in two elections, and although our political views may differ, he has always been really dedicated to supporting the police and tackling crime in Essex. I thank him for his service. He would want me to ask the Minister about a fairer funding formula for Essex. Specifically, what difference will the decision make to residents in my constituency, who are concerned about an historical lack of neighbourhood policing? \p Sarah Jones: I join my hon. Friend in his praise for Roger Hirst, and indeed all other PCCs, who have done some really good work. This Government are prioritising neighbourhood policing. We are putting thousands more neighbourhood police officers into our communities. That is what the public want, and it is what we were elected to do. This money will help us do it. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: The abolition of police and crime commissioners is welcome. My constituents in Chichester are understandably frustrated by how unclear it is what benefit the role brings; they rarely see a PC due to decreased numbers in our area.  The policing function will pass to a mayor next year. Can the Minister confirm that the savings made will deliver more frontline policing in areas with low numbers of police officers, such as Chichester, so that they can tackle the growth in antisocial behaviour and rural crime? \p Sarah Jones: I appreciate that the hon. Member wants to see more police officers in her communities. It is for the Government to set the priorities, and the funding to enable local police chiefs to make the right decisions, but micromanaging where the police go is not my role. She can be reassured that through the neighbourhood policing policies that we are introducing, and through the wider reform agenda, we intend to make sure that there are more police on our streets and in our communities. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her statement and her answers. It is always good to hear how money is being spent, and how policing can be delivered more effectively. She probably has direct contact every month with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, where the problems relating to the moneys available are similar. Will she work alongside that Minister to ensure that what is being done here to ensure effective policing with the moneys available can be done there? \p Sarah Jones: As ever, I am happy to meet colleagues in Northern Ireland. We have much to learn from each other about how to make sure that we are policing the streets in the safest and best way. \p Caroline Nokes: I call Cat Eccles on a point of order in connection with the code of conduct to rectify a failure to declare. \p Cat Eccles: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the House for failing adequately to declare an interest when speaking in the House on 10 June this year during the debate on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Although I referred to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I inadvertently failed to declare that the visit had been funded by Labour Friends of Israel and that it had not yet been processed to appear on the register. That was in breach of the rules and I wish to apologise to the House for the error. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. There will be no further points of order on this issue. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 24 March 2025 (Planning and Infrastructure Bill: Programme) and 9 June 2025 (Planning and Infrastructure Bill: Programme (No.2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement.

(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1 to 3, 31 to 33, 37 to 40, 4 to 30, 34 to 36, 41 to 117.

Subsequent stages

(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(4) 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.—(Nesil Caliskan.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Lords amendments \p Caroline Nokes: We now come to King’s consent. Do we have a Privy Counsellor present? \p John Martin McDonnell: indicated assent.

King’s consent signified. \p Caroline Nokes: I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege. \p Matthew Pennycook: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1. \p Caroline Nokes: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 2, and Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2.

Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 31, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 32, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 33, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 37, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 38, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 39, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 40, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 4 to 30, 34 to 36, and 41 to 117. \p Matthew Pennycook: Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity our country needs and the higher living standards working people deserve. That is why it has always been this Government’s No. 1 mission. This landmark Bill, which will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, is integral to the success of that mission, and it will play a vital part in delivering the Government’s plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. The Government are therefore determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible, and I am pleased that the House has an opportunity today to renew its commitment to this vital legislation and express its firm opposition to attempts to undermine its core principles.

Before I turn to the amendments before us, let me put on record once again my heartfelt thanks to Baroness Taylor for her prodigious efforts in guiding the Bill through the other place, and my gratitude to peers collectively for the comprehensive and rigorous scrutiny to which they subjected it. The Government made a number of important changes to the Bill in the other place, with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended, that its full potential in respect of unlocking economic growth is realised, and to provide further reassurance that a number of its key provisions will achieve the beneficial outcomes that we expect. In the interests of time, I will update the House briefly on the two most significant areas of change.

The first concerns the package of measures we introduced last month to maximise the growth potential of the Bill. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill’s impact assessment estimates that it could benefit the UK economy by up to £7.5 billion over the next 10 years. That is an assessment, it should be noted, that was made prior to the incorporation into the Bill of several important pro-growth measures, including the removal of the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for nationally significant infrastructure project applications—a change that could result in cost savings of over £1 billion across the pipeline of projects in this Parliament. The package introduced last month further bolsters the growth impact of the Bill. It included provisions that further streamline the consenting of reservoirs, clarify Natural England’s strategic advisory role, and facilitate the deployment of up to three additional gigawatts of onshore wind and secure the billions of pounds’ worth of investment into UK services that come with that.

The second area of change concerns the package of amendments we tabled in July in respect of part 3 of the Bill, which directly addressed a range of issues that were highlighted in the advice the Government received from the Office for Environmental Protection on the new nature restoration fund. They provided for a number of additional safeguards, strengthened and made more explicit those that were already in the Bill on its introduction, and further clarified how the NRF will operate going forward. I emphasise that none of the changes made will affect the process by which house builders interact with an environmental delivery plan, namely by paying a levy to discharge specific environmental obligations through it, and nor do they undermine the strategic approach that underpins the model. \p Edward Leigh: The housing market is absolutely flat and we desperately need to build more housing. What is stopping all this new building, people moving and creating a healthy housing market? It is the appalling stamp duty that everybody acknowledges is the worst tax. The Minister is not the Chancellor, but will he approach his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the autumn statement and see whether she can steal our clothes and promise to abolish stamp duty? \p Matthew Pennycook: The Chancellor will set out her decisions on the Budget in fairly short order and the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that. I am going to be quite strict in sticking to the contents of the Bill and what is in scope, rather than ranging more widely, as he tempts me to do.

The amendments we tabled in the summer package provided greater confidence that the NRF delivers the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. I take the opportunity to thank all the hon. Members who engaged in constructive discussions with the Government about the NRF during Commons stages, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for his thoughtful participation in Committee, which helped shape my thinking about the package of amendments in question.

I should also make clear that the Government tabled further technical amendments in the other place to ensure that the NRF works effectively across borders, as well as ensuring it is able to operate in the marine environment. Those amendments also ensure that the NRF can be used to support the impact of development on Ramsar sites. In addition, the Government supported an amendment tabled by Lord Banner in the other place to ensure that the NRF can accommodate the development processes associated with large strategic housing sites that are phased.

Turning to the amendments made by peers in the other place, I want to make clear that the Government welcomed the scrutiny and challenge provided, and that we are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. However, I am afraid that most of the amendments sent back to this place seek to undermine the core principles of the Bill, and for that reason we cannot accept them. Let me make clear precisely why, in each instance where that is the case.

Lords amendment 1 would prevent the removal of existing parliamentary requirements that serve to delay material policy amendments to national policy statements. In short, it is a wrecking amendment designed to frustrate the Government’s intention to streamline the process for incorporating into NPSs changes that have already received public and parliamentary scrutiny. Let me emphasise once again that the intent of clause 2 is not to erode parliamentary scrutiny; it is simply about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the four categories of changes the clause covers. That said, I have always recognised the sincere arguments made by various hon. and right hon. Members, as well as by noble Lords, about the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny in respect of NPSs. That is precisely why I provided the Chair of the Liaison Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) with a number of assurances on Report.

For the purposes of clarity, let me repeat those assurances. When the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to an NPS, a statement will be laid before Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak to that Committee and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period. Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. In other words, Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted.

To assuage further the concerns that some hon. Members might have about a reduction in scrutiny as a result of the clause, I am happy to provide a further commitment  today: when a statement is laid in Parliament announcing a review, it will include how the proposed change or changes fall within the four categories of changes to which clause 2 applies. I cannot, however, accept Lords amendment 1 for the reasons I have set out, and I urge the House to reject it.

Turning next to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Lords amendment 2 enables faster consenting of major water infrastructure projects. Crucially, it allows third party providers, appointed by water undertakers, to apply to deliver such projects through the streamlined development consent order route. \p Ruth Cadbury: Apologies, but I want to go back to the point the Minister was making about Lords amendment 1. As Chair of the Transport Committee, I am slightly concerned that we will get less opportunity and time to scrutinise major infrastructure projects. Had these proposals been law when High Speed 2 was first being considered, instead of a hybrid Bill, it is likely that HS2 would have come under them, and the third runway at Heathrow, plus the national infrastructure network, will do so. Does he not agree that this House and its Committees should have sufficient chance, not just to wait for the Minister’s convenience— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Lady will know that that is a very long intervention. \p Matthew Pennycook: I recognise the point my hon. Friend makes, but I do not agree that the change will mean Select Committees do not have the opportunity to feed their views into Government. As I said, what we are trying to do with the clause is ensure that the scrutiny provided is proportionate to the changes being made. These are, in most cases, minor and reflective changes. They do not entail the full amendment of a national policy statement; that would have to come via the normal route. I hope my comments on what we expect of Minister’s attendance at Select Committees and in other areas provides her with reassurance. \p Ruth Cadbury: Will the Minister give way on that point? \p Matthew Pennycook: No, I will not give way again. I will make some progress on the next set of amendments, which I need to get to, as I know many Members wish to speak.

As I was saying on Lords amendment 2, the Government support the intent of the amendment. However, subsections (7) and (8) of the new clause would require consents for listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites to be obtained separately from the application for development consent for dams or reservoirs. We cannot support those subsections.

Lords amendment 3 is also problematic. It introduces additional notification and representation processes into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime when 20 or more residences are to be demolished in constructing dam or reservoir projects, despite such matters already being addressed by the Planning Act 2008. Both amendments are contrary to the intention of the NSIP regime, which introduced a streamlined “one- stop shop” approach to obtaining consents. It is the Government’s considered view that the regime already provides ample opportunity for those issues to be considered  before the relevant Secretary of State makes their decision. Numerous adequate heritage safeguards and opportunities for communities and interested parties to have their say about dam and reservoir projects are already in place.

In respect of heritage concerns in particular, the national policy statement for water resources contains explicit policy on preserving the historical environment. When deciding whether to grant consent, the Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to have regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building, conservation area or scheduled monument where applications affect these assets. In respect of the demolition of homes, again, the Planning Act already provides sufficient safeguards for the compulsory acquisition of land. For those reasons, I urge the House to support an amendment to remove subsections (7) and (8) from Lords amendment 2 and to reject Lords amendment 3 in its entirety.

Turning to Lords amendment 31, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the Government are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is not in his place, made a strong case on Report for greater accessibility requirements for electric vehicle charge points. As he knows, I made a personal commitment to him to give further consideration to the arguments he made. The objective he sought is echoed in Lords amendment 31, which seeks to amend the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to enable the mandating of accessibility requirements for public charge points through regulations.

As the House will know, the Government are already working closely with the sector to update the current accessibility standards for public charge points. However, I have been convinced that we should use the Bill to provide further certainty in respect of this matter, and we have therefore tabled an amendment in lieu that is faithful to the original amendment agreed in the other place, with some minor changes designed to ensure that the powers cover all relevant aspects of accessibility for public charge points and that requirements can be placed on all relevant parties that play a role in delivering them. The Government will of course consult before producing and laying the relevant regulations. The Department for Transport looks forward to working with both the Scottish and Welsh Governments on these matters. On that basis, I hope the House will support our amendment in lieu.

Lords amendment 32 would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of current regulation on low-hazard reservoirs and to set out proposals for deregulation of such reservoirs within six months of enactment. An assessment of the impact of current reservoir safety regulation has already been published on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ science search website. Furthermore, the Government already intend to set out proposals for the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I also commit to clarifying planning practice guidance for the permitted development right that grants planning permission for the development of on-farm reservoirs, giving clarity to farmers about when this permitted development right can be used. Given that the Government have fulfilled one aspect of the amendment already, and I have committed to fulfilling the rest today, we are clear that there is no need to legislate on the matter. I therefore urge the House to reject this amendment.

Lords amendment 33 seeks to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise concerns about the use of the negative procedure in respect of these regulations. We have already consulted on detailed proposals to help inform the regulations, and the clause itself imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to consult again on the draft regulations before they are brought into force. This consultation duty will apply not only to the first set of regulations, but for any subsequent changes to those regulations. In the light of the two rounds of consultation planned before those regulations are laid, I urge the House to reject this amendment. \p Florence Eshalomi: Just this week at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the new Secretary of State outlined that the Government will not be urging national development management policies to be non-statutory. That almost seems at odds with the Government’s direction of travel, which is towards speeding up the national scheme of delegation. Will the Minister explain why the Government are taking the approach of making the guidance non-statutory? \p Matthew Pennycook: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is conflating two entirely separate issues. We are committed to introducing a new suite of national policies for development management. We will consult on those before the end of the year. The Secretary of State provided a bit more detail at the Select Committee the other day. This particular amendment—Lords amendment 33—refers to the powers in the Bill to bring forward a national scheme of delegation, and I am making it clear that the sufficient consultation already built into the system does not require it to be taken forward via the affirmative procedure. I hope that reassures her.

Lords amendment 37 would exempt assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under part 11 of the general permitted development order. I have reflected on this amendment and agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and we think there are justifiable arguments for removing demolition of ACVs from permitted development rights. However, PDRs are established via secondary legislation, and it would not be appropriate to use this Bill to change particular development rights without consultation. As such, while we cannot support this exact amendment, I am happy to make a commitment today that we will consult on this change to the permitted development right for demolition at the first available opportunity. We hope that with this assurance, and a view to future opportunity for consultation on the matter, the House will reject Lords amendment 37.

Lords amendment 38 would require a spatial development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments. While I appreciate fully the positive intent of the amendment and reiterate the Government’s firm  commitment to restoring and improving the nation’s chalk streams, I do not believe that it is a necessary or advisable means of protecting those vital ecosystems.

While strategic planning authorities will be expected to work closely with arm’s length bodies like the Environment Agency, they themselves will not have responsibility for regulatory systems governing water abstraction or pollution in catchment areas. The SDSs that they will be required to produce will be high-level frameworks for housing growth and infrastructure investment; they will not allocate specific sites. Importantly, as locally-led spatial exercises, local nature recovery strategies, drawing on river basin management plans, will be able to map out chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them, and SDSs will already be required to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to the strategy area. SDSs will also obviously be tested by an independent examiner against those requirements.

It remains the Government’s view that the protection and enhancement of chalk streams through the planning system is best achieved through the proper application of national planning policy. As I made clear on Report in the Commons, the measures in the Bill will not weaken existing protections enjoyed by those precious habitats, which are already recognised by decision makers in the planning system as valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value that should be identified and safeguarded through local plans.

That said, we have been giving this matter careful consideration given the strength of feeling expressed by the Commons on Report, and in the context of ongoing reforms to national planning policy. I am happy to make it clear to the House that I am minded to include explicit recognition of chalk streams in the new suite of national policies for decision making, which I referred to in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi)—and, as I said, we intend to consult on those before the end of this year. On the basis of that assurance, I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 38.

Lords amendment 39 seeks to prioritise development on brownfield land, increase urban densities and minimise travel distances. The Government have a brownfield-first approach to development. Through the revisions made to the NPPF on 12 December 2024, we broadened the definition of brownfield land, set a strengthened expectation that applications on brownfield land will be approved, and made it clear that plans should promote an uplift in density in urban areas.

In September last year, the Government published a brownfield passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land. Again, we intend to take forward those proposals in the new suite of national policies for decision making that I referred to a moment ago. \p Greg Smith: The Minister is addressing the brownfield-first approach inherent to the amendment. He opened his remarks by mentioning the Government’s target of building 1.5 million homes. The Campaign to Protect Rural England, a very respected independent charity, has identified enough brownfield  land in England alone for 1.4 million homes, so why do the Government persist in rejecting their Lordships’ amendments on this matter, against the advice of the CPRE? \p Matthew Pennycook: I will come to why we cannot accept Lords amendment 39. I respectfully disagree with the CPRE on this matter—and on a number of others, as it happens. There is not enough land on brownfield registers—certainly not enough that is in the right location or viable to meet housing need across England. That is why we have a brownfield-first, not brownfield-only, approach to development.

Brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable. That is why consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at the local level, through policy, where a balance of considerations can be weighed up. A legislative requirement for increasing densities does not allow for the consideration of local issues or circumstances, and would risk opening up the possibility of legal challenges to any or every spatial development strategy, which I am sure was not their noble Lords’ intent. On that basis, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 39. \p Clive Efford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. He is talking about local pressures for housing delivery and the brownfield-first approach. As he will know, a number of sports grounds in my constituency are increasingly subject to interest from would-be developers. Can he confirm that these proposals will include protections for much-needed sports grounds so that they are not open to that sort of speculative development? \p Matthew Pennycook: I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that question—it is an apt and fair one. Such protections are already in place in the national planning policy framework. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about the matter he refers to, but nothing in the Bill specifically targets the release of sports fields for development and the protections in national policy still apply.

Finally, Lords amendment 40 seeks to restrict the environmental impacts that could be addressed through an environmental delivery plan. Before I explain why the Government cannot accept the amendment, let me remind the House of why part 3 of the Bill is so important. The current approach to discharging environmental obligations too often delays and deters development, and places unnecessary burdens on house builders and local authorities. It requires house builders to pay for localised and often costly mitigation measures, only to maintain the environmental status quo. By not taking a holistic view across larger geographies, mitigation measures often fail to secure the best outcomes for the environment. In short, as we have consistently argued, when it comes to development and the environment, the status quo too often sees sustainable house building, and nature recovery and restoration, stall.

The nature restoration fund will end that sub-optimal arrangement. By facilitating a more strategic approach to the discharge of environmental obligations, and enabling the use of funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected  sites and species, it will streamline the delivery of new homes and infrastructure, and result in the more efficient delivery of improved environmental outcomes. \p Jon Trickett: The Minister is a very thoughtful individual, and he has a wide view of what is happening in the country. Housing is imperative, but in my constituency there was a proposal for 3,000 houses on what was effectively virgin land, and we established that the habitat of 32 rare and protected species would be irrevocably damaged. Does he agree that biodiversity has to be a central plank of the Government’s intentions, and will he assure the House that, if Lords amendment 40 is disagreed to, future Governments—who might be less caring about the environment—will not be able to use the law to damage habitats such as those I am describing? \p Matthew Pennycook: I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual planning applications, but the Government have been consistently clear that meeting our ambitious development targets need not and should not come at the expense of the environment. Part 3 unlocks a win-win for nature and the economy. Although I cannot commit future Governments to anything, we are confident that the nature restoration fund and environmental delivery plans that part 3 facilitates will result in the delivery of more homes and infrastructure in a more timely manner, as well as improved environmental outcomes.

In respect of Lords amendment 40, I would simply say that there is no convincing rationale for arbitrarily limiting the application of EDPs to strategic landscape matters and thereby preventing their use in supporting the recovery of protected sites and species where appropriate. I remind hon. Members that the Bill is now explicit that the Secretary of State can only approve an EDP where the effect of the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the conservation status of each identified environmental feature. Moreover, both Natural England and the Secretary of State will have to take account of the best available scientific evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP, and EDPs will be subject to robust scrutiny.

On Third Reading in the other place, we amended the Bill to allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out how EDPs would prioritise addressing the negative effect of developments. Lords amendment 40 would undermine one of the core principles of the Bill —namely, that the alternative approach provided for by the NRF can apply to both sites and species. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the amendment. \p Toby Perkins: Will the Minister give way? \p Matthew Pennycook: I will not, I am afraid, as I am bringing my remarks to a close, but I am happy to respond to any points when winding up the debate.

I appreciate the leave you have given me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to set out the Government’s position on the large number of amendments before us. I urge the House to support the Government’s position, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p David Simmonds: The Opposition join the Minister in thanking our colleagues in the other place for their sterling work. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who has been our shadow Minister and contributed enormously to the debate in Committee.

I welcome the Minister back to the Dispatch Box for a further discussion on planning and infrastructure, and congratulate him on being the last man standing from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government team that was appointed in Labour’s golden summer of 2024. As he surveys the bombed-out wreckage of that ministerial team and knows that he is the only one not to have succumbed to friendly fire, I am sure that he shares my sense of disappointment that, after a year of debate and discussion, we have not made the progress that the British people expect from us in the delivery of planning and infrastructure.

The Opposition have three fairly simply tests to apply to the amendments and the Bill as a whole. First, does this deliver the required reform of our administrative state—the planning process, statutory undertakers, decision makers and all those who play a part—to ensure the swift delivery of infrastructure? Secondly, does this create the necessary incentives for host communities to support and embrace the opportunities that development offers? Thirdly—and most critically, we think, having undertaken many planning reforms during our time in office—does this get the market building the 1.5 million new homes that already have planning permission? The entirety of the Government’s target already has consent, with no further loss of green belt or environmental impacts. \p Toby Perkins: Many people are concerned about this issue, which the shadow Minister’s party also faced when in government. Why does he think that developments do not get built despite their planning applications getting approval? \p David Simmonds: I am going to develop my answer to that, because that is the question we face as a country. We set ourselves a target in the last Parliament of delivering 1 million homes, and we fell just short of that, but when this Government set out their commitment to net zero, I do not think they intended 23 of the 33 London boroughs to have net zero new housing starts, according to a new Bidwells report on the housing market in London. They did not anticipate a 20% reduction in completions of new homes. They did not anticipate a 55.9% drop in the number of new housing starts here in our capital city or a Labour mayor delivering 4.9% of the target set for him by this Government, despite record levels of funding. The context, as we saw today, of growth in our country falling to just 0.1%, is a significant clue to the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.

When we assess this Bill and these amendments against those tests, it is clear that whatever lofty ambitions some may have, this Bill fails in the eyes of the Office for Budget Responsibility, because it does not generate the level of growth and contribution that the Government promised. That is reflected in the hasty implementation of large-scale amendments in the Lords that were not even contemplated at the Commons stages. It fails in the eyes of homebuyers—the many people who aspire to get on the property ladder for the first time. It fails in  the eyes of our farmers, who were hoping it would make it easier to create the infrastructure that would make our farming and food sector more efficient. It fails in the eyes of the developers, who are talking about packing up and taking their investment abroad because the UK market is so poor at the moment. It fails in the eyes of the builders, who see no measures in the Bill to address the shortfalls they all face.

It fails in the eyes of the travelling public, who have watched this Government cancel projects such as the expansion of the A12, which was set to support the delivery of thousands more homes. And it fails in the eyes of lovers of nature, because for all that has been said, there is still a grave lack of clarity about how the measures in the Bill will support the ambitions we all have to balance the delivery of new homes and infra- structure with the needs of a nature-depleted country, to protect the natural environment that we all cherish. The Government signalled before they even embarked on this legislation that their intention was to reduce green-belt protections, which raises the suspicion that this is not a holistic agenda; it is about making it as easy and cheap as possible to build on the green belt, without the strategic underpinning that delivers the homes and infrastructure that our nation needs. \p Toby Perkins: The hon. Gentleman has not actually answered my question. He is talking about the policies of the last 15 months, but the problem he is alluding to of developers sitting there with planning permission and not building has been going on for 15 years or more. Can he be realistic about what his solution is to get developers to build the developments they have planning permission for? \p David Simmonds: As the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister’s questions, we would not start from here—we would not have made the mistakes this Government have made, which have led to the crash in house building that I outlined. \p Gideon Amos: I would like to assist the hon. Gentleman. Is the answer not a “use it or lose it” planning permission, whereby a developer loses the permission or the land if they do not build on it? \p David Simmonds: We spent a good amount of time debating that issue in Committee. “Use it or lose it” planning consent is one option. Application of council tax at different stages of delivery is another. We could also take a different approach to section 106, to the community infrastructure levy or to the way that local authorities interact with the housing market. All those measures that we either considered in government or have been debating—none of which has been taken up —have the potential to ensure that more of the homes that have planning consent get delivered. \p Desmond Swayne: Is not the principal difficulty that so many housing developments have now become unprofitable, and that is why they are not being proceeded with? It is the costs that have been loaded on builders in the last 15 months. \p David Simmonds: My right hon. Friend tempts me to fast-forward to a point that will arise later on.

When the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the end of her Budget statement last year that she was wiping the slate clean, and from here on in it was on them, she was absolutely right. If we look at the impact that the measures taken have had on the deliverability of housing and infrastructure, and the rising costs of government driven by the colossal borrowing spree that has been embarked upon by this Chancellor, there is no question. A Government who have borrowed £100 billion this financial year alone are not in a position to talk about a businesslike approach to delivering housing and infrastructure.

The Opposition share the concern that the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) set out in her intervention, highlighted in Lords amendment 1. Ongoing accountability is crucial. We know there will be trade-offs, whether it is on Heathrow—an issue that affects her constituents and mine—or High Speed 2, which has been very much debated, the delivery of new cross-Thames infrastructure to the east of London, new ports, new airports or new roads. There is a significant parliamentary interest in all those issues, and that process provides an opportunity to explain to the public where those trade-offs sit.

On heritage sites and reservoirs, the Lords have done some excellent work. I am grateful to the Minister and the Government for their willingness to embrace the debate about electric vehicle charging, and I know noble Lords have been extremely keen to support the work being done to deliver that net zero agenda. However, so many elements of the Bill incorporate a tendency to centralisation. The lack of community-level accountability and lack of ability for local residents to have their say about what is happening in their area—for example, on assets of community value—remains a fundamental concern. If we want those communities to embrace development and new homes, they need to be able to see the benefits and opportunities that a development will bring to their lives.

Another issue covered in the Lords amendments is chalk streams. I declare for the record that the River Colne, which borders my constituency, is a chalk stream, the majority of which are in southern England. Given the work done by my party in government, we are determined to ensure that there is an appropriate level of protection enshrined in legislation. We would choose to develop brownfield first. We seek the swifter redevelopment of brownfield sites, including here in our capital city, rather than intruding on the green belt, which is critical for nature, is important for the health of human beings and for leisure and is often a site of sports facilities and agriculture, supporting the lives of our communities. That is another area where, sadly, this legislation falls far short.

It is clear that this Government have a heavyweight majority. Through the measures that are being implemented, the Government are using that majority to deliver a left hook of reducing community voice and community say in planning applications. They are following that with a right hook of reducing protections on the green belt and building on virgin land—as we heard from the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who is no longer in his place—rather than previously developed land being recycled. That is followed by the uppercut of wholesale top-down council reorganisation, and then a jab demanding that local plans the length and breadth of the country be changed through the  national planning policy framework changes, without there being remotely the capacity at the Planning Inspectorate to deal with those in a timely manner.

A number of Members have said, “Why is this happening, and what do you think needs to be done to address it?” The knockout blow to our housing market in the last 12 months has been delivered by the massive hike in national insurance introduced by this Government, which is leading developers, builders, the whole supply chain and local authorities to fear that they will have to throw in the towel, because it is simply not possible, under such a business-unfriendly Government, to deliver homes and infrastructure that require a pro-business environment.

As the Bill proceeds, pummelling our first-time buyers, hammering our homeowners, bashing our builders, and duffing up our developers, on behalf of the Opposition I simply say this to the Minister: there is an opportunity this afternoon to begin to change course, and to signal that he believes, and we believe, that a different course of action is possible that will deliver the homes and infrastructure that the British people expect. I always enjoy meeting the Minister across the Dispatch Box, and I always keep my spare Conservative party membership form handy just in case he should ever need it—his high standards of professionalism suggest that one day he will make the journey to the dark side. Minister, take the opportunity to say to your colleagues that it is time to add to so many poor U-turns, a good U-turn. Let us get on with the job of delivering the homes and infra- structure that the British people need. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. \p Florence Eshalomi: I pay tribute to those in the other place for their work in getting us to this stage. I am conscious of time—it is a Thursday, and many Members want to speak—so I will not go into great depth on the amendments. However, I welcome the changes that the Government have made in the other place, and the work of Ministers to reach a compromise to get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible. I particularly welcome the series of pragmatic Government amendments on environmental delivery plans. It is critical to ensure that any system to protect our environment is robust, and the measures outlined by the Government will go some way to quelling some of the fears outlined not just in the other place but by Members across this House on Report. I also welcome reforms to address water supply and encourage the building of badly needed reservoirs, as well as measures to ensure that developers have extra time to commence work when a court grants a judicial review. That sensible and proportional approach will ensure that permissions do not expire through no fault of the developer, and avoid any unnecessary repetition of the whole planning process.

As Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I wish to touch on two points that relate to the scrutiny we have in this place for planning and infrastructure. The first relates to Lords amendment 1, which is identical to amendment 83, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) on Report. As the Minister said then, this is

“about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made,”. —[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 756.]

However, we must be honest and say that even amendments to statements can have a massive impact on our communities up and down the country. Sometimes that impact is even bigger than that of Bills, which are subject to the full weight of parliamentary scrutiny.

I understand the point that the Minister made in Committee, which is that the system has led to unacceptable delays, sometimes for several months. I also know as much as anyone that just because a Committee recommends something to Ministers, it is far from a guarantee that the Government will change their policy. However, it is important that this change is not used to ride through significant changes without Committees having the chance to carry out proper scrutiny into how the measure will impact the lives of people up and down the country. It must also not be used to bypass scrutiny when a statement is amended so much over time as to become a de facto new statement. That is part of the role that we were elected to carry out by this House, and it is something that helps give confidence to the whole House that we have properly considered the statements before us. I heard the Minister indicate earlier that the Government will not accept Lords amendment 1, but I gently ask whether he can assure the House that Committees will still be included in the process of amending statements, and that they will not be sidelined when we engage proactively and in a timely manner with that process.

The introduction of this Bill is long awaited, after years of failing to unblock a broken planning system and to build on the scale that we desperately need. Research from Crisis found that nearly 300,000 families and individuals have ended up without a home of their own, while previous Governments failed to act, and as we know, some children do not even have a room in which to learn to walk or crawl. In reality that will not end overnight; it will end only when we have a system that consistently builds the affordable and social homes that we desperately need. \p Christopher Vince: I am not on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, but I can tell from hon. Friend’s passion that she is an excellent Chair. The use of temporary accommodation, which we have discussed before, costs local councils millions of pounds every year. Does she hope that the Bill, and the fast tracking of social and affordable housing that she talks of, will help to tackle that issue and bring down bills for local councils? \p Florence Eshalomi: My hon. Friend is a proud advocate of highlighting that issue, which we constantly raise with the Minister. This is about ensuring that our councils are part of the building process, and the new social and affordable homes package—the £39 billion—will help to ensure that we build those homes. It is good to see that package. The prospectus was announced last week, and bids will be coming in from February 2026—build, baby, build!

This Bill is the first stage in moving our system in the right direction, and I welcome the big step we are taking with its passage today. As we look at easing and alleviating the planning process, it is important to ensure that in addition to the homes that families want to buy and purchase, we are also building the social homes to help address issues of temporary accommodation and the long and growing housing waiting list. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Gideon Amos. \p Gideon Amos: The Liberal Democrats welcome a number of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, but it is disappointing that my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock’s proposal, which was aimed at ensuring that all unsafe residential blocks are fully remediated, and my noble Friend Lord Foster’s proposal on curbing the proliferation of betting shops were not adopted in the other place, where unfortunately the Conservatives were unwilling to support them. It is also disappointing that having removed all pre-application regulations for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the Government have not seen fit to plug the gap with a standard requirement to ensure that communities are properly consulted, as we proposed in Committee. Simply sweeping away consultation requirements is not acceptable.

That said, today we are here to debate those amendments that made it through from the other place, and I want first to acknowledge where the Government have listened and made welcome improvements and concessions. Lords amendment 53, a concession secured by my noble Friend Baroness Parminter, imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how Natural England should prioritise different approaches to addressing the negative impacts of development on environmental features, which we argued for in this House. I hope that when the regulations are brought forward, the Government will see the sense of referring to the mitigation hierarchy as the accepted standard approach. I remain confused as to why those words were not included in the amendments. We will continue to push the Government to recognise the mitigation hierarchy as a key environmental principle and development that should be enshrined in environmental delivery plans.

I am also pleased to see Lords amendment 29, and that the Government have listened to the points by Historic England and Heritage Alliance that I raised in Committee. That means that heritage protections remain in transport and works projects. However, there remain amendments that the Government wish to reject that we strongly believe the House should accept, particularly with regard to nature and environmental protection, and the role of communities and their local councillors. Lords amendment 40 would limit the application of environmental delivery plans to issues where approaches at a strategic landscape scale will be effective. I am sure colleagues have received many emails about that amendment from constituents, and for good reason. Indeed, the amendment is essential because it ensures that EDPs are used where they can deliver environmental benefits and address problems effectively on a strategic scale.

In Somerset and my Taunton and Wellington constituency, we see only too well the massive issues caused by phosphates, and an EDP approach for phosphates would genuinely be welcome. That problem operates at a catchment or regional level, and site-by-site solutions are not enough. Protected species and biodiversity are rooted in their habitats, and in particular place and sites, and a simple strategic approach is not enough. We cannot save a protected species from going extinct in one location by creating a habitat hundreds of miles away and expect the same outcome. \p Matthew Pennycook: May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to district-level licensing schemes for great crested newts, as an example of where a strategic approach  can benefit a species population? I am not sure it stands—has he reflected on the situation where the type of intervention that underpins EDPs is already in existence and is having benefits for nature? \p Gideon Amos: I accept what the Minister is saying and that elements of species protection may require strategic approaches. However, the fundamental point for the Liberal Democrats is that if the Government made a commitment to stronger protections within EDPs from the outset, in terms of the mitigation hierarchy and the protection of species on site, then we would be more open to supporting their position, but they have not made that commitment, so we cannot give our support and Lords amendment 40 needs to remain.

Lords amendment 38, proposed by the Bishop of Norwich and supported by Liberal Democrat peers, is equally important. It would ensure that the new spatial development strategies include protections for our incredibly rare and valuable chalk streams. Shockingly, there is currently a lack of protection for these rare and incredible habitats. Around 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England. They are as rare globally as rainforests, and yet they do not have the required designation as irreplaceable habitats. [Interruption.] I do not know where that voice came from, but I am happy to give way. \p Edward Morello: rose— \p Gideon Amos: Ah, over there. \p Edward Morello: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He will know that West Dorset is home to a number of our rare and precious chalk streams, including the Frome and the Wraxall brook. Does he agree with me that a system similar to the Blue Flag status that we have for beaches would be a relatively cheap and easy way for the Government to provide environmental protections for our chalk streams? \p Gideon Amos: I agree with my hon. Friend, who does an excellent job championing the chalk streams in his constituency. A public-facing, recognised standard for chalk streams, similar to those that we have for other environmental designations, would be incredibly welcome. \p Charlotte Cane: I also have a chalk stream in my constituency, the River Snail. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we give these chalk streams statutory protection through measures such as those set out in Lords amendment 38, rather than relying on national planning frameworks that can be changed without referring back to this place? \p Gideon Amos: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proper statutory protection for the internationally valuable resource that is our chalk streams is long overdue. I welcome the Minister’s words in his opening remarks, but until we see those designations we will continue to advocate for proper statutory protection for chalk streams. We urge the Minister to go further on that.

I now turn to the amendments on democratic and parliamentary accountability. The Bill does not just tinker at the edges but fundamentally concentrates power into the hands of Secretaries of State. Lords amendment 33 would ensure that if and when the Government implement  their proposed regulations to remove powers from local planning committees and councillors, they must come to this House under the affirmative resolution procedure.

Clause 51 gives unlimited power to all future Secretaries of State to remove any and all decisions from planning committees—there is no limit imposed on that power. The very least that the Government should be willing to accept is a commitment to meaningful parliamentary oversight when they bring forward the regulations to remove powers from planning committees. No amount of consultation on a national scheme of delegation will change the extraordinary power in clause 51 and what it takes away from local planning committees, locally elected councillors and local communities. Lords amendment 33 offers only a small safeguard against that centralisation. For such powers to not even be affirmed by Parliament would make a mockery of the democratic process.

Similarly, Lords amendment 1 would ensure that the Government continue to be fully accountable to Parliament on their changes to national policy statements. NPSs govern the biggest projects in the land, from Hinkley Point to Sizewell, from rail freight terminals to the largest solar and wind farms in the world, and transmission lines. It is the fact NPSs are approved by Parliament that provides them with the efficacy they have in guiding decisions on such projects. In the Commons, we proposed a compromise that case law could, for example, be reflected without parliamentary processes, but policy changes on matters as significant as future plans for nuclear power stations should remain fully subject to the decisions of Parliament. We therefore oppose the Government’s attempt to remove scrutiny of national policy statements.

Amendments 2 and 3 are about protections for reservoirs, and we oppose the Government’s attempt to remove those provisions. We also oppose the Government’s intention to remove protections for assets of community value. We remain concerned about proposals for badger shooting on building sites, which remain unamended in schedule 4.

The Liberal Democrats have set out our proposals for housing and planning. Our programme for public housing, which is far more ambitious than the Government’s, is for 150,000 publicly-funded and genuinely affordable social and council rent homes per year for local people, not the 20,000 that the Government have established as their target. It is a mistake to pit development against nature and communities. On Second Reading, only the Liberal Democrats voted to stop the damaging effects on nature this Bill could have. The Government have made some changes, which we welcome, but the amendments that remain before us today could be accommodated. They are essential to ensuring that the people and nature affected by building the homes and infrastructure that we need are heard and have their place in shaping that development. We must not give up—the Liberal Democrats will not give up—on ensuring that nature and people are protected in the rush to build the homes that we need. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: This Bill has sparked a keen interest among my constituents. It is important to recognise that people who live in Poole want to protect the environment and the benefits that living in a nature-rich part of the country gives them. I welcome some of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, many of which reflect points raised by me and others  on Report, including the need for a stronger overall improvement test to ensure that changes to environmental protections do not hand developers a licence to trash nature.

As we know, Britain is already one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. We have lost half of our biodiversity, one in six species is at risk of extinction and only 14% of our habitats are in good condition. That is why I urge the Government to accept amendment 40 to safeguard vulnerable habitats and species from harmful developments.

The proposed environmental delivery plans would form part of a framework for nature recovery, allowing developers to pay into a restoration fund to offset environmental harm. That may work for nutrient neutrality, water and air quality, but it simply is not suited to the complex realities of natural habitats or declining species. We risk a situation where destruction comes before detection, with new habitats created too late to replace what has been lost. That means species losing their homes, leading to wholesale extinctions. Developers of years gone by might have got their way with a brown envelope or two, but we cannot buy back lost biodiversity. \p Mike Reader: I am sure that my hon. Friend has considered the results of the Corry review, which recognises that we have such complex nature legislation in the UK that it makes it incredibly difficult to build. Does he agree that Lords amendment 40 makes it even more complicated for people to build the homes that we desperately need? \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: As several hon. Members have already mentioned, we have to find the correct balance between building the houses that we so desperately need and protecting our vulnerable nature and the habitats that we want to preserve.

The Wildlife and Countryside Link states that

“some species cannot be traded away for mitigation elsewhere. Once local populations are destroyed, they are unlikely ever to return.”

If we want the Bill to be a genuine win-win for development and for nature, and to keep our manifesto pledge to reverse nature’s decline, environmental delivery plans must be limited to where there is clear evidence they can actually work. \p Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend is right that there are examples of where species should not be able to be moved, but Lords amendment 40 does not relate to some cases but to all cases, and it sets out in statute that species should never be moved. Does he agree that the Government’s approach, which will prevent species from being moved in many cases, is better than setting in statute something that could block so many opportunities? \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: I was about to come to that very point, and how serious people feel this issue is. The Wildlife Trusts have nearly 1 million members. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more than 1 million members, and the National Trust has more than 5 million members. There is a massive base of people in this country who care deeply about nature. If we get this wrong, the risk is not just environmental, but political. People will not take it kindly if their local chalk stream is degraded, for example.

For that reason, I am keen to get assurances from the Minister on Lords amendment 38, on chalk streams, which he mentioned in his opening remarks. Four main rivers feed into Poole harbour in my constituency, and the catchment is home to a number of internationally recognised chalk streams. That is why the issue is important to my constituents.

There has been a concerted effort from lobbyists and private interests to scapegoat nature as the chief villain of the housing crisis. In my view, that is just not true. The Government’s own impact assessment provided no data saying that environmental protections are a blocker. Nature is sadly being scapegoated to distract from a broken, developer-led house building model that has allowed a few to get rich, while failing to deliver the homes that people need. If developers do not use the planning permissions that they already have, they should lose those permissions, and we should make that clear. Ancient woodlands are not a blocker, wildlife is not a hindrance, and chalk streams are not anti-growth. \p Alex Brewer: As I am sure the hon. Member knows, chalk streams are among the rarest habitats in the world. This is not the first time I have mentioned them in this Chamber. Only 11 of the more than 200 chalk streams are protected, and even those 11 are in decline. The problems are over-abstraction, significant pollution and inappropriate development caused by poor planning. Does he agree that protecting these habitats through this Bill is essential, not optional? \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: Absolutely. Because of the nature of the constituency I represent, I know that chalk streams are extremely important and should be protected. They are our national inheritance, and we are their custodians. I really hope that the Government will take further steps to align this Bill with a fairer and greener future for everyone. \p David Mundell: I will speak to Lords amendment 28, which was introduced in the other place but relates specifically to my constituency. The Eskdalemuir seismic array, which is near the village of Eskdalemuir in my constituency, is a seismological monitoring station established to detect seismic signals from nuclear explosions. To a generation that grew up following the end of the cold war, the facility may seem to be little more than a historical curiosity, but it continues to be a vital asset in global monitoring, in scientific research, and, crucially, in helping to keep the United Kingdom compliant with its international obligations under the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

The Eskdalemuir seismic array has been operating since 1962, making it one of the longest-operating steerable seismic arrays in the world. The facility is geographically remote, in a low seismic noise environment, and highly calibrated and sensitive, enabling the detection of even small seismic signals at a vast distance. Over recent years, its seismometers have picked up the sonic boom from Russian jets in UK airspace, and have detected underground nuclear tests in North Korea. On one occasion, it was able to detect signals generated by the detonation of around 100 tonnes of conventional explosives in Kazakhstan. All that is clear evidence of the unique nature of the site and its capabilities.

Some might wonder what the site has to do with the Bill. What could the Bill’s impact be on the maintenance of this vital scientific facility, which is crucial to our national defence and our undertakings under international treaties? In many rural constituencies in Scotland, the march of large-scale wind farm developments continues, encouraged by the Scottish Government. The forces acting on wind turbines cause vibration in the turbine—vibrations that can travel underground for many kilometres, with obvious consequences for facilities that require seismological quiet for their effective operation.

As some Members may know, the desire of wind farm developers to push the boundaries of where their infrastructure can be located, and the boundaries of the guidance against which their applications are assessed, has led to challenges to the Ministry of Defence. A previous attempt by a developer to site a wind farm at Little Hartfell, which is in the consultation zone of the Eskdalemuir seismological monitoring station, led to judicial review proceedings against the MOD. On that occasion, the challenge did not dispute that the MOD is entitled to devise and enforce a policy to protect the array from interference with its detection capabilities—it concerned the way that proposed developments were prioritised—but the lesson is clear: developers will seek to push the boundaries of where and how their developments may be sited. Ministers must be aware of that, and willing to take measures to protect against that, where issues of national defence are at stake.

The key consideration is this: in a dangerous and difficult world, we must not water down our defence systems or let down our allies to squeeze out what, in a national context, is a small amount of extra electricity. The UK Government should robustly refuse to entertain novel technologies within the 15 km exclusion zone proposed by the Eskdalemuir working group, which would replace the existing 10 km zone. That should also apply to those applications already in the planning system that were submitted by developers who continued to pursue their projects aggressively, with full knowledge that work was ongoing to review the exclusion zone. Our national defence must come first. I am sure that most people would agree that this is an area where an abundance of caution is well justified. It would be concerning if Ministers and the MOD were pressured into going too far in the name of net zero.

I am not necessarily objective, because I am the Member of Parliament with the largest number of wind turbines in their constituency, either consented or built. I believe that industrial-scale wind farms are bad generally for the locality, but there need to be specific rules around them when national security is in question, and we have to protect our credibility with our international partners.

Any loosening of the rules on infrastructure developments around facilities like the Eskdalemuir seismic array, or passing up the opportunity to reinforce existing rules, would send entirely the wrong message, both to potential developers eager to exploit new opportunities to construct even more wind farms, and to our international partners, who rely on our ability to contribute to our own defence and our collective defence. Lords amendment 28 is an opportunity to underscore the protection needed for facilities like the Eskdalemuir seismic array, and I want this Government take those protections forward. \p Meg Hillier: I add my thanks to those in the other place for the work that they have done on this Bill, and particularly on Lords amendment 1, which I will explain my thinking on in more detail.

I stand to speak on this issue because of the importance of scrutiny of Government policy by the Select Committees of this House. While this House has an important scrutiny task, and Bill Committees have their job to do, there is a valuable role for Select Committees in scrutiny because of the depth of knowledge of the Committee teams, which are made up of Members, experienced expert staff, and Clerks. That depth of knowledge can be very helpful to Ministers and Governments, who can get useful input as policy is developed, and Select Committees have a particular role in relation to national policy statements.

More widely, I say to Members on the Treasury Benches that although I massively appreciate the work that the Minister has done to ensure that we lean into this issue —which I will touch on in a moment—Governments of whatever party need to be mindful when they are pushing legislation forward. We get elected with an agenda and, quite rightly, we are impatient to push things through, but we need to be mindful of the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. We diminish that at our peril, because we risk a slippery slope. One day, a mad, bad or dangerous Government—do not tempt me on that, given the past 14 years—could misuse the system. We need to stress-test what is being proposed by the Government of the day in the light of that important fact.

We have 13 national policy statements covering types of national infrastructure. I do not need to go into detail on that, but they include energy, transport, waste water and waste. The normal process has been that these statements are laid before the House, and Select Committees are involved. For time reasons, I will not go through the technical detail of how that works, but basically, Select Committees have an important role to play in scrutinising any changes to national policy statements. The Government are concerned that this can take too long, and have decided, as the Minister has explained, to introduce a new reflective amendment procedure. Under that procedure, the Government would not be subject to the existing statutory obligation to respond to a resolution of either House, or to recommendations from a Committee of either House, regarding the proposed changes.

The key question is: what is proposed to replace the existing procedure? As the Minister has said, there will continue to be a public consultation on reflective amendments —the smaller category of amendments that might be introduced. The Minister will need to write to the relevant Select Committee, and Ministers must make themselves available to appear before the relevant Committee to explain why the proposed changes to the NPS mean that the reflective amendment route is appropriate. The Minister and I have been discussing this for months—I have been speaking on behalf of those on the Committee corridor—and I thank him very much for his time.

On Report, the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that Ministers would appear in front of Select Committees

“as far as is practicable”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.]

I raised with him the concern that although “practicable” may be a legal term, it does not really work for Select Committees, because there is a question about what it  means. The Minister could be on holiday, or could be visiting a constituency somewhere else in the country, and it might not be practicable for them to appear before a Select Committee. I have been a Minister, and it is right that Ministers should be accountable to this House. That should be a priority; it is the job of a Minister to steer legislation through the House, politically and practically. I know that the Minister has been looking closely at whether he can give us a reassurance that Ministers will be expected to appear before a Select Committee if required to do so, not just as far as is practicable.

Under the new approach, an amended national policy statement will be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days—I am glad that the Minister has been clear that it will be sitting days, not days during a recess period; that is critical—and the Government will respond to any Committee reports during that time. However, they no longer have a statutory obligation to respond. I hope that the Minister can reassure me further, at the Dispatch Box, that they would be expected to do so.

Speaking on behalf of the Committee corridor, we are very clear that we would play our part in ensuring that these matters were turned around within a proper timeframe, and there would not be unnecessary delays. There is a great team of people behind our Select Committees. If you were not in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would say that I am privileged to work with probably the best set of Chairs of Select Committees that we have ever had, but that would cut you out, and you did important work that set the tone for us all. You were a leader in this field when you chaired the Women and Equalities Committee; we follow in big footsteps. There is a very talented team of people on the Committee corridor who want to make sure that this process works. We take very seriously our responsibility to scrutinise Government legislation, and our role in getting it through Parliament, although not necessarily without amendment. We will work very closely with the Government when submitting our views. \p John Martin McDonnell: Those who are watching this debate might think that we are just debating tedious parliamentary processes, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) made clear, national policy statements have impacts. We are about to consider—in some detail, I hope—the national policy statement on airports, which would result in 15,000 people in my constituency losing their home, and whole communities being wiped off the face of the earth. That is why it is so critical that we get this procedure right; otherwise, we will not carry the community with us. \p Meg Hillier: I think I can reassure my right hon. Friend that, as the Minister has made clear at the Dispatch Box, very large changes would go through the old process. There is no watering down of that, which is absolutely right and proper; the Government are leaning in the right direction on that. Our concern was about turning smaller amendments into reflective amendments. The Minister outlined four categories of amendment; when he sums up, I would be grateful if he could clarify who decides which of the four categories an amendment would be in, and whether there is any prospect that the process could be misused by a future Government. I cannot imagine that the Minister would misuse it, but in a bad world, could this process be abused by the Government of the day?

Will the Minister also reiterate from the Dispatch Box some of the things we have discussed over the past few months, including that he would be expected to engage with the Select Committee—not just to appear if requested, but to engage early? That has been clear from the discussions we have had, but it would be helpful if it were said from the Dispatch Box, because “no surprises” is a good maxim for politicians. Never surprise a constituency MP, a Select Committee Chair or a Select Committee, because that can cause challenges. We are reasonable people, and the Select Committee system means that we want to engage as early as possible, whatever party we belong to. Of course, we are cross-party Chairs on the Committee corridor, but it is absolutely proper that the Chair of a Committee works with the Government of the day, whatever their party. I certainly did so when I was chairing a Committee as an Opposition MP. It is important that we understand that and play that role.

Early engagement is better. There is nothing that needs to be hidden from a Select Committee, and we have a well-worn route for making sure that we deal with confidential, sensitive information properly, whether through a reading room mechanism or private briefings. Obviously, we prefer to do most of our work in public, but we recognise that in order to reassure this House and the British public, at certain times—maybe not forever, but at certain moments in time—we may need to have a conversation earlier, when information is not fully in the public domain. I think we are trusted to do that responsibly and well, so could the Minister reassure us on that as well? Although I think he has confirmed this, could he confirm again for the record that the clock ticks down only on parliamentary sitting days?

I thank the Minister for his engagement on this matter. I also thank the other House for taking parliamentary scrutiny so seriously that it tabled Lords amendment 1, but I have had enough reassurances from the Minister to be convinced that the Select Committee corridor is being treated with the respect it deserves. I just hope that in his summing up, he can reiterate those points and answer the questions I have asked. \p Kit Malthouse: I do not wish to detain the House terribly long; I just want to cover three matters, if I may. The first is Lords amendment 38, which deals with chalk streams. As the Minister knows, because I have told him before, my constituency is chalk stream central—as is yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, as my constituency neighbour. The River Test, the most celebrated of chalk streams, rises in the north of my constituency. We also have the Anton, which flows through Andover, and most famously the Bourne rivulet—about which books have been written, such is its beauty and importance. I know the Minister appreciates the importance of these incredibly rare ecological environments, which are almost unique to southern England.

I heard what the Minister had to say about the appropriateness of spatial development strategies for protecting chalk streams, but he will know that those of us who are concerned about this issue have been disappointed by the seeming reduction of enthusiasm for protection of chalk streams since this Government came to power. Obviously, the chalk stream recovery  pack, which had been hard-won in negotiations with the previous Government, was abandoned. In May, amendments to this Bill that sought to protect chalk streams further were voted down. The Minister is a good chap—he and I get on well—and at every stage he has reassured the House that he wants to do more for chalk streams, but we have yet to see the beef. Even today in his opening remarks, he said that he is minded to take further steps elsewhere to protect chalk streams. Given the Government’s record over the past 12 months or so, I am afraid that that is not terribly reassuring, so when he sums up, I would be very grateful if he could be a little more detailed about what exactly he intends to do. \p Sarah Green: The right hon. Member will know from his own constituency that there are some fantastic campaigners trying to protect chalk streams. In my patch, I have the River Chess Association, the Mend the Misbourne project, and the Chiltern Society. Does he agree that it should not be down to committed campaigners to protect these chalk streams, and that it needs a statutory underpinning? \p Kit Malthouse: I completely agree with the hon. Lady. In my constituency, I have groups of volunteers who work very hard, including on the Anton river in Andover, and do a fantastic job. In fact, that river flows through part of the town centre, but gets lost, and it is about to be opened up with a new riverside park running down Western Avenue. I am pleased to say that I played a small part in that scheme obtaining a levelling-up grant from the previous Government.

People in my constituency value these chalk streams almost as if they are members of their family. They are part of the identity of towns such as Whitchurch, Overton, Andover and other villages in my patch and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. They would take the protection of those chalk streams almost as seriously as the protection of their children. Many Members—not just me—have campaigned for such statutory protection, and I would be interested in what the Minister has to say. I do not entirely accept his argument that spatial development strategies are completely inappropriate. As he knows, they can flag up areas of planning constraint and discuss corridors and green infrastructure. If there is a green infrastructure corridor, it is a chalk stream. Certainly in my part of the world, they are treasured such that a new mayor—if we have one next year—would be required to look at them as protected corridors and say as much in their plan. \p Jeremy Corbyn: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member and support everything he has said about chalk streams and nature corridors. Does he think it would be helpful if the Bill went a bit further in trying to reinvigorate the natural world in densely populated urban areas? Since he has an enormous knowledge of London, does he not think that London would be so much improved if some of the unfortunately now underground rivers could be opened up, so as to give people a sense of what their natural world is really like? \p Kit Malthouse: I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Interestingly, he may or may not recall that when I was a Westminster councillor, we had a project  in Westminster called “Hidden Rivers”, which signposted where those rivers were. If any Members find themselves on the platform at Sloane Square station, for example—just a couple of stops away—and look upwards, they will see a socking great big pipe going across the top of the platforms carrying the River Tyburn. It rises at Marble Arch, where Tyburn convent is, and where the Tyburn tree used to stand for hanging people. It flows down, across the platform and into the Thames. The same is true, I think in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, where the Fleet flows down towards Fleet Street and into the Thames. People value and treasure such rivers, and they should be protected. I want to hear a little more on that from the Minister.

For those of us who would support new settlements, for example, SDSs might be important for the protection of chalk streams, because they can point towards the areas where new settlements should be and protect such things as river catchments. For chalk downland constituencies like mine, that is key. While I accept that the Minister will get his way and get his party to vote for the second time against protection for chalk streams in this Bill, I would like to hear a bit more detail on what he is minded to do—I take him at his word—how firm that mindedness is, and when we can expect some of the protection to come forward, because this is an urgent matter on which many of us have campaigned for many years.

The second thing I lament about the Bill, and ask the Minister to clarify, is its impact on neighbourhood plans. I have asked him this question in the past, particularly in the light of new housing targets. Both my borough councils, Basingstoke and Deane, and Test Valley, have had significant increases to their housing targets. I do not mind that necessarily, but the question is where those houses go. I have encouraged villagers and communities across my constituency to take advantage of neighbourhood plans and to put them in place. The significant alarm now is that some of the local plan implications from the new housing targets that are flowing through are riding roughshod over those neighbourhood plans, some of which took years to put in place.

The Minister has given me an undertaking in the past that extant neighbourhood plans would not have to be varied in the light of those new housing targets, until they came up for refresh, and that constraints, such as protected landscape, would pertain. I would be pleased if he could reassure us on that point when he sums up. \p Roz Savage: I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the impacts on neighbourhood development plans of the new housing targets. In my constituency, those plans were blown out of the water by the new targets. In the Cotswold district, 80% is protected landscape and of the remaining 20%, half is floodplain. Does he therefore share my disappointment that the Government are opposing Lords amendment 39, which would have forced developers to prioritise brownfield sites and save our countryside? \p Kit Malthouse: I sort of agree. We should be pushing developers towards brownfield—that is absolutely right. Brownfield first was the policy of the previous Government, and it makes lots of sense. The key thing, which I am sure the Minister accepts, is that if we are to overcome this problem with the generational contract—that we  who are housed will build houses for those who are not—there has to be a compromise. For me, that compromise has always been neighbourhood planning. Far too often in my constituency, villages and towns feel as if planning is something that is done to them. They dread the land promoter showing up to ram some inappropriate planning through. Some of that compromise can be about beauty, and I lament the fact that the design standards were taken out of the NPPF and that that word is not used. [Interruption.] I welcome the Minister’s nodding—that is great.

I have often said that in my constituency—for Members who do not know, it is 220 square miles of beautiful chalk downland—if developers would build thatched cottages, we would have thousands of them. People would be more than happy for developers to build villages such as St Mary Bourne all over the place, if they look beautiful and fit in. Unfortunately, we get the same ersatz development that everybody else gets around the country. We need to crack that. The other thing is putting planning in the hands of local people, and I hope the Minister will try to preserve that principle in the Bill.

My third point, briefly, is about an omission in the Bill that the Minister and I have discussed before, which is the problem of undeveloped consents. My concern is that the Bill will stimulate the land promotion industry and stimulate lots of applications. However, as the shadow Minister pointed out, when the housing market is flat, stamp duty is at penal rates, when interest rates remain stubbornly high because of Government borrowing, and when the development industry is crippled by taxes, we will not get the level of development that the Minister aspires to—certainly not towards the 300,000 a year target and 1.5 million by the end of the Parliament. Instead, we will see a stacking up of consents, as we have seen in some parts of the country already, where there are thousands and thousands of undeveloped consents. The industry will bank them. In the absence of a market into which it can sell, it will occupy itself by banking the land for times when hopefully things will come good.

Similarly, I am afraid that we will see some of the large infrastructure projects going through the process—the Minister and I are keen to see them accelerated—but people waiting for more propitious economic times to bring them forward, notwithstanding the lack, therefore, of the facility to the British public. I urge him to consider, as he looks to the next stage of his planning reforms, what he will do on undeveloped consents. I think I have said to him before that the Government should force local plans to have a 10-year housing supply that also takes into account granted consents. Then, developers can see a 10-year horizon, as can local authorities, but they also can see that if they want a life beyond 10 years, they will have to start developing that which they already have. If we deal with that issue, we will also deal with quite a lot of the resentment people feel when they see particularly large-scale planning applications coming forward. They ask, “We’ve already got 400 down the road that haven’t been built. Why do we have to take another 400?” Of course, the local council has to put huge amounts of work into the local plan, notwithstanding the fact that it might already have a five-year supply that has been consented but does not count toward the future target.

This is a problem that Governments, including my own, have struggled with for some time, and it is one I struggled with when I was Housing Minister, but I hope the Minister will give some thought to at least giving councils the option of having a 10-year supply in which granted consents count. He might well find that he gets a lot more houses built. \p Terry Jermy: The natural environment in my constituency is fantastic. It is of huge value to my constituents and it underpins Norfolk’s greatest economic driver, tourism, which is fundamental to rural areas like mine. I am especially proud that we have so many beautiful chalk streams and rivers, the most impressive of which, the River Nar, forms the northern boundary of my constituency and lends its name to the villages of Narborough and Narford. Because of its national importance, this river is designated a site of special scientific interest—one of only 11 chalk streams in the UK with that status.

The Nar is well known for its populations of brown trout and the globally threatened European eel, but even this river, protected by its designation since 1992, has a history of damage and ongoing degradation through pollution from farmland, sewage treatment works and road drainage, as well as man-made modification of its channel and floodplain, and abstraction both from the river itself and from the chalk aquifer that supplies the calcium-rich, clean water on which these systems rely. Natural England reports that 50% of the River Nar SSSI is “not healthy” and “not getting better”, which it classifies as “unfavourable—no change”.

Last year, at South Acre in my constituency, I had the pleasure of visiting part of the Nar that has been restored by landowners, with the help of the brilliant Norfolk Rivers Trust. I am so pleased that landowners and this Norfolk charity are working hard to restore the river to better health. Thanks to their efforts, the other 50% of the river is in “unfavourable—recovering” condition, or “unhealthy, but getting better”. Sadly, none of the river is classified as in “favourable condition”. Other chalk streams and rivers in my constituency include the Rivers Wissey and Little Ouse and their tributaries, such as the River Thet, which runs through my home town, Thetford. All are important features of our local natural environment, but none is healthy enough to be considered an SSSI.

Just two weeks ago, I visited the Little Ouse and met the Little Ouse Headwaters Project—another small, local charity that is trying to restore the river and the fens in its catchment. I also visited Blo’ Norton fen. Blo’ Norton is a small village at the southern edge of my constituency, near Garboldisham, which we in Norfolk pronounce “Garbisham”. The story at this location is a familiar one: the Little Ouse has been canalised—straightened, over-deepened and embanked, separating it from its floodplain. It is polluted by phosphates, nitrates, silt and pesticides running off agricultural land, and by sewage treatment works and poultry units adjacent to the river.

Local volunteers have been working hard to restore the catchment for the past 23 years. I pay tribute to the chair of trustees, Dr Rob Robinson, trustees Reg and Rowena Langston, and conservation manager Ellie Beach,  all of whom I was pleased to meet recently. They gave me a tour of the fen, for which I sincerely thank them and all the other volunteers involved in the Little Ouse Headwaters Project. We as a nation owe so much to volunteers like them, who safeguard our natural heritage for future generations. It is disgraceful that previous Governments have left small charities like this and others struggling to restore these globally rare habitats, 85% of which are in England, many in my constituency.

This Government are rightly proud of their efforts to improve our rivers by holding water companies and other polluters to account, delivering an ambitious programme of reforms to fix the water system, and managing and resetting the water sector. I am pleased that water companies will invest £2 billion over the next five years to deliver more than 1,000 targeted actions for chalk stream restoration, as part of our plan for change, and that the Government are investing £1.8 million through the water restoration fund and the water environment improvement fund for chalk stream clean-up projects. As a new member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I am keen to see the effect of this Government’s improved funding for environmental land management schemes, including six landscape recovery projects in chalk stream catchments. One of those awaiting a decision on funding from DEFRA is in the headwaters of the Little Ouse. I hope it gets the funding it deserves.

I believe it is time we legislated to put chalk stream protection on a permanent footing, buffered from the vagaries of policies and funding by future Governments, so that we leave a permanent legacy of environmental protection of a globally rare resource. We must do more to protect and restore chalk streams. I urge the Minister, whose opening speech I listened to carefully, and others to take up opportunities now or in future policy considerations to protect precious environments like those in Norfolk. They are irreplaceable, and they are, in their own right, crucial to our local economies and to growth. \p Roz Savage: On behalf of many of my constituents, I rise to speak in strong support of Lords amendment 40. Nature unites us in a way that few other things can. Even the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) told me of his love for nature after the Second Reading of my Climate and Nature Bill. Our love for the fields, woods and waterways that shape our lives can cut across deep political divisions, ages and backgrounds. We all want future generations to walk the same landscapes, hear the same birdsong and feel the same sense of belonging to the natural world that so many of us have known.

Lords amendment 40 recognises that truth. It would ensure that nature is treated not as an optional extra but as an essential—something that must be protected and restored alongside meeting our urgent housing need. It would limit environmental delivery plans to areas where a broad, strategic approach genuinely works, as the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) mentioned; examples include nutrient neutrality, and water and air quality.

Without this safeguard, the Bill risks undoing decades of progress in protections for our most vulnerable species. A big-picture approach cannot replace the precise protections that bats, dormice and great crested newts depend on. One cannot ask a dormouse to move house, or offset repeated local losses somewhere else. If we  allow that pattern to continue, national extinction becomes a real possibility. This is how nature, the web of life, works. We cannot dismiss small snails simply because they are small. It is the smallest creatures that inhabit our topsoil that form the foundation of the entire ecosystem.

In South Cotswolds, the bond between people and nature is strong, but our area is one of the most environmentally constrained: about 80% of the Cotswolds district lies within the Cotswolds national landscape, and with much of the remainder already developed or at flood risk, we will struggle to meet our target of more than 1,000 new homes every year. Constituents who cherish our wildlife and landscapes have written to me expressing heartfelt concerns about what that level of development will mean for the places that have defined their lives.

The Labour manifesto promised planning reform that “increases climate resilience” and “promotes nature recovery”, yet the Secretary of State recently rejected amendments that would do exactly that. His “Build, baby, build” slogan suggests that we must choose between growth and nature, but that is not true: wildlife protections are not blocking new homes. Councillors and developers alike point to land availability, infrastructure and delivery capacity as the constraining factors. There is no justification for weakening nature protections when it is entirely possible to build in ways that benefit both people and planet.

Lords amendment 40 reflects a real cross-party consensus and is backed by the Wildlife Trusts, the RSPB and the Better Planning Coalition. It would offer clarity, reduce legal risk and support sustainable development while strengthening genuine nature recovery—which, incidentally, will also help in climate change mitigation. Above all, the amendment recognises that we are not, and do not need to be, in conflict with nature; we are part of it. This is our chance to show that good planning can be both responsible and ambitious, and that we can deliver the homes that people so urgently need while safeguarding the natural world that sustains us all.

I urge Members and the Government to support Lords amendment 40. I urge this House to choose clarity over confusion, evidence over ideology, and long-term stewardship over short-term slogans. Today we have the chance to choose a planning system that is efficient and fair, that is good for business and for communities and, above all, that is good for the wildlife and landscapes that define our country. We can choose to honour our responsibility to future generations, who will judge us not so much by how fast we built, but by what we protected and what we passed on. \p Toby Perkins: Building 1.5 million homes to tackle the housing crisis at the same time as protecting British wildlife is an issue that the general public are rightly passionate about, and one that Government must get right for people, for nature and for the economy. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, initiated an inquiry to explore that exact question last November, and we will shortly be able to share our conclusions and recommendations to Government. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a central plank of the Government’s plan to unlock the planning system in order to deliver the housing and infrastructure that Britain needs.

I was interested in the contribution of the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who rightly identified the issue of developers sitting on  land. I have to say, as someone who has been in local and parliamentary politics for 23 years, that that has always been the case, so it was unconvincing that, having identified the issue, he did not seem to have any solutions. He listed a number of things that the Government might consider, without enlightening us as to whether he supported any of them, so it is clear that the Government will have to crack on alone if they wish to address this important issue.

The Bill has been significantly improved during its passage, and my original concerns about part 3—which were shared by many others—have been allayed. I have been through enough debates on legislation in this Chamber where people have accused Ministers of not listening to give credit to my hon. Friend the Housing Minister for having listened to criticisms and skilfully clarified how the Government will respond. I thank him for that.

Unfortunately, the Minister’s work has been made more difficult by briefings that characterise nature as a blocker to development. In fact, research from the Wildlife Trusts found that bats and great crested newts were a factor in just 3% of planning appeal decisions. I think these anti-nature narratives are at best lazy, and often unhelpful; they distract from some of the more significant challenges in the planning system, such as the lack of resources and skills in local authorities to support good planning applications. Tackling those genuine planning barriers, alongside this Bill, will be essential to building the homes that we need.

Lords amendment 40 would limit environmental delivery plans to only certain environmental impacts, including water pollution, water availability and air pollution. Addressing environmental impacts at a strategic level, as enabled by the EDPs introduced by the Bill, has the potential in some circumstances to deliver more benefits for the environment and faster planning outcomes. In some circumstances, this strategic approach would absolutely not be appropriate—for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) alluded to, harm to a site-loyal species would often be impossible to redress in a different location.

I do believe, though, that it is reasonable to steer clear of stipulating on the face of the Bill which environmental issues EDPs could be developed for in future, as Lords amendment 40 would do. If guided by current robust scientific evidence, or evidence that might come to light in future, it is possible to imagine that a strategic approach for addressing environmental impacts could be found to be appropriate for issues beyond only water and air pollution. \p John Martin McDonnell: My hon. Friend is making an extremely considered speech. On that point, which was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), we now have concerns being expressed by virtually every environmental organisation we have ever worked with, including SERA—the Socialist Environment and Resources Association—Labour’s own environment campaign.

Could there not be a compromise here? If the Government were really clear on the process for the future, the issues that my hon. Friend has just raised could be considered. Then, we could see that there was a strategic approach on some issues, but that there would be further consideration on others that the Government  could come back to. There is potential there for a compromise with the other House as part of this ping-pong process. \p Toby Perkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. The Lords amendment is sensible and well-intentioned. Even if it is rejected, as the Government are minded to do, he makes an important point: we need to get clarity that, in the majority of cases, the approach would be of this narrower type. The Minister has given us some assurance that, in the event we start seeing certain EDPs misused, we will be able to scrutinise that process, so it will be interesting to hear what he has to say in response to my right hon. Friend’s point.

I welcome the Government’s package of amendments during the Lords stages, including one that specifies that robust scientific evidence must be used by Natural England to develop an EDP. These improvements largely address the original concerns of the Office for Environmental Protection. However, I urge the Minister to consider proactively providing a list of environmental issues that might be considered suitable for EDPs. That would provide reassurance that this new and powerful tool will be directed only towards diffuse pollution issues such as those set out in amendment 40, where EDPs will have environmental benefits and provide the most value for development.

Amendment 39 would embed a brownfield-first approach in the new SDS. Building on brownfield land can help to revitalise towns and cities, as well as avoiding developing greenfield land. However, it can be more expensive: there are often clean-up jobs to be done on site. In large urban centres, brownfield development is often still profitable, but, in smaller towns such as Chesterfield, the additional factors in developing brownfield land can make development unprofitable, so sites sit undeveloped, as the Robinsons site in my constituency has for more than 20 years now. It would therefore be good to hear from the Minister what more the Government can do to promote development on brownfield land.

Both nature and safe, secure housing are enormously important to people, and our constituents deserve both: they deserve to breathe clean air, to live in safe and healthy homes, and for their children to be able to play in a local river, free from pollution, but they also deserve to have affordable housing in the communities in which they live. That is the balance that the Government must strike. Although the EDPs introduced by the Bill are an important tool, they are only part of the answer to solving the housing crisis and to improving our natural environment.

This is an important Bill and is much improved. We need to ensure not only that we get it passed as soon as possible but that the work of protecting nature does not begin or end with this Bill and carries on long after it. \p Liz Jarvis: I will focus my comments on Lords amendment 38. I have heard from many constituents who are deeply concerned about the potential environmental impact of this Bill and how it might affect the River Itchen, the precious chalk stream that runs through my constituency of Eastleigh. The River Itchen is a site of special scientific interest and a special  area of conservation, but despite these designations, it has been subjected to repeated sewage discharges by Southern Water, threatening its delicate ecosystems and putting species at risk. We have incredible natural habitats that are being destroyed because existing protections have failed. Indeed, in the latest Environment Agency assessment, Southern Water was handed a two-star rating after causing a shocking 269 pollution incidents last year, including 15 classified as serious.

According to the 2024-25 chalk stream annual review, 83% of England’s chalk streams are failing to achieve good ecological status, which is disgraceful. That is why Lords amendment 38 is so important to my constituents and to communities across the country who live alongside these extraordinary habitats. There is no reason why we cannot have a thoughtful planning process that protects our precious natural environment and delivers the social and affordable housing that our communities desperately need, with the infrastructure to support it. We have an opportunity to show that development and environmental responsibility are not competing interests, but shared objectives. By embedding these principles in the Bill, we can address the housing crisis while simultaneously protecting our rivers, habitats and green spaces.

Lords amendment 38 would establish much-needed new protections for chalk streams and impose a responsibility on strategic planning authorities to enhance chalk stream environments. I saw the urgent need to address this issue when I visited with representatives of the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust this summer, when I was able to test the water quality of the River Itchen. With the help of experts, we saw at first hand the very low levels of biodiversity and high nitrate levels. I fully support the proposition that spatial development strategies must list chalk streams in their strategic area, and safeguard them from irreplaceable damage by outlining clear measures to protect from environmental harm.

Greater and appropriate consideration for our chalk streams is long overdue. I welcome the fact that, under Lords amendment 38, local spatial development strategies would vary according to the needs of the particular area, allowing strategies to set different balancing points between local conservation and development needs in different places. It is disappointing that the Government are unwilling to retain the amendment. Will the Minister instead commit to strengthening existing planning mechanisms and ensure that water companies are held to account, so that chalk streams are protected? This is such an important issue for my constituents, and anything less than a cast-iron guarantee is not good enough.

People across the country deeply value and treasure our natural environment. We need to deliver the housing and infrastructure that are vital for our communities, but let us not treat our chalk streams, wildlife and habitats as an afterthought. \p Chris Hinchliff: I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the Climate and Nature Crisis Caucus.

At the outset of my contribution to today’s debate on this important legislation, there are a few general points that are probably worth reiterating. There need be no conflict between house building and nature; the real conflict is between greed and the sort of country we want to build. After 20 years of planning deregulation,  time and again we see profiteering trumping public need and the protection of the countryside; cost cutting where communities deserve quality; and low-density, high-price housing while families wait for council homes.

Since we last debated the Bill in this place, Key Cities has published a very useful report, which highlights that in a survey of its members, only 6% cited the planning system as the primary obstacle to house building. More than twice that figure pointed to developer delays, so I hope that we will shortly see similarly major Government legislation to tackle the profiteering developers that are blocking the delivery of genuinely affordable housing in this country.

The recent announcement of plans for towns built within a new forest shows that good development and nature recovery can go hand in hand, and we must go further. A democratic programme of mass council house building could easily avoid the clashes that so often mark the developer-led system. What is needed are well-funded councils with the power to assemble land and identify the best sites for new homes—building not grey estates that are shaped by the defeatism of low expectations, but cohesive, thriving communities that are built for life to flourish. That is the solution to the housing crisis and would create a country that puts people and nature before profit.

I welcome the several important amendments tabled by the Government in the other place. In my view, the most important is the stronger overall improvement test for nature recovery, which I campaigned for on Report. It is very good news that these amendments have substantially allayed the concerns of the Office for Environmental Protection. Nevertheless, it is clear that environmental experts and conservationists continue to have some concerns, which the other place has sought to address through Lords amendments 40 and 38 in particular.

Our Labour Government were elected on a clear manifesto promise to reverse the nature crisis in this country, so it is essential we get this right. That is particularly urgent for our endangered species and irreplaceable habitats, including chalk streams such as the Rib, Beane, Ivel and Mimram, which criss-cross North East Hertfordshire and bring joy to so many people’s lives. I genuinely welcome the comments that the Minister has made to allay the concerns of nature experts, and I will dedicate my remaining time to a few short questions that I hope he can address in his wind-up.

First, given the need for legal certainty, can the Minister confirm that the overall improvement test will guarantee that irreplaceable habitats and species cannot be covered by EDPs, and if so, will the Government set out a list of environmental features that they consider would be irreplaceable?

Secondly, can the Minister confirm whether any EDPs are currently under consideration or development by Natural England, or proposed by the Government? If so, will any of them be affected if Lords amendment 40 remained part of the Bill?

Thirdly, will the Minister give confidence to the many constituents of North East Hertfordshire worried about potential impacts on the wildlife we love by once again putting on record that the Government recognise the difference between diffuse landscape issues such as nutrient pollution, where strategic scale action is best suited for nature restoration, and protected sites and species that cannot easily be recreated elsewhere?

Fourthly, given the widespread interest in this Bill shown by many of our constituents and by the wider nature sector, will the Minister consider providing further transparency and accountability through a Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 40 to ensure parliamentary approval of EDPs beyond diffuse issues such as air, water and newts?

Fifthly, given that the “Catchment Based Approach” annual review published this autumn found that a third of chalk streams do not have a healthy flow regime, that over-abstraction due to development pressures is one of the main threats facing these crown jewels of our natural heritage and that there are currently no planning policies specifically protecting chalk streams, can the Minister set out in more detail how the Government foresee planning authorities being able to direct inappropriate development away from struggling chalk streams within the process of setting spatial development strategy plans, and would he consider opportunities for this through regulation, if not through the Bill?

Sixthly, will the Minister provide further certainty from the Dispatch Box about ensuring that chalk streams are specifically added to the national planning policy framework as an irreplaceable habitat, and will he set out when this might happen given that an update of those provisions has been delayed since 2023?

Seventhly, as one reason put forward for Lords amendment 40 is that it would mitigate concerns about the weakening of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, what reassurances can the Minister give my constituents that these iconic animals will not be at risk from widespread licences to kill in EDPs paid for by developers in the absence of Lords amendment 40?

Eighthly, can the Minister confirm whether the Government have assessed the potential impact of proposed biodiversity net gain exemptions on the private finance for nature markets that will be essential for the delivery of EDPs?

Ninthly and finally, can the Minister reassure those who have raised concerns that the current legislation may allow money committed to the natural restoration fund to be redirected to other purposes? \p Ellie Chowns: Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I like to start on a positive note and by looking for common ground, so I will begin by recognising and welcoming the fact that the Government have made some concessions in the other place on this Bill, which is a positive step. Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the Minister’s claim that this is a win-win for nature and housing, and express my continued concern that the Bill, especially part 3, has not had the full reconsideration it needs to ensure we have a genuine win-win. The reason, unfortunately, is that the Government seem to be stuck in the view that there is a zero-sum game between nature protection and house building. That is wrong and unhelpful; it is a complete misconception. Despite making some concessions, the Government lost a lot of trust among the general public by claiming at the outset of the Bill’s progress that they would do no harm to nature protection. The Government were forced to reconsider and recognise, not least by their own official adviser, that that was not in fact the case.

As other Members recognise, a huge number of UK citizens who are members of well-respected and well-trusted organisations such as the National Trust, the RSPB and the Wildlife Trust are deeply concerned that the Government are still digging their heels in and refusing to support Lords amendments that would improve the Bill. I will come on to the details in a minute.

I want to hammer this point: economic prosperity, social justice, and environmental responsibility and protection can and must all go together. They are fundamentally interlinked, which is why the Green party has been campaigning so passionately and is so outspoken on these issues in relation to the Bill—specifically, the importance of democracy in the planning process, the importance of people’s voices being heard, and the importance of ensuring that the planning process is focused on tackling the most important part of the housing crisis, which is the social housing crisis. I repeat yet again in this Chamber that I am frustrated that the Government still refuse to set targets for building social housing. We must protect nature and act responsibly, not only because it is our own interests now, but for future generations. Some parts of the Government seem to have been trying to pitch this as a contest between builders and blockers, but that is completely misleading. Actually, it would be more accurate to call it a contest between carte blanche for bulldozers versus building the better Britain that is rooted in taking care of our natural environment and in social fairness.

I will briefly run through some of the Lords amendments before us today and explain why it is so disappointing that the Government are refusing to accept them. Lords amendment 1 relates to the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of changes to national policies. The hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) articulated the arguments very powerfully. Unlike them, I am not completely reassured by the Minister’s warm words, which is why I believe it is important that we agree with Lords amendment 1.

Lords amendment 33 requires the affirmative procedure for regulations to change the national scheme of delegation. This is fundamental. It is about whether Parliament will get to properly scrutinise any proposed changes to the degree to which citizen voices and the voices of their local representatives—councillors—are able to be heard in the planning process. This is a core element of local democracy and there is a real risk that, in bulldozing this through, the Government are aiming to achieve some minor cost savings for a few developers at a huge cost to democracy, creating a democratic deficit within the planning system. Greens are on the side of democracy and not on the side of developer profiteering, so we strongly support Lords amendment 33.

Lords amendment 37 just seems to be really reasonable. It is about clarity on how assets of community value are dealt with. I note that the Government are making some concessions, saying that they will consult. I very much hope they will, but in the meantime what better way to ensure that the Government are serious than by supporting this amendment?

On Lords amendment 38 and chalk streams, many Members have already spoken very passionately about this so I will not hammer the point, but it is crucial to  protect our chalk streams and what better place to do that than in this Bill? They are globally significant and irreplaceable habitats.

Amendment 39 seeks the prioritisation of building on brownfield land. The Minister has said that this Government have a “brownfield first” approach, but they have actually widened the definition of what brownfield means. It is really quite extraordinary. Even as things stand, despite Governments saying for quite a while that they are pro-brownfield building, the actual rate of prioritisation of brownfield building has declined significantly over the past 15 years. Figures from the CPRE were cited earlier by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith); the CPRE has also said that there is already planning permission for 770,000 new houses on brownfield land. We could get halfway to our house building target if those buildings were just put up. Again, it is not the planning process that is holding back building.

Finally, amendment 40 is absolutely crucial. It seeks to limit environmental delivery plans to the areas where we have the strongest strategic understanding that environmental benefit can be generated and would eliminate the risk of destruction of irreplaceable species and habitats of site-loyal species. We need a nuanced approach here, and amendment 40 would provide that. It recognises that for some factors, such as air quality and water quality, a catchment or area-wide approach could be sensible and helpful, instead of having a blanket approach to establishing EDPs, with everything we talked about at great length in Committee—the lack of safeguards, the lack of initial assessment of what is going on and the ability for developers to have a “get out of jail free” card with paying into those things when they claim it is not possible because of viability, all of which are significant problems. Amendment 40 would take a more precautionary approach to the application of EDPs.

It is very important that this House reiterates to the Government that we cannot give carte blanche to bull- dozers and that we must build better and build in harmony with nature, protecting nature and economic prosperity and ensuring that everybody has a decent, affordable place to live. We can and must do these things together. \p Mike Reader: I did think that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) was about to slip up in her round-up and say, “Build, baby, build”—we almost had her there.

Every single week at my constituency surgeries, people come and talk to me about housing shortages, whether it is people living in overcrowded or temporary accommodation or people facing homelessness, and tomorrow will be no exception. In fact, the impact of the storms in my constituency this weekend will likely mean that hundreds of people—perhaps up to a thousand—will be temporarily removed from their temporary mobile homes in the Billing aquadrome, putting additional pressure on our housing system. It is right that the Government are stepping forward to try to fix this. I have been quite surprised in some of the debates on this Bill that we are not putting more focus on how we deal with homelessness, and that a debate on planning and infrastructure has instead come down in many cases purely to a discussion of nature. \p Ellie Chowns: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are many hundreds of thousands of homes sitting empty around the country and that this Bill will not do anything to address that issue, which could go a very long way to addressing the problems of homelessness that he claims to worry about? \p Mike Reader: The hon. Lady is completely right that there are lots of empty homes. I am sure that there must have been some amendments tabled by the Greens that I have missed, and that they have been constructive and worked with Government to address that issue through the Bill.

Working cross-party is what I have always tried to do in this place. I am proud to chair the all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment and the all-party parliamentary group on infrastructure and, even though the Minister and I do not always agree with the membership of the group—I have to say, some of the members do take unwarranted and quite grotty shots at the Minister—I am proud to chair the Representative Planning Group with Simon Dudley, the treasurer of the Conservatives.

I am pleased that the Government have recognised a point that I raised on Second Reading that solving the housing crisis will take action from the whole Government. The Bill is part of it, but there are many other things that we need to do to fix the mess that we inherited. I am also reassured that concerns that I and others raised on Second Reading around how EDPs will work have been recognised, particularly in some of the latest amendments, as well as by the Minister’s comments on how brownfield will be dealt with, which is so critical. \p Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the housing issues that we all see in our constituencies, so it is interesting that there are so few advocates for building. Whenever there is a new housing application in Chesterfield, we get people who live nearby saying, “I’m a bit concerned about this.” We get lots of people saying that there are not enough houses around, but they never come to us and say, “Please can you support one of these new applications?” Maybe we should give some thought to how we do more to build for the huge number of people who are inadequately housed. We need more housing developments in order to actually create some movement in favour of these developments. \p Mike Reader: My hon. Friend could not be more right. Part of why we set up the cross-party Representative Planning Group was to create an opportunity to bring forward legislation that ensures that all voices are heard in the housing debate, not just the loudest and angriest and those with lots of spare time on their hands.

I am surprised by the position taken by the Conservatives. I was fortunate to sit on the Committee for the devolution Bill. I recognise that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), is an absolute expert on local government, and he made some amazing contributions in Committee. As I am sure many Members did, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition’s speech at the Conservative party conference. She spoke about cutting bureaucracy, making things easier and cutting down on Government waste, but many of the amendments the shadow Minister spoke to do just the opposite. Lords amendment 3 adds  layers of process to how planning will work, increasing the risk of judicial review. Lords amendment 33, which the Minister picked up on in his opening remarks, adds more parliamentary processes to trying to fix our housing crisis. I hope when he sums up that the shadow Minister will reflect on whether his position on this Bill reflects the position of his party’s leader and her call to cut regulation and get us building.

A big point here is trust. Unfortunately, the debate on this Bill has focused on trust—trust in Government, trust in those who build our homes and trust in our planning system as well. If Members turn their mind back to May 2024, they will remember a soggy former Prime Minister standing with music playing behind him. I was at the UK Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum to discuss housing and how we get Britain building. I listened to a whole industry that is completely fed up with the Conservatives. One of my engagements over the past couple of days was a discussion on trust in the housing sector. I cannot remember the specific numbers, but I am thinking of figures from a couple of years ago: less than 20% of people had trust in developers, and less than 20% of people had trust in our planning process. It is clear that the whole process is broken, and that is why we are working really hard through this Bill to try to fix it.

We have talked about the big amendments, but I want to turn to EDPs. If any Member wants to come in on that, I am very happy to discuss it. There are other great measures in the Bill that will get lost. Lords amendment 34 seeks to improve how heritage sites are dealt with. That is fantastic for somewhere like Northamptonshire, which has one of the largest volumes of country houses, manors and stately homes in the country. Lords amendment 39 addresses brownfield sites, and Lords amendment 31 addresses the provision of EV charging, which came up a couple of weeks ago when I was on “Politics East” alongside the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) and we were asked for our views.

I am pleased that the Bill is returning to a focus on planning. Some of the amendments show that the Government have listened to those who build and those who want to see homes built across our country, and we are taking positive steps. EDPs have been the topic of a number of speeches. It is a contentious point both for my hon. Friends and Opposition Members. I have worked in the industry for 20 years, starting out fixing houses that were filling with sewage, and ending my career working on mega and giga projects around the world. I have experience of planning, approvals and consenting processes—in the most developed countries and in some developing countries as well—and I can tell Members that our process is so complicated.

I referenced the Corry review in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan). The review, commissioned by DEFRA, found that we have some of the most inefficient, inconsistent and difficult-to-navigate nature legislation in the world, and it is not fit for purpose to drive nature recovery. Those who argue against change argue for the status quo, which has led to our country being one of the most nature-depleted in the world. That is what those who argue against this Bill argue for. They argue for more of the same, more nature destruction and a process that does not deliver homes. \p Neil Duncan-Jordan: My hon. Friend intervened on me, mentioning the Corry review, and then he cited it in his own contribution. I am sure that he would like to acknowledge that the review specifically warns about a bonfire of red tape and supports targeted changes. Does he agree that amendment 40 aims to support pragmatic reform, limiting EDPs to where they can make a positive impact, rather than where they will do harm? \p Mike Reader: I take the point. The intention behind amendment 40 is well meant: there are situations, as my hon. Friend has said, in which EDPs will not be needed and there are other ways to deal with those situations through existing legislation. Having such a finite definition in the two lines of the amendment, which people have focused on, creates what the Corry review calls the problem: adding more complexity to the process, not simplifying it.

I make no complaints about starting my career as a civil engineer and working in industry, and I am sad to hear that some of my colleagues and some of those across the House have the idea of greedy developers taking all our money and making millions of pounds in profit without ever giving back to society. I am interested to see, through this debate, the very well-funded environmental lobby. I am proud to be an environmentalist and to be on the executive committee of SERA, Labour’s environmental campaign, and I am grateful for the debate that I have had with them through this process to inform my thinking.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) mentioned the 3% stat—that only 3% of planning fails because of nature. The truth is that the assessment would be done long before the planning process, and I am surprised that schemes have got to that point on nature, as I am by the 3%. The chances are that when going for early viability on a project, nature challenges will be looked at. The complexity and difficulty of delivering in this country, because of the way our legislation is set up and the risk entailed, means that many schemes do not go ahead in the first place. I recognise the stat that my hon. Friend has presented, but it is slightly erroneous, because when there are particular nature issues, most projects will never get to the planning stage.

It is really positive, however, to see so much brought forward by the Government—nearly 30 additional amendments—as they listen to the concerns of both Houses, to the environmental lobby and to those who build the homes we desperately need, and improve the way the law will work. There are great opportunities to support that going forward.

I will add a slight observation. Through my career, I coined the three Cs of delivery, whether I was working on the Hudson tunnel connecting New Jersey and New York; on the Peru reconstruction programme, a project that was championed by another former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, as a great example of exporting British expertise to a country and working in partnership to deliver nature restoration, new schools and new hospitals; on airports in places such as Keflavik in Iceland; on regeneration schemes in Greece; or even on the new hospitals and prison programmes and other things that we deliver in our great country. Those three Cs are certainty, commerciality and cost—and that is what it fundamentally comes down to when delivering projects.

I am sure that everyone recognises that cost is critical. If we cannot afford it, we cannot deliver it, so we have to get cost right. At the moment, viability particularly impacts our ability to deliver homes, and this legislation will start to improve that. Commerciality is the one that I like to focus on when talking to industry, because how we deal with apportionment of risk, change and commercial incentivisation is how we get projects working well, such as the Silvertown tunnel in Newham, and how we get projects that run very badly, such as HS2 phase 1, where the commerciality is completely wrong.

The third C is certainty. That is what we have to give the market after 14 years of failure of a Conservative party that flip-flopped on housing policy, with a revolving door of Housing Ministers—we have all heard the tropes, so I will not keep going. We need certainty in the timescales around how planning works. The Bill simplifies that, making it clear how the judicial review process works and how we go through planning to give certainty to the communities that are impacted and which need those homes.

The amendments brought forward by the Lords that the Government are taking forward improve that certainty of the legal process. Even yesterday, in the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, we heard evidence on the planning process for delivering community energy, and I am sure everyone would support more small-scale community energy. We were blown away by the complexity of planning regulation in trying to get, say, solar panels on to a community building or a small-scale district heating scheme delivered in a local community for their benefit. The scale of complexity of our planning process is such a big challenge. As well as improving certainty of the legal process, the Bill improves certainty around nature protection. The engineering design process will help us deliver more homes and protect nature.

Since coming to this House, I have chosen to add a fourth C to my three Cs: the C of courage. What I saw in industry was a Government who did not have courage and that flip-flopped on their decisions, and that meant chaos. As has been said, we have inherited a system that fails to deliver the homes that we desperately need. That political courage to do difficult things, find compromise and drive forward is what the Bill represents, and I am proud to give my backing to my Government in pushing it through and ensuring that we deliver homes for people right across our country. \p John Milne: There has been great anxiety about the possible negative impacts on the environment of this legislation. Lords amendment 40 seeks to restore site specific protections for most cases where they do not involve wider issues, such as nutrient neutrality, but it has been opposed by the Government, as we have heard. Can we trust the Government to have their heart in the right place when it comes to nature versus development? We can pick up a big clue by looking at what has been happening in my constituency in West Sussex.

For the last four years, Horsham district has been contending with the complications of water neutrality, which is often wrongly confused with nutrient neutrality. It is something that applies only to my district and a couple of neighbouring areas. It concerns possible damage to a unique wetlands habitat on the River Arun, which is home to a rare species of snail and many birds. On a  precautionary basis, Natural England has required a halt to any new development that would increase demand on the water supply abstracted at nearby Hardham. Natural England was wrong to impose such a draconian limit. The “not one litre more” rule prevented small businesses from building even the smallest project, and that seriously damaged the local economy.

I do not have any confidence either in the abrupt lifting of all restrictions, as happened a fortnight ago. Southern Water promised to reduce its Hardham abstraction licence by a few million litres a day, but that will not make any difference, because it never used the whole allowance anyway—it was just a notional figure set many decades ago.

The immediate crisis for Horsham is how the changes affect planning and housing development. For the past four years, Horsham has been in the ludicrous position of having to obey two totally contradictory laws. One law says that we have to build circa 1,000 houses a year. The other law says that we cannot build any houses at all if they will use extra water. That is clearly quite a challenge. As a result, we have fallen from being an authority that exceeded our housing targets, even though they were very stiff, to being one of the worst performers in the country, with a land supply of less than one year. It is literally against the law for us to obey the law.

As a result, Horsham district council has been forced to accept a series of applications that contradict its local plan and that make complete nonsense of the strategic plan-led development that the Government always profess to support. Complications around water neutrality have prevented a new local plan from being passed, and that has prevented major new environmental provisions from coming into force.

This legal nonsense has done huge damage to Horsham district and is set to do even more. The sudden lifting of water neutrality today leaves us exposed to wholly unconstrained development, which will do major damage to our environmental ambitions. It is impossible to make meaningful plans for new schools, clinics and community services to support the enormous targets that we will be forced to build when speculative developments keep going through that have none of those attributes.

Do I trust the Government to have their heart in the right place when it comes to environmental protections? No, I do not. Do I believe that they are committed to plan-led development? No, I do not. The Government are content to see holes dug all across our beautiful Horsham countryside in the hope that it might dig the Chancellor out of her own personal fiscal black hole.

I therefore urge the Minister to support Lords amendment 40, and to consider how the legislation is affecting my constituency. I invite him to meet me and Horsham district council so that we can explain that what he is doing will not just sacrifice our local environment but make the delivery of affordable housing—my overall key ambition for Horsham—harder, not easier. \p Judith Cummins: I call John McDonnell. \p John Martin McDonnell: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for leaving the Chamber for a period. I had to chair a meeting upstairs that had been planned for a number of months.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) mentioned the 4 Cs. I will add a fifth: confidence. One problem that we have as a Government —on this issue and on a number of others—is that we need to instil confidence in the general population that not only are our objectives sound but the methods that we are about to use will be effective. I want to stick to the Bill, but let me use a general example. There has been a trend in Government over the past 17 months of policies being introduced that have not maintained the confidence of the general public or of a number of Members. Having destroyed that confidence, we have then gone through a process of reversing the policies and, as a result, not gaining any benefit from them. We just require a bit more political nous as we consider things, issue by issue.

In this field in particular, I do not think that we have taken people with us. What has undermined confidence for people like me is that when Members honestly expressed their views, concerns and expertise, and moved amendments, they lost the Whip. Then, at a later date—within weeks—the Government adopted those amendments as part of the process in the Lords. \p Matthew Pennycook: No, we did not. \p John Martin McDonnell: I am happy to take an intervention if the Minister so wishes. \p Matthew Pennycook: I am happy to intervene just to make clear that we did not adopt the amendments that were pressed on Report. There are very crucial differences between the package that we submitted and those amendments. \p John Martin McDonnell: The Government did not accept the amendments on Report, but the reality is that they had to negotiate with the other House and introduce amendments that were in the spirit of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff)—it is as simple as that. We need to be honest about that and admit when we make mistakes.

That is why I worry about this. If we introduce legislation of this sort, we need to take people with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South referred, in a derogatory tone, to the well-funded environmental groups. I have been working with those groups for nearly 50 years. I have never seen a breadth of unanimity across them on an issue such as this. Some of them cannot be described as anything other than mainstream. What they are asking for, in some of these amendments, is relatively limited, so it behoves us, as a listening Government, to go that one step further and see whether compromises can be reached. I congratulate the Government on doing that for clause 3, in which compromises have been reached. For some reason, however, people are digging their heels in, particularly in relation to Lords amendment 40.

Let me deal with Lords amendment 1 on national policy statements. As I said earlier, confidence must be built when dealing with huge developments. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has mentioned the third runway at Heathrow. The proposal to build a third runway will never have my constituents’ confidence because, as I said earlier, 15,000 of them will lose their homes, whole villages will be  wiped off the face of the earth, and 2 million more people in London will suffer from noise and air pollution —so we will not be able to convince them, to be honest. However, on more general topics, including major infrastructure projects, the role of Select Committees has been critical, as they are able to examine those issues in depth, have Ministers before them and present reports to the House, which we can debate.

In many instances, Select Committee reports and the work those Committees have done has been of such a quality that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) demonstrated in his description of the work his Select Committee does—they have influenced Government, enabled policies to be changed and, as a result, built up confidence in the general public. I am concerned about any lessening of the role of Select Committees in this whole process. The Minister has given us some assurances, and we will see how that works out in practice, but we interfere with that democratic process of this House at our peril when we are in government, because this is how mistakes get made.

With regard to the issue of EDPs, I cannot understand why a compromise cannot be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) said very clearly that we are talking about millions of people involved in the organisations that are supporting Lords amendment 40 and asking the Government to think again. There is an argument—and I accept it—that EDPs could be successfully applied to certain issues, but there is also a real scepticism about their use, particularly with regard to individual habitats and species. I do not want to get into dormice, to be honest; we have already had that debate.

I accept that argument, so I ask the Government to think again and see whether, in their discussions with the other House, they could reach a compromise where they accept that the EDP process can operate in relation to those matters set out in the amendment, but before we go any further, there is much more discussion, consultation and maybe research, because some of the research I have seen is quite challenging. We might then be able to move forward, but to try to bash this through now without that element of compromise will undermine what could be a very effective and successful piece of legislation.

I suppose what I am appealing for is just a bit of political nous. Do we have to go through another process where we bash something through, only to realise we have alienated so many people that we have to reverse it, and then people lose confidence in us because of that? I have been involved in so much legislation in this place, and it becomes boring after a bit. I can remember the mad dogs Bill, which went chasing through the House and was regretted within about three months. We are not in that situation here, but if we fail to even consider compromise, we can make bad legislation that we subsequently regret. That is all I am asking for.

If there is ping-pong—which there might well be, since the majorities in the other place were enormous on this amendment—it might give us the breathing space to get that compromise. It would be worth while the Minister bringing together some of the Members who have expressed their concerns, to have another discussion and consultation between the Bill going back  to the other place and returning here. I think something could be hammered out, and as a result of that, maybe we will avoid the mistakes we have seen over the last 17 months that have so damaged my own party and my own Government.

I will leave it at that. Maybe I am lost in appealing for rational and reasonable government, but I will continue to pursue that, as I have for the last three decades. \p Steffan Aquarone: I am pleased to speak today in full support of Lords amendments 38 and 40. I would also like to take the opportunity to press the Minister on the Government’s response in the other place to Lords amendment 32, which I will come to shortly.

First, on Lords amendment 40, I am pleased that the Lords altered the uses of environmental delivery plans to better protect species. North Norfolk is proudly biodiverse, and it must be protected. We should all see the shocking decline in our rare swallowtail butterflies—an icon of the Norfolk broads—as an indicator of the nature emergency we face. Protections for wildlife and biodiversity are crucial, and I hope the Government will retain this amendment.

On Lords amendment 38, I welcome the Minister’s statement of future intent, but I am nevertheless in full support of protecting North Norfolk’s chalk streams. I thank my local bishop, the Bishop of Norwich, for tabling that amendment in the other place and for his admirable support for and defence of chalk streams in Norfolk and across the country. He is a great champion for the environment and I thank him for it. Over the summer I went to Letheringsett in my constituency, with volunteers from the River Glaven Conservation Group. The Glaven is a much loved chalk stream locally, and one of many in North Norfolk that we hold dear. As one local councillor told me, in North Norfolk, “we cherish our chalkies.”

I saw the work undertaken to renew and revitalise the river and its floodplain, made as part of the Norfolk Wildlife Trust’s nine chalk rivers project. A 1.2 km man-made channel was dug to reconnect the river to its original path and restore its natural flow after years of human interference. A new wetland near Glandford ford has also been created, generating a vital new habitat for the native crayfish and water vole that can be found there. I also heard of the challenges, from construction silt run-off to sewage discharges. Allowing a unique and precious natural environment to be treated this way in recent years is nothing short of scandalous.

Sadly, this is the situation not only for the Glaven or even Norfolk’s chalk streams; we have heard shameful tales of those historic habitats across the country being trashed and abused by profiteering water companies, without a shred of care for the environment that they are damaging. That is why I believe that Lords amendment 38 is a perfectly sensible and much-needed addition to the Bill. Of course those of us with chalk streams in our local areas want spatial development strategies to take account of them and ensure their ongoing protection. I am yet to hear a convincing argument from the Government as to why this amendment is being so strongly opposed.

Clearly, the status quo is not working, and we cannot embark on a new age of development and infrastructure building without making sure that those aspects of our  environment that are already being failed are not damaged beyond saving. There has been a lot of talk in recent months about national pride and the St George’s cross. Well, I am proud that the St George’s cross flies over 85% of the world’s chalk streams. Out of only 200 in the world, the majority are right here in England. We are the custodians and guardians of the vast majority of this special habitat. We have to take that responsibility seriously, and Lords amendment 38 is an important step towards proving that we will.

I have been critical of much of what is included in the Bill, but almost equal amounts of criticism can be levelled against it because of what it lacks. Today we can plug one more gap in it by agreeing with the Lords in their amendment.

I said that I wanted to press the Minister on Lords amendment 32, which may have been unfortunately worded with a slightly predetermined outcome when it was tabled in the other place. In North Norfolk, we have real issues with water abstraction licences. Food processors and farmers need water, and attenuation is the answer. The current permitted development regulation is clearly not working. The Government responded in the other place by saying that they needed to look at PDRs and would return to them. I wonder if I can press the Minister to indicate a few more steps and some timelines. \p Matthew Pennycook: indicated dissent. \p Steffan Aquarone: I am getting an indication that he will not do so, which is a shame.

I support the development of more homes in North Norfolk; there are 2,400 households on our housing waiting list who demand that provision. I am delighted that new residents in Walcott and Bacton will be moving into dozens of new affordable homes in the coming months, supported by our Lib Dem-led council. I want everyone living in North Norfolk, though—in new homes or in old—to be able to cherish our ancient chalk streams for the decades and centuries to come, and I urge colleagues across the House to vote to protect them. \p Ruth Cadbury: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), a fellow Transport Committee member. We do not have any chalk streams running through Brentford and Isleworth, but we are beside the Thames, which I know is fed by many chalk streams. \p John Martin McDonnell: You’ve got a canal. \p Ruth Cadbury: We do have a canal. We also have the Thames, the River Crane and the Duke of Northumberland river, but I do not think any of them are chalk. The issues for chalk streams, particularly sewage going into them in Oxfordshire, causes us problems in the Thames as it goes past my constituency—I digress.

I welcome the many changes that the Government will make to the planning system as a result of the Bill, and I welcome the amendments that have been made during its passage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) said so eloquently, the most important thing about the Bill is that will it bring more homes. There is high demand for housing in  the borough of Hounslow; people desperately need adequate, affordable and good-quality housing but cannot get on to the housing ladder. Some people can afford to rent or buy privately, but I know from door-knocking that all the flats that have been built over the past 20 years are fully occupied.

West London is desperately short of housing, for those already living in the area who want to stay close to their family and for those who want to come to live in the area to take advantage of the many job opportunities in growth sectors. Sadly, some developments that have planning permission have not yet been built, partly because of changes to designs following Grenfell, and partly because other building regulation and industry changes. I hope that those developments get on stream very quickly.

I will focus on Lords amendment 1 to clause 2. In response to my intervention on the Minister earlier, he assured me that despite the significant changes and the new national policy statements, the existing process of parliamentary scrutiny—including a role for this Chamber and the Committees—will continue, and I thank him for that.

The new procedure introduced in clause 2 applies to amendments to national policy statements that reflect policy or legislative changes, or decisions that have been through the courts. The implication is that the provision will enable the quicker implementation of light-touch amendments—those involving less material changes—to national policy statements. That concerns some of us, as the Chair of the Liaison Committee has already covered so eloquently. Some of these changes could be very significant, and they deserve proper scrutiny. As Chair of the Transport Committee, I will come later to some examples specifically relating to transport.

The Government’s changes will give

“Parliament and the relevant select committee forewarning that Government intends to follow the reflective amendment procedure to update an NPS”.

The “reflective amendment procedure” is what I would call “the reduced procedure”, but we will get forewarning—great. The Government will also have to formally announce a review of an NPS by making a statement in Parliament—great. When there is a partial review, the Government will

“informally update the Liaison Committee and the relevant Select Committee”

by writing to the relevant Select Committee at the commencement of the public consultation period on proposed changes to an NPS.

In Committee, the Minister said that

“Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the relevant Select Committee during the consultation period, so far as is practical.”––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 105.]

It is the words “so far as is practical” that have concerned the Chairs of the Select Committees.

A letter received by the Liaison Committee also stated that if a Select Committee publishes a report on proposed NPS changes within the public consultation period, then the Government will take those views into account before the updated NPS is laid before Parliament and will seek to respond to the report around the time of laying the updated NPS “wherever feasible”.

When the Minister sums up, I hope he will clarify those two phrases: “so far as is practical”, in relation to the Minister coming to the Select Committee; and “wherever feasible”, in terms of the Government responding to the Committee’s report.

As I have just said, the reflective amendment process is expected to apply to changes to national policy statements that reflect legislative decisions, Government decisions, the publication of Government policy or changes to other documents referred to in the ANPS. I have a question, which I would really like to know the answer to: by what criteria will the new process be used, and who decides? When will the full-fat version, with the involvement of Parliament, be used?

Let me pick up some transport-specific examples; there are probably other examples in the fields of net zero, water and energy. Net zero has made a fundamental change for transport, and the UK’s commitment to net zero by 2050, as incorporated into legislation, has had a significant impact on a whole range of transport infra- structure. That is Government policy, so it is factored into all the last revisions of national policy statements. For instance, the Government policy on net zero, and therefore our legal commitments, have been adopted since the last airports national policy statement.

One could say that the significant capacity increases agreed at airports across the south-east would have a significant impact on any future debate and scrutiny in Parliament of the airports NPS. Let us remember that the airports NPS does not mean all airports; it means only runway three at Heathrow airport. When that NPS comes back through the process of parliamentary Committees, will the significant capacity increases in other airports in the south-east be considered, given the fact that this Parliament has adopted a net-zero policy since then? Will they consider those changes still to be determined under the lesser process or under the existing, full process?

There may be other changes, such as in the national networks strategy, which has also been impacted by net zero. The national networks strategy covers the strategic road network, railways and rail freight interchanges—for example, it governed the development consent order decision for the lower Thames crossing. Funnily enough, the national networks strategy touches on very little rail. Bizarrely, even under the existing process, the TransPennine route upgrade, which is very significant, does not meet the threshold to be a nationally significant infrastructure project, and most rail projects are consented under the Transport and Works Act 1992.

HS2 will definitely have been dealt with via the full-fat process, but what if there are changes to the route of HS2, some major element of an HS2 station and so on? That deserves full scrutiny by representatives in this Chamber. Unless we can have some further reassurances from the Minister, I am concerned that by rejecting Lords amendment 1, this place will in effect have less ability to scrutinise. \p Julia Buckley: My hon. Friend is making a really important point about the need to use these planning processes to align our transport infrastructure  plans and ensure that they align with our ambitions around housing developments. Nowhere is the lack of public transport infrastructure more important than in rural constituencies such as mine, where we have my thriving town of Shrewsbury. We have 65,000 residents, but we had no buses after 7 pm or on a Sunday, until now. Thanks to a pilot, we will now have a night bus for the month before Christmas that will run hourly between 8 pm and midnight, giving a boost to our local economy. Does she agree that we must not wait 10 years for such excellent news? We must plan ahead to align both our transport policies and our development plans. \p Ruth Cadbury: My hon. Friend is an amazing ambassador for Shrewsbury—I have learned so much about Shrewsbury since getting to know her. Although it is possibly beyond the scope of today’s debate, she is absolutely right about the need to align transport policies and networks with our wider growth and development aspirations. I know that the Government are listening, and are working hard on that very issue. The point about new towns is also a very good one, and it has been welcome to see a Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), sitting alongside the Housing and Planning Minister for quite a lot of this debate—it is a good sign that the important need to break down the silos that built up in Government over the past 15 years is being recognised. We on the Committee corridor really appreciate that.

The Transport Committee considered national networks in 2023, so we do not expect to see that national policy statement again until 2028—we will see what process is followed then, if indeed this change does go through. We published our view on the national policy statement on ports this morning, so it will be 2030 before that is due for revision again. As I said, airports is the only national policy statement that is specific to a particular development, and the Transport Committee expects to address it in the months ahead. Of course, we will be doing so following the Chancellor’s announcement that the Government wish to pursue the development of runway three.

Although we honour the power and role of the Government, I pick up on what the Minister said on Report when he was keen to assure us that the Government’s changes were

“not about eroding parliamentary scrutiny, but about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made”,

and that the Government

“recognise the value that such scrutiny brings to getting important changes right.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.]

Our constituents want to be assured that any changes that have a disproportionate impact on them will be properly scrutinised by this House. I am glad that the Minister has said that the Government will lay a statement in the House, write to the relevant Select Committee and make themselves available, but I want to pick up on the phrase “as far as is practicable”. It is good that he went on to say that

“the Government recognise the importance of Ministers attending Committee to explain the proposed changes”,

and that

“Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 757.],

but Parliament needs time, access to Ministers, and assurance that significant changes will be able to be properly and fully scrutinised. Where a proposed change is significant enough—where it is not a relatively minor change—we must be able to use the full process. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Minister to wind up. \p Matthew Pennycook: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. In opening the debate, I set out at some length the reasons why the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place. In the interests of time, I do not intend to reiterate at any great length the points I have made previously. I will instead focus my remarks on expanding the Government’s arguments in key respects, and on addressing any points raised in the debate that I did not cover in my opening remarks. \p Jeremy Wright: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially so early in his remarks. I apologise to him and to the House for not being here for his opening remarks, which he has just mentioned. In them, he talked a little about Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 31. I am grateful to him for the concession that the Government are making and for the moves they intend to make. However, can I make just two criticisms of Government amendments (a) and (b)? The first is very minor; Government amendment (a) refers to the

“Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2028”.

That should, of course, be 2018. I know that the Minister will be able to correct that error in due course.

The more substantive criticism is about data collection. The Minister will know that is the only substantive difference left between the Government’s proposal and the one that I made on Report in this place and that Lord Borwick made in the other place. When we seek to improve access for people with disabilities to charging infrastructure, we should be able to keep track of progress. If the Minister is not minded to do that in the context of this Bill, will he consider other ways in which we can be sure that progress is being made in the direction that he and I both want to see? \p Matthew Pennycook: I will of course pick up the drafting error that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has identified and rectify that. I am more than happy to take the data point away and reflect further. With the amendment in lieu that we have proposed, there is obviously a process around the regulations that come forward with further opportunities to feed in. I very much appreciate his recognition that the amendment in lieu goes a long way to addressing the points that he raised.

I will pick up a number of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate, starting with those relating to Lords amendment 1. For the purposes of clarity, I will lay out again the reassurances I have given to the House, both on Report and today. Where the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to a national policy statement, a statement will be laid in Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers  will make themselves available to speak at that Committee. On Report, I talked about that being wherever practicable to account for the usual scheduling challenges that all Ministers face, but I hope it is noted that I withdrew those comments. We expect Ministers to make themselves available to the relevant Committee in all instances, and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period.

Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days. That is 21 sitting days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change proposed through the reflective route should be enacted.

On who makes the decisions, it is the relevant Secretary of State who will decide whether a change falls into one of the four categories, but the categories are closely defined. They include: relevant published Government policy, a change to legislation and a decision of the court. The intent of the relevant clause is not to evade parliamentary scrutiny, but to address the fact that, on average, the Select Committee inquiry process adds around five months to the process of updating a national policy statement. That is as things stand. We want to ensure that Select Committees are engaged and that we have regular and timely updates. I can happily confirm, as I have made clear, that where a Select Committee returns recommendations during that consultation period, they will be taken into account. However, we need this change to make reflective amendments to the NPS to ensure that things can be kept up to date.

Airports are a good example of where a full NPS review would have to take place. That would not be allowed to take place through the reflective amendment process, and that is not the intention of the Secretary of State for Transport. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must lay the proposed amended national policy statement in full before Parliament and specify a relevant period. If within that relevant period, either House passes a resolution or a Committee makes recommendations on the proposed amendment, the Secretary of State must respond, and that response must be laid before Parliament. There are two different processes.

Turning to chalk streams, we have to be clear about the intent of Lords amendment 38. It is not a broad blanket statutory protection for chalk streams; it implies specific requirements on chalk streams in spatial development strategies brought forward by the relevant authorities. We think there are important practical reasons why those authorities are not the relevant bodies to bring such protections forward.

In his contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) referenced a number of cases where other legislation or other Government agencies are ultimately responsible for addressing some of the problems in question, not the spatial authorities that will bring forward SDSs. We therefore do not think that Lords amendment 38 is the right way to proceed. National policy is the way to proceed in the Government’s view. While I accept that chalk streams are not currently mentioned explicitly in national policy, the NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value, and local plans should:

“Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks”.

In addition, when determining planning applications local planning authorities should apply the principle that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, in the last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused. The application of these protections extends beyond strategic plans, to all types of plan and, crucially, to decisions on planning applications. As I said, the Government acknowledge the case for giving explicit recognition to chalk streams in national planning policy, although I cannot go further than the commitment I gave at the Dispatch Box today that we will lay out and consult on proposals to include that explicit recognition and in so doing make clear, unambiguously, our expectations for how plan makers and decision makers should treat chalk streams. That will be part of the consultation. \p Simon Hoare: The Minister knows that, across this House and the other place, there is wide recognition of how unique and precious our chalk streams are. He clearly recognises that, as well. Given their importance and the fact that most of them are in the UK, why have the Government not yet brought forward an amendment to reflect the cross-party concerns expressed in both Houses? I know him to be a serious and sincere man, but the Minister is, in effect, asking the House to rely on his good will to do something at some point, and we have no idea what it is. \p Matthew Pennycook: I think that is a slightly unfair précis of what I said. I take very seriously the commitments I make from this Dispatch Box. I have committed, in a consultation that will take place before the end of this year, to include in proposed changes to national planning policy explicit recognition of chalk streams and how they will be treated. The full details will be open to consultation. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. We could have a much wider debate about policy versus statute, but we think that in the planning system there are very good reasons to put things in policy, where they can be amended or updated if necessary, rather than in statute. Chalk streams are a good example of where that argument applies.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk made a compelling case for many of the things we are doing outside planning policy to safeguard chalk streams. There are mechanisms to deliver chalk stream conservation, including through our plans to reform the water industry, under which water companies plan to spend more than £2 billion over the next five years to develop targeted actions on chalk streams; through biodiversity net gain, which requires like-for-like compensation or enhancement where development impacts on these areas; and through the system we intend to introduce of environmental outcomes reports, which specifically reference these bodies of water. \p Kit Malthouse: I understand the undertaking the Minister is giving, but he will recognise that all of this is guidance; it does not preclude planning decisions that will impact on chalk streams. Given that he is set on his course, which we understand, and his appreciation of the fact that the amendment was proposed in the spirit of addressing the lack of any other sort of protection  for chalk streams, will he reassure us that the intention in the planning guidance is to give chalk streams the same sort of protection as was put in place for, for example, veteran trees, which are deemed to be irreplaceable? That is the highest level of protection in planning guidance—I think I introduced this as Planning Minister. In that way, only in very exceptional circumstances could permission be granted for development that would impinge on chalk streams. \p Matthew Pennycook: I cannot go beyond what I set out earlier. We will put the proposals out to full consultation before the end of the year. I will address the subject of irreplaceable habitats in this winding-up speech.

In his speech, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of other issues, including the absorption constraint dilemma, viability, housing delivery targets and local plans. Perhaps we should sit down outside the Chamber and have a coffee, as I think I would benefit from his insights, but I shall certainly give further thought to the many points he made.

On neighbourhood plans, they are not referenced in the Bill, other than in relation to an amendment we made specifically in connection with Ramsar sites. Again, I am more than happy to have a wider conversation with him about this Government’s view of the place of neighbourhood plans in the planning system.

On irreplaceable habitats, the national planning policy framework makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of such habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections continue to apply; nothing in the Bill bypasses them. Fundamentally, an EDP that would lead to irreversible harm to or the loss of an irreplaceable environmental feature could not be approved by a Secretary of State, as this would fail to secure overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant feature.

I want to briefly mention the mitigation hierarchy, which was raised by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when it develops an EDP. That is an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. The requirements for the environmental principles policy statement include the prevention and rectification-at-source principles, which are key to the mitigation hierarchy. The Secretary of State must have due regard to the EPPS when making policy, and will therefore do so when making an EDP. We recognise, however, that we need to provide further reassurance. On Third Reading in the other place, as the hon. Gentleman referenced, we amended the Bill to allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out how EDPs would prioritise addressing the negative effect of development, providing greater clarity about how the principles of the existing mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the new system.

I will briefly touch on two further issues. On Lords amendment 40, as I said, we do not believe there is any compelling case for limiting the application of EDPs just to the issues that are covered by the amendment: nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. I think the challenge made by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for  Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), was that applying EDPs to species will somehow cause harm. That is not the case.

Limiting the environmental impacts that can be covered is unnecessary because the overall improvement test that I have mentioned ensures that an EDP can be made only where it will have an overall positive impact on the environmental feature. I mentioned district-level licensing of great crested newts, which is an example of where a strategic approach can lead to better outcomes for nature, and that is the approach we are taking forward in this Bill.

Lastly, I must reference the constituency issue raised by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) regarding the Eskdalemuir seismic array. We recognise the interference that onshore wind turbines can cause to seismological monitoring stations and the subsequent safeguarding concerns that operators of seismological arrays can have. We are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to bring forward a resolution to this issue via the working group, which I know he is aware of. We are clear that the array is a key piece of defence infrastructure that is part of international monitoring networks, and that any updated approach to managing onshore wind deployment near the array will not compromise its detection capabilities.

Under a new proposed approach, the Ministry of Defence needs onshore wind proposals to submit specific information and comply with the seismic impact limit, and for determining authorities—the decision makers—to be bound not to approve applications if those limits are breached. I hope that provides the right hon. Gentleman with some further reassurance, but, again, I am more than happy to engage with him further.

To conclude, this Government were elected on a promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this landmark Bill, we will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. Let me bring the House back to what is at the heart of this Bill: we need new homes and we need new critical infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) made that point compellingly. The need for those across the country is pressing. This Bill needs to receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.

To that end, we have shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to compelling arguments, but we are not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles. I look forward to continuing constructive conversations with peers, alongside Baroness Taylor, to secure agreement across both Houses in the near future. I commend the Government’s position to the House.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 135.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 2. —(Matthew Pennycook.)

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 125.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 2.

Lords amendment 2, as amended, agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3.—(Matthew Pennycook.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 128.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 31 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 31. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 32.—(Matthew Pennycook.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 78.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 32 disagreed to. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. In an earlier Division, six Members behaved in the most disorderly fashion and pushed themselves past Doorkeepers. Those six Members have been identified, and I expect them to come and apologise to me before the evening is out, and to the Doorkeepers to whom they behaved in the most disrespectful way. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 33.—(Matthew Pennycook.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 128.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 33 disagreed to. \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. The Members who caused the earlier fracas have apologised to the Chair and the Doorkeepers, so that case is closed for now.

More than four hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme motion, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F). \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 37.—(Matthew Pennycook.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 129.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 37 disagreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 38.—(Matthew Pennycook.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 130.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 38 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 39.—(Matthew Pennycook.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 133.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 39 disagreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 40.—(Matthew Pennycook.) \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 132.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment 40 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 4 to 30, 34 to 36, and 41 to 117 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1, 3, 32, 33, and 37 to 40.

That Matthew Pennycook, Deirdre Costigan, Harpreet Uppal, Sean Woodcock, Kevin McKenna, David Simmonds and Gideon Amos be members of the Committee.

That Matthew Pennycook be the Chair of the Committee.

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.— (Gen Kitchen.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords. \p Nusrat Ghani: With the leave of the House, I will put motions 3 to 5 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (Permitted Disclosures) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 16 October, be approved.—(Gregor Poynton.)

Question agreed to. \p Nusrat Ghani: With the leave of the House, I will bundle together motions 6 to 10.

Ordered, \p UNKNOWN: That Jess Brown-Fuller be discharged from the Backbench Business Committee and Mr Lee Dillon be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Zöe Franklin be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Cameron Thomas be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Josh Babarinde be discharged from the Justice Committee and Vikki Slade be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Dr Al Pinkerton be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr Paul Kohler be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Tom Gordon be discharged from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and Freddie van Mierlo be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gregor Poynton.) \p David Davis: I start by welcoming the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to his place. We all know that Secretaries of State do not have to answer Adjournment debates. He and I will, of course, have robust differences of view on this, but no one can gainsay either his courtesy or his commitment to the task and so I thank him for being here.

In the coming weeks, we will be asked to consider legislation addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland. We must approach that with the real facts of what happened in Northern Ireland, not the misinformation peddled by the IRA and their sympathisers. We should also remember that the state has a moral obligation to protect brave soldiers who defended our freedoms in the most testing circumstances.

This is not simply a question of policy detail, but a question of principles: the principle that we do not abandon those who acted under our lawful instruction; the principle that we do not risk weakening the effectiveness of our armed forces; and the principle that we do not bend to the demands of terrorists or, indeed, their modern sympathisers. I am afraid that the Government’s proposed legislation does little to show any willingness to defend those principles, to which I will return shortly.

In the Westminster Hall debate in July, we heard Labour MPs—Government-supporting MPs—argue:

“The only thing that grants immunity to former members of the IRA is the Northern Ireland legacy Act as it stands.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2025; Vol. 771, c. 7WH.]

That is, the Conservative Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. That is plain wrong. The truth is that there has long been a de facto amnesty for crimes committed during the troubles.

Blair’s Government created the Good Friday agreement. It is an agreement that, for the purpose of achieving peace—a good aim—drew a line under the atrocities that had been committed without resolving the complex issues of accountability. The Good Friday agreement contained a provision for early release of convicted prisoners. Four hundred and eighty-three terrorists were released from prison early—effectively pardoned—of which 143 had been sentenced to serve life sentences, and they inevitably included many killers. At least 16 terrorists were granted the royal prerogative of mercy—also effectively a pardon. They included hardened terrorists, guilty of extreme violence, such as Gerry Kelly, convicted for the Old Bailey bombings, which killed one person and injured over 200; the three IRA terrorists who murdered SAS Captain Herbert Westmacott; and Fergal Toal, who held down his victim’s arms while two of the victim’s fingers were hacked off with a hammer and chisel. They all received the royal prerogative of mercy.

It was also the Blair Government who authorised the so-called on-the-run administrative scheme—that is its formal title—and the letters of comfort that accompanied it. It was a secret scheme that only came to light properly in 2014, years after terrorists had received their letters. It was kept secret precisely because it was so spectacularly controversial, and was done in response to Gerry Adams saying, “it would be better if there was  an invisible process for dealing with OTRs.” The name speaks for itself: those people were on the run from the law.

It was an administrative scheme precisely because attempts to legislate for it were dropped when Sinn Féin opposed them on the grounds that it would have protected soldiers too. Those were their explicit grounds. Of course, there was no risk for them in opposing it; they already had their letters, they already had their de facto immunity. The Government are coy about the exact numbers, but at least 156 people received an individual letter of comfort and many others were listed in Government communications as “not wanted” by the authorities.

Again, we are talking about vicious murderers. Ninety-five of those in receipt of letters of comfort were involved in 295 murder investigations—295 murders. The letters were clear. I quote from the first letter of comfort issued:

“You would not…face prosecution for any such offence should you return to the United Kingdom.”

Those were letters given to murderers.

The Government will, of course, retreat to the refuge of legal technicality. They will tell us that these letters were not, strictly speaking, an amnesty, as they left open the possibility of charges for crimes not yet discovered—as does any amnesty. The Government are hiding behind legalistic language. These letters absolutely did stop prosecutions for terrorist atrocities. \p Mark Francois: John Downey. \p David Davis: My right hon. Friend on the Front Bench mentions the name John Downey. In 2014, John Downey faced prosecution for the Hyde Park bombing. He produced his letter of comfort and his trial collapsed. What the judge said at the trial is important.

He stated there is a

“public interest in holding officials of the state to promises they have made in full understanding of what is involved in the bargain.”

He could not be clearer. He concludes that

“it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the defendant.”

It should not have even been brought to trial. In other words, the judge was recognising a de facto amnesty. It was only at the collapse of Downey’s trial that the existence of the administrative scheme became public knowledge.

The Secretary of State will respond with great charm and say, “Ah, but Mr Downey is now facing prosecution.” That is what he will say. \p Hilary Benn: He is. \p David Davis: I am right—one of my predictions has come right any way. But that prosecution is for alleged involvement in the murder of two Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers in 1972, not his involvement in the Hyde Park bombing, in which he was ruled, by the way, to have been an “active participant” in a civil case, so we know that background. For those 1972 murders, it has been six years since charges were brought, and little or no progress has been made since then.

The Government—quite properly—make much of the rights of victims, as do I. That has been part of my life in Parliament. But what of the rights of Squadron Quartermaster Corporal Roy Bright, Lieutenant Dennis Daly, Trooper Simon Tipper and Lance Corporal Jeffrey Young? All were killed in the Hyde Park bombing. All had their rights explicitly destroyed.

Let us be frank about the collective effect of those Blair-era concessions: 483 terrorists released from prison early, at least 16 granted mercy—granted effective pardons—and at least 156 letters of comfort. Taken together, that is at least 655 people given some form of legal or administrative protection. I say again that it is “at least” 655 because, frankly, successive Governments have been deliberately obtuse in how they publish those numbers. I suspect the number is significantly higher, but 655 is what we know.

Yet one of the primary defences of the Government’s new legislation put up by Government MPs in that Westminster Hall debate was that the “only thing” granting immunity to former members of the IRA is the previous Government’s Northern Ireland legacy Act. It is just ridiculous. Terrorists killed over 3,000 people during the troubles. As far as the House of Commons Library can establish, there were no convictions for troubles-era violent offences after the Good Friday agreement during the entire period of the Blair Government. That is what they tell me—none. I could not find any either.

The vast majority of those 3,000 troubles-era killings remain unresolved, with no one having faced justice. Since those so-called “non-amnesties”, very few people have been convicted. Again, the Secretary of State said in the Westminster Hall debate that five convictions have been obtained for terrorist-related offences connected to the troubles since 2012—presumably under the Conservative or coalition Governments of that time. He did not name the cases, and I would like to see the details of those cases published so we can actually understand what has happened here. Are these dissident republicans? Are they loyalists? What are they? That is just so we know what has actually happened here. In any case, there have been five convictions for 3,000 killings, and the Government are trying to maintain that there is no amnesty—really?

To ensure that no prosecutions could effectively be brought against the IRA, the Blair Government also agreed during the Good Friday agreement that none of the decommissioned IRA weapons could ever be used as forensic evidence in any future trial. Of course, there are not many witnesses in a trial about Northern Ireland terrorism—that is a fast way to the grave—so forensic evidence is critical, and it was all ruled out of order.

For those few successful convictions since 1998 that the Secretary of State referred to, what is their punishment? It is limited to two years because of the Blair-era Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998—two years for mass murder? Instead of seeing terrorists face justice, we see veterans being hauled before inquests decades after the fact. \p Julian Lewis: May I take this opportunity to point out something that the Defence Committee discovered in its investigation of these matters in 2016 to 2017? The maximum of two years actually spent in jail, no matter how horrendous or multiple the murders, also applies to British service personnel. The  argument is put forward that victims wish to see justice attributed and punishment given out, but everybody involved in the killings receives a disproportionately light sentence, so there is no justice of a retributive sort in any case. \p David Davis: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I had forgotten about that report, but I did see it when the Committee published it under his chairmanship.

Instead of seeing terrorists facing justice, we see veterans being hauled before inquests, decades after the fact. That is a problem in part because inquests in Northern Ireland differ in two critical respects from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The first difference arises from a deliberate decision taken by the Blair Government. Article 3 of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 changed the definition of “victim”. It ruled anyone affected by the troubles—through loss, trauma, or injury—would be classed as a victim. That means that a proven murderer killed in an attempt to carry out another murder is still classified as a victim. I know of nowhere else in the world where the law treats killers as victims.

That is still relevant. In September, the Democratic Unionist party—sadly none of its Members are present—used a motion in the Northern Ireland Assembly to try to restore some moral clarity by adding the word “innocent” before “victims”. What did Sinn Féin do? It opposed the motion and removed the word “innocent” from before “victims”. Why? Because the word “innocent” exposes the truth; it draws a line between terrorists and their victims. “Veterans” and “victims” are not mutually exclusive terms; “terrorists” and “victims” are.

Let us understand who these so-called victims are. At Loughgall—the greatest single defeat of the IRA by the SAS—eight heavily armed IRA murderers were stopped on their way to kill again. They and their weapons were implicated in at least 40 previous murders—and possibly more than 200, but it is very hard to pin that number down. Yet because of the Government’s proposals, and the Secretary of State’s promise to the sister of one of those IRA murderers, the soldiers who stopped them face being hauled before the courts, 30 years on, over an operation that prevented further bloodshed of innocent Northern Ireland citizens. The 2006 Order means that those dead terrorists are deemed to be victims.

And what do veterans face? A one-sided inquest, weaponised by Sinn Féin in its attempt to rewrite history. Veterans—many of whom are in their advancing years—are dragged to the witness box. They are made to sit opposite the families of IRA killers—men who died while attempting to maim and kill the innocent. The atmosphere is not one of an impartial inquiry.

I have spoken to a number of veterans, including one in particular who voluntarily attended the Coagh inquest to give evidence. He could not answer some factual questions—he did not know the answers—so the coroner put to him a hypothetical question to get him to answer a hypothetical version of the truth. The veteran declined, quite reasonably, to answer hypotheticals—that was not why he was there. In response, the coroner got “very cross”—the veteran’s words—raised his voice and threatened the veteran with contempt of court. The man was, at that point, a voluntary witness—not any more. He was so disgusted by the process that he will now only give evidence under subpoena; he will not volunteer again.

In mainland Britain, inquests exist to establish the facts, and at the first suspicion of unlawful killing, they are required to stop and pass the evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions. In Northern Ireland, inquests have all too often sought to assign blame—all funded by a legal aid machine putting huge unjustified costs on the taxpayer. Just last month, a judicial review against a soldier who shot one of the terrorists at Coagh was robustly dismissed by the judge, who noted the

“ludicrous nature of this challenge, funded as it is by legal aid.”

I have never heard a judge be so critical of the award of legal aid, but plainly he thought this was ridiculous—ludicrous, in his words.

Under the Government’s new legacy proposals, our veterans will remain subjects of suspicion and victims of this vexatious lawfare machine. \p Sarah Pochin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the coroner’s court exists to appease the republicans and that all applications should go through the legacy commission? \p David Davis: I agree with the hon. Lady’s conclusion, and I happen to agree, as I will come back to in a moment, with the republicans’ view of the coroner’s inquiry process.

It comes back to the issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) raised as to what the punishment was. For a decent, ordinary, law-abiding soldier, the punishment is in the process—being dragged back, having this hanging over them for decades, the uncertainty they face, the sleepless nights and the stress it brings to them and their wives and children, who are worried in their own right and worried about their husband or father. That, I am afraid, is what the IRA and their sympathisers want. It is one of the reasons the IRA consider the very fact of Loughgall being referred to an inquest as a victory. They see that as a victory—that and the fact that it allows them another chance to rewrite history, to fit their own bogus claims.

That is why, in a letter on Remembrance Day that has been repeated in this Chamber a number of times, nine four-star generals wrote:

“By extending the same protections to those who enforced the law and those who defied it, the bill becomes morally incoherent. It treats those who upheld the peace and those who bombed and murdered…as equivalent actors in a shared tragedy.”

They go on to highlight the immediate effect, because we must bear in mind that this is having an effect right now on our serving armed forces. They said:

“highly trained members of special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant; it is a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust.”

I can attest to the fact that that is true. These are the reasons that our veterans hate this new legislation and view it as grotesquely unfair.

It also raises the question of who the Government are trying to appease. When the Government announced the policy, it was done not in this House—I think it was on a Friday—but in a joint statement alongside the Irish Tánaiste. The Irish Government are being treated as an independent party to these troubles and brought  into the reformed legacy commission established by the new Bill as a party that is assumed to be acting in good faith. Well, I am afraid that is not true. There is overwhelming evidence showing the Republic providing sanctuary to IRA terrorists during the troubles. As the Kingsmill—a terrible tragedy—inquest confirmed, terrorists exploited the porous border ruthlessly. The IRA committed acts of terror in the north and used the Republic as their shield—a base for planning, training, storing weapons and, of course, sanctuary; violence in the north, sanctuary in the south.

Consider the brutal murder of Corporal James Elliott in 1972. IRA members abducted him at the border, dragged him into the Republic, tortured him for two days—two days—and shot him dead. They sent his body back across the border, booby-trapped with 500 lb of explosives and six claymores. What did the authorities in the Republic do? They charged two individuals not with murder, but with possessing explosives.

When SAS Captain Herbert Westmacott was murdered, the killers escaped jail before they could be sentenced. Where did they flee? Straight across the border, aided by their comrades. If hon. Members need a third example, they should look at the Omagh bombing, which was carried out after the Good Friday agreement had been signed. That bombing, which injured more than 200 people and tragically killed 29 innocent civilians, one of whom was pregnant with twins, was both planned and launched from the Republic. Despite this, and notwithstanding the call from a Belfast High Court judge for an investigation on both sides of the border, the Irish Government refused to authorise a separate, parallel inquiry. The pattern is unmistakable, and in some cases, agencies of the Irish Government crossed the line from passive antagonism into active complicity.

Former IRA intelligence officer, Kieran Conway, has admitted how leading members of the IRA were tipped off before Garda raids by Garda special branch. That was more than turning a blind eye; it was agencies of the Irish state actively participating in the subversion of justice. There are countless incidents laid bare before us, each one making this point plain. The most horrible one in my mind is from 1989, when two senior Northern Ireland policemen, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, were shot dead in an ambush as they crossed back into Northern Ireland. After almost eight years of detailed investigations, the Smithwick Tribunal determined that the Irish police colluded with the IRA in organising that attack.

Between 1973 and 1999, the Republic of Ireland turned down 102 extradition requests, choosing to view murders in the north as political acts. The Irish state is not a neutral bystander. It was not some impartial observer. It was, in practice, a partisan actor—an actor that for more than 30 years has deliberately turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the IRA. For years, our armed forces have properly faced scrutiny for their actions during the troubles. We have answered that scrutiny with honesty— never to erase the truth, but to confront it. Yet we hear nothing of the de facto amnesties given to terrorists and murderers, nothing of the collusion that allowed that terror to take root, and nothing from the Government about preventing the vexatious pursuit of our soldiers, who are guilty of nothing but bravely serving their country during the dark days of the troubles. Instead, all we see are relentless attacks on those  soldiers, with doubt introduced about the legitimacy of their actions, and the weaponisation of the entire legal process.

We had a warning of that in a letter on Remembrance Day, when those generals wrote in The Times of the damaging effects of lawfare, and specifically the risk posed by the Government’s legacy proposals. They said that,

“the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and the legal activism surrounding it, risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces on which this nation depends. Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither…This lawfare is a direct threat to national security.”

The Government would do well to heed those warnings. Failure to do so brings injustice for those who served our country with honour, and threatens the future effectiveness of our armed forces. Every would-be enemy of the United Kingdom is watching how we handle this matter, and looking at plans for retaliation in our law courts as a way to avenge their defeat on the battlefields. As the generals warn in their letter:

“make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.” \p Nusrat Ghani: Before I call the Secretary of State, let me give a short reminder that we should not mention or repeat the names of individuals that are subject to proceedings. \p Hilary Benn: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) on having secured this debate. The legacy of the troubles cast a long, dark shadow over the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom, including on some of those the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and there are many, many others among the 3,500 or so who lost their lives. I would just say to Conservative Members that it is really important that in these debates we acknowledge all of those affected, not just some, even though some are, of course, extremely important. At some point, Conservative Members will need to acknowledge that the last Government’s Legacy Act had no support in Northern Ireland. If we are to move legacy on, there needs to be support for the legislation, and that is why the Government are seeking to change it.

The Government, of course, take the concerns of veterans very seriously. Our commitment to Operation Banner veterans is unshakeable. The Troubles Bill, which we will debate next week, will put in place the strongest possible protections for them, none of which were in the last Government’s Legacy Act.

The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington talked a lot about prosecutions. As he knows full well, decisions on prosecutions are taken independently by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, and nothing that this Government are doing will change that at all. The system will be exactly as it has been for the past 27 and a half years, since the Good Friday agreement. On Loughgall, the reason there is going to be another inquest is because 10 years ago the Conservative Attorney General ordered that the Loughgall inquest take place—that is a fact.

Since nothing has changed in the past 27 years, why do we not look at some facts about prosecutions? Since 2012, there have been 25 decisions to prosecute individuals for troubles-related offences. Six of those have resulted in convictions: three were republicans, two were loyalists and one was military, with the soldier in question receiving a suspended sentence. If we look at the current, live cases that are before the courts, six are republicans, one is loyalist, one is a former member of the police and one is in the military category. What do the facts show? The vast majority of prosecutions are against former paramilitaries.

At one point in his speech the right hon. Gentleman suggested that there had been five or so prosecutions for all the deaths, but in saying that he ignores the very, very large number of paramilitaries who were sent to prison during the troubles, including many of them for murder. That was a very large number compared with the numbers of military prosecuted, as he well knows.

On the subject of immunity, of course I noticed the letter that was published in The Times. When I said repeatedly that the current Legacy Act would have granted immunity to terrorists, I heard Conservative Members saying from a sedentary position, “Well, that is not true”, so let me quote from clause 19 of the Legacy Act. It says:

“The ICRIR must grant a person immunity from prosecution”

if certain conditions are met, including that the person has asked for immunity from prosecution, that the information describes conduct that formed part of the troubles and is to the best of the person’s knowledge true, and that the commission is satisfied that the conduct would have exposed the person to a criminal investigations. Shouting, “That is not true”, when it is true—[Interruption.] One of the reasons why the Legacy Act had no support in Northern Ireland is because the families of all those who saw their loved ones killed did not want their killers to be granted immunity. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows—

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).