Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects: Suffolk Coast

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, and I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.

As I said, the multiple NSIPs in Suffolk Coastal are within just a 10-mile radius. They are being planned in an area of the country that is mostly served by B roads and country lanes. It seems remarkable that developers are being allowed to bring forward these proposals on some of England’s most important nature sites, when offshore alternatives could easily have been considered. I will focus in this debate on how Suffolk Coastal is being let down and why I am asking the Government to work with me to require the developers to look again at their plans and improve their proposals to minimise disruption to both people and the environment.

As the Minister will know, the previous Government totally vacated the leadership space when it came to our country’s energy and biodiversity planning, and the void was filled by energy developers. They decided to take the lead and were left to make proposals for totally unsuitable landscapes, all because it was cheaper than developing brownfield sites. What we have been left with is a series of unco-ordinated whack-a-mole projects on the Suffolk coast. We have an opportunity under the new Government to provide greater planning and leadership on these critical infrastructure challenges.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Having worked in the energy industry, I continue to be a strong proponent of local area energy plans, because they would empower communities to make decisions about their own energy needs and how much energy they want to export. At the moment the process feels very reactive and is based on private and landowner interests, as opposed to empowering communities across a local authority area to make decisions. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to have energy planning on a statutory footing across every local authority in the country?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I know that my hon. Friend has been passionate about this since his arrival in this place last year. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that point, but yes, I do agree; in fact, I will come on to some of those themes later.

There is an opportunity to set up an overarching body to ensure that the many competing schemes, whether already consented, within the development consent order process or in the pipeline, are properly co-ordinated. The body could be departmental or independent from the Government, but it would operate under the direction of the Secretary of State. Although the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consulted on the concept of a future systems operator for electricity, that does not go far enough or quickly enough. There needs to be oversight of the cumulative impact of all NSIP schemes in an area. The failings that arise in the absence of such oversight are evident in many areas of my constituency, but are perhaps best highlighted by the case of Boden Farms.

Boden Farms was subject to compulsory purchase of land to accommodate Sizewell C’s development phase, and work has begun on a new relief road on the farm’s former land. The farmer has been told by National Grid Ventures that it, too, will need to access his land in order to lay cables for LionLink. It cannot tell him where, when or if it will be made subject to a compulsory purchase order, but it can tell him that in a year or maybe two it will be digging up the very same land that is being worked on right now by Sizewell C, including, most likely, parts of the new relief road that is being built as we speak.

I am very concerned by reports that the only plans LionLink has ever received for the link road are the ones the landowner provided himself. Surely, that cannot be right, but it is not a one-off; this story is repeated across my constituency, in every parish where lines are being laid or work is being planned. That is in no one’s interest—not the community’s, not nature’s and not even the developer’s—so I tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have made it a legal requirement for energy developers to co-ordinate their work.

Farmers from Woodbridge to Leiston, and parishes from Friston to Walberswick and Yoxford to Peasenhall, all ask the same thing: why are these projects popping up with no co-ordination, and why is there no legal requirement for them to work together? It is our communities and our environment that have to endure the cumulative impact of all this.

Developers are also failing to put proper mitigations in place or to listen to the concerns of local residents, which is having a real impact. Farmers have told me of issues engaging with energy developers when they have raised objections to cables being buried to a depth of less than 1.8 metres on their land, in breach of electrical safety guidance, leaving them unable to use the land for arable farming. Energy developers have been unwilling to engage, which means that land risks being taken out of arable food production permanently. In laying any cables on active agricultural land, developers should guarantee that arable farmland will be safeguarded for future farming use, and I tabled another amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would have made it a legal requirement for energy developers to lay cables to a minimum depth of 1.8 metres.

The depth of cables is an issue not just for farmers, but for offshore shipping. Members will appreciate that I have shipping lanes off the coast of my constituency, and the Harwich Haven Authority has told me that it is concerned that energy developers must do more to engage with it to ensure that cables are buried at a sufficient depth that projects do not compromise navigational safety. The Sunk area around Harwich Haven is a vital and highly complex shipping zone. Any offshore developments must be planned with strict adherence to safety requirements.

The UK has let developers lead the conversation and the strategy. We have ended up with a mismatch of proposals, in the wrong place, with no co-ordination and no desire to think of better alternatives. Other countries are stealing a march. Holistic network design criteria are adopted and adhered to in North sea countries including Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. As a result, they choose brownfield sites at the outset for their energy infrastructure hubs and, in doing so, manage to avoid adverse impacts on communities and ecologies.

Places such as Zeebrugge and Rotterdam industrial zones are chosen for building substations, with space to build future projects, including hydrogen storage. Those projects are co-ordinated in order to minimise needless damage, maximise efficiencies and move at pace. For the same reasons, energy developers in the UK should be required to pursue as a first option brownfield hubs where multiple projects can co-exist without any adverse impact on nature.

We need to create a legal duty for developers working in the same area to exchange information, seek opportunities for shared infrastructure, reduce cumulative impact and align timelines. A framework of co-ordination, co-design, community benefit and compensation would mean that communities, town and parish councils and the Government could see the whole picture, not just the smallest of fragments. So many of my constituents are devastated by the cumulative impact that these energy projects within a 10-mile radius are having on nature, and no one organisation has ever looked at it.

We can get this right. If we do, we can deliver on our climate ambitions and protect nature at the same time, but it will require greater leadership, oversight and scrutiny, and greater emphasis on making sure that we co-ordinate, plan and implement a clean, green energy revolution that is strategic and not just whack-a-mole. It must be rooted in knowing the land and the geography, and not in the whims of the developer. Getting this right now will mean better protections for our natural environment, better safeguards for our local communities and a lasting legacy for the next generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)]

Thank you, Sir John, for recognising that my role is exactly the same and yet somehow changed in title. I am grateful still to be the Energy Minister, because, as I often say in this place, the debates that we have are always hugely interesting and bring in so many different aspects of how we plan our future energy system. Indeed, you and I, Sir John, have had many conversations about this particular issue.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this debate and for her contribution. She and I have had a number of conversations about this issue. Let me say at the outset that I actually agree with her on the need for better co-ordination—I have said that many times here and to her personally. I think it is a source of deep regret for all of us—I think the previous Government will look back on this as well—that we did not more properly co-ordinate what has been a huge build-out of new, important infrastructure.

As my hon. Friend said, the previous Government vacated the space of leadership in planning the future of our energy system. That was not because it was an impossible task; I can only assume it was because they thought it was too difficult to do. We have grasped that task in the 14 months that we have been in office. I will talk a bit more about that later.

I want to start with a bit of context, which is important. My hon. Friend also mentioned this point. We are committed as a Government to building things in this country again. For far too long, under both Labour and Conservative Governments, we have held back a lot of critical infrastructure. The plan for delivering economic growth across the country does require us to build infrastructure. Energy infrastructure is going to be absolutely key, not least because even if we were not on the journey to clean power, which is critical, we would still be having to upgrade much of the energy infrastructure, particularly the transmission network, which has been so under-invested in over the past 50 or 60 years.

Our mission as a Government is to move towards clean power, making sure that we deliver our energy security; and every wind turbine, solar panel and nuclear power station that we build protects us from future energy shocks and delivers our energy security here at home. So, it is a critical mission.

New energy infrastructure—indeed, new infrastructure of any kind—is always controversial in some circumstances; there are always impacts and there are always differing views about whether it should be built or not. That is why we have a planning system that seeks to balance the pros and cons of applications against a framework that sets out, as a country, that we have to build things somewhere. So, the planning system is there to make sure that the planning process is rigorous and open, but ultimately so that we make decisions and build things.

For obvious reasons, I will not comment on individual planning applications; they will be decided in due course in the usual way. However, I will make a fundamental point about why we are on this journey and why we think that building this infrastructure is so important. The reason is that the only way to reduce our exposure to the volatility of fossil fuels is to build a new clean power system. That means new nuclear, renewables and storage working together to bring down bills and tackle the climate crisis.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal is aware of the NSIP regime, but for the purposes of the hordes of people that I am sure are watching this debate at home, let me say a little about it. The “nationally significant” in NSIP—nationally significant infrastructure project—is really important for us to recognise. The reason we have an NSIP process is that some decisions have to be made that local communities might not be able to make in isolation because they are of critical national importance, whether that is in transport, water or energy projects. It is important that we have this process and it is a robust process, involving the Planning Inspectorate, and various statutory bodies such as national environment bodies. Projects are judged on a case-by-case basis, weighed against the local impacts, be they environmental, economic or social. The need for this process is set out for all to see in local and national planning policy, and of course national policy statements are scrutinised by this place before being agreed.

When an applicant submits an application for a development consent order or DCO, the Planning Inspectorate, particularly for energy NSIPs, will appoint an independent inspector to examine the application. A recommendation will be made to the Secretary of State about whether permission should be given and the Secretary of State makes the final decision; that decision might be made by a junior Minister on their behalf, but the law states that the decision is still in the name of the Secretary of State. Such applications are considered against the relevant national policy statements as approved by Parliament, which make the case for infrastructure and all the various considerations that have to be made.

Cumulative impact is an issue that my hon. Friend raised with me today, and that a number of hon. Friends have raised with me previously. I know that it is a particular concern. Projects must consider their cumulative impact as part of their applications. Also, the local authority that hosts the infrastructure and surrounding local authorities—given that often these projects are on the borders with other local authorities—are invited to submit impact reports as part of the process, to ensure that the potential impacts of an individual project are taken into account, based on local knowledge.

Of course, there are also opportunities for local communities to have a say. Members of the public can get involved not just in the planning application itself, but in the pre-consultation process and in the discussions before applications emerge. They can also register through the Planning Inspectorate during the pre-examination phase.

On planning reform, we are mindful as a Government that the planning process can take much longer than we think it should. Let me say at the outset that that is not about trying to get to the decision that one particular group might want; it is about getting to any kind of decision much faster, so that instead of projects and communities being held up for year after year, with people not knowing whether something will proceed or not, decisions are made.

The average time to secure development consent for NSIPs has increased from 2.6 years in 2012 to 3.6 years in 2024. Such delays cost a vast amount of money—£1.5 million a month for some large projects—and that of course impacts taxpayers and bill payers, who foot the bill for these projects.

There is always a balance to be struck, as we have said throughout the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Of course we want communities to have a say and we want the process to be as robust as possible, but we need to get decisions and end the uncertainty as quickly as possible, and the Bill will be key to improving the process. Our reforms are about trying to make sure that the system is flexible, proportionate and responsive to Government priorities. The Government must deliver the change on which we were elected; in the energy space, that means building the clean power system of the future. The planning system should reflect the priorities of the democratically elected Government of the day.

Public engagement is key to this process. We want communities to participate in the planning system, but as I will come back to in a moment when I talk about strategic planning, we also want communities to have a say much earlier in the process. It is not just about individual applications, but about the whole question of infrastructure in communities more generally. We are consulting on further proposals to streamline the NSIP process, including for new guidance on engagement following proposals in the Bill to remove statutory pre-application consultation requirements, and we encourage feedback from communities. We are also keen to hear views on the practical next steps and on how the system will actually work. I understand that the consultation is now open and will close at the end of October.

On the siting of energy projects, I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be much more strategic as a country in considering what the future of our energy system should look like, and in planning holistically what infrastructure should be built and where. She made a powerful point about the sheer amount in her part of the country. Had we been strategically planning a decade or so ago, we might have avoided some of those planning decisions, so it is important that we take this step. I regret the fact that we have not done so for the past few decades, but we are moving forward with a strategic view as quickly as possible.

The problem with being the Minister for Energy Security is that we are not short of acronyms—let me just go through some of them. The strategic spatial energy plan, or SSEP, and the centralised strategic network plan, or CSNP, are two crucial parts of how we will provide a holistic design much more carefully. The strategic spatial energy plan is about looking at the whole of Great Britain and how we map out the future of our energy system, and it will be published by the end of 2026—there is work going on at the moment. The centralised strategic network plan will follow, so that we can work out what infrastructure we need on the grid in order to meet the strategic spatial energy plan, and it will be published by the end of 2027.

This is about taking a much more active planning role in the future of energy right across England, Scotland and Wales, both inland and at sea. My hon. Friend rightly brings both of those things from her constituency into this discussion. It will be about assessing the optimal locations for things and the type of energy infrastructure that we need in the future. We must look beyond a developer’s five or 10-year plan and ensure that we meet future energy demand, knowing that it will significantly increase in the years ahead.

The centralised strategic network plan will build on the SSEP by ensuring that our transmission infrastructure meets the need and, crucially, is co-ordinated. My hon. Friend made that point very powerfully, and I was in Denmark last week to talk about this very question with EU Energy Ministers. The North sea is already congested with a lot of infrastructure, and the only way we will effectively plan the future of the North sea— for a whole range of uses, from fishing and energy to carbon capture and storage—is by working together. We will be part of much more co-ordination on the infrastructure in the North sea.

It all feeds into my hon. Friend’s point: we will only get this right by having a holistic view and enabling the efficient and co-ordinated use of infrastructure. That is better for communities affected by this issue directly, but we can also bring down the cost of building infrastructure if we plan it more coherently. That will benefit every person right across the country.

[James Naish]

The Minister describes something that I am extremely passionate about, as he knows, but it is a very top-down approach. I wonder whether we simultaneously need a bottom-up approach that engages with communities via local authorities in order to look at what land is available and how it could be used. Is that not something that we could do side by side with the vital strategic approach that he describes?

[Michael Shanks]

My hon. Friend foresees what I was going to say. I was just about to come on to his earlier intervention, which was really important. He is right about the need for infrastructure plans to be generated by communities and bottom-up. We need to take a national view of the future of the energy system as well, but I think both can work together.

The third great part of this planning is the regional energy plans. We also see a place, on a very localised level, for the local energy plans that many local authorities and combined mayoral authorities are working on, but the regional plans break up the whole of Great Britain into smaller areas so that we can look in detail at what energy can be sited in different areas, and crucially, at how the two kinds of plan can work together—the Government’s land use framework for the future use of land in the country alongside the capability and interest from communities to host infrastructure as well. I hope that we are doing that, but my hon. Friend should continue to bring that challenge to the Government, because it is something that we are committed to doing. I am confident that he will do so, which is great.

Let me finish on a point around the impact on communities. We do not want to get to a place where the future energy system is something that is done to communities, and we recognise that the failure of strategic planning across the country has meant that that is all too often what it has felt like for communities. We have a role to play in ensuring that, where communities do host important energy infrastructure, they benefit from it. Hosting such infrastructure benefits the whole country—without a resilient energy system, we all lose out, and we will not deliver the economic growth that we need—but the communities that host this infrastructure should feel a benefit from doing so.

That is why, in March, we announced two community benefit initiatives, guidance on community funds for communities that host this key infrastructure, and a bill discount scheme for households that are sited in proximity to new transmission infrastructure. The guidance sets out our expectations for how communities hosting that infrastructure should benefit. We will have more to say as the bill discount scheme is developed through secondary legislation, but that is an important statement: people should directly benefit, through money off their bills, if they are doing the country a favour by hosting that infrastructure. In May we also published a working paper on wider questions around community benefits, to make sure that other types of energy infrastructure also benefit communities.

In conclusion, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal for securing the debate. I know that we will continue to have these conversations. In this job I sometimes wish, for a number of reasons, that we could turn back the clock and do things slightly differently. I have been told repeatedly that, unfortunately, that is not an option, although I continue to push for it. Strategic planning is one of those regrets. As a country, whatever the political view, we will look back and wish that we had planned our energy system more holistically across the country. We are doing that. That does not change some of the decisions that have been made and some of the decisions that are in the system now, but it will allow us to build a more holistic system in the future.

Businesses in Rural Areas

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steff Aquarone]

On balance, I agree—partly to manage the local housing supply and encourage the local tourism economy, but also for reasons of public safety and improved standards. The people I speak to and who approach me are usually the ones whose standards I have no worries about, but there are many out there who probably would benefit from registration. That is the right, balanced approach, so I support what the hon. Lady says.

Going back to buses, with the right public transport infrastructure constituents of mine could commute to the many thousands of jobs emerging in what is fast becoming the global centre of excellence for agritech. Likewise, those bringing their expertise to Norfolk could more fully enjoy the environmental and lifestyle benefits of our county and my constituency, while bringing a new and expanding clientele to our local businesses.

I look forward to hearing from many others about the rural businesses in their areas. I am grateful for the interventions so far and I expect that we will hear of many shared challenges and frustrations, but I am also excited about the opportunities just waiting for the support they need to kick-start them. The rural economy is a sleeping giant waiting to be awoken. Let us do for rural and coastal communities what we did as a country for industrialised towns and cities in the second half of the last century. We just need the Government to grasp the reins and tackle the challenges that we face.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I believe there was a rural White Paper in 1995, followed by a similar one in 2000, but then a 15-year gap until the productivity plan and another eight-year gap until the “Unleashing rural opportunity” paper of 2023, which was 28 pages in total. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need a clear, defined rural strategy that ties all those elements together to release the potential of rural Britain?

[Steff Aquarone]

I agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the perfect platform to remind the House of my support for a coastal communities Minister—but that is outside the scope of this particular debate. This issue requires not only strategic vision and leadership from the top, but empowerment and resources on the ground; if another strategy will help that, I support it. The number of papers the hon. Gentleman referred to reminds us all of the cross-party ambition here—we just have to get on and do it, and this feels like a good time to grasp that nettle. We already contribute hundreds of billions to the economy, but there are billions more just waiting to be unlocked all over our country. With real support, vision and strategy, we can transform the rural economy into the powerhouse it has been before and should be in the future.

British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lee Anderson]

I think that the hon. Member is getting a little confused; she probably needs a history lesson. There was a Labour Government for 13 years from the ’90s that could have put this right—it works both ways. It is unfair to blame just the Conservative Government; I would blame both Governments.

To go back to the surplus from the MPS, I thank the Labour Government for giving the mineworkers their much deserved reserve fund, but I gently remind them that they should act to implement the full findings of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s 2021 report. By the way, that is Reform UK’s policy.

Sue Edwards from Ashfield is a BCSSS pensioner who has asked me to keep pushing on this issue. She said that although women members never worked underground, their contribution should never be forgotten. Sue is right: we should never forget the contribution made by women at our collieries.

There are about 800 members of the BCSSS in Ashfield. One of them is Paddy Gumley, who will be watching the debate right now. He sent me an email yesterday, which said:

“Dear Lee,

Thank you for your email regarding the forthcoming debate on the BCSSS…We will watch out to ensure that the Treasury give sensible answers to your questions…and hopefully…will…bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. We are quite happy for you to use our names should you think it necessary. Again, I wish to advise you that I am now over 80 years old and have recently been treated for cancer, so time…is of the essence.”

I think we all know what Paddy means: in plain English, “Please give me my money before I die.”

None of us is getting any younger, and transferring the investment fund now to members would allow pensioners to live a more dignified life in their final years. It would also put tens of millions of pounds back into local coalfield communities, helping local shops and businesses prosper. Let us not forget that if these pensioners get this extra money, they will be taxed on that extra revenue, which will go back to the Exchequer.

The trustees have two simple requests: the return of the £2.3 billion investment reserve to the members as soon as possible this year, and a commitment to review how any future surplus will be shared out after the investment reserve is returned. I have yet to find a coalfield MP who does not agree with those simple requests. Most coalfields are now represented by Labour MPs, and I am really hopeful that in the four years they will still be here, they will put pressure on the Treasury and the Government to provide justice for members of the BCSSS.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I sincerely hope that many of the Labour Members in the Chamber will be here for more than four years. The key point that the hon. Member alluded to is the need for us to work effectively together, recognising that, as he described, we have a whole range of constituents who would benefit from the BCSSS being treated differently. Does he therefore welcome the constructive way in which Labour Members are working?

[Lee Anderson]

Yes, I like to be constructive. The hon. Member for Mansfield has not been so constructive; he has used the debate to try to score political points. I am using the debate to try to get justice for the members of the BCSSS.

The trustees were disappointed by the previous Conservative Government, and they are a little bit disappointed with the current Labour Government, who they feel have dragged their heals in dealing with the BCSSS. They have dealt with the mineworkers’ pension scheme much quicker. We are all ex-mineworkers, and we should be treated fairly.

I know the trustees have met the Minister today. I have spoken to the chief integrated funding adviser and the feedback is that it was a positive meeting, and the Minister once again appeared receptive to the requests put forward by the trustees but stopped short of saying she fully supports those requests.

There is a very simple solution to all this. Just give us our money back—it is our money—and let us discuss the future surplus sharing agreements. We ex-miners should not be a cash cow for the Treasury. I could go into all the facts and figures in this debate, but it is simple. It is about giving back to the mining community what it is owed. Not only did the miners of the past help create the Labour party, but they gave their money to the cause through their union donations. It is time to pay back the miners; there should be no excuse.

Let us imagine two brothers in their 70s who spent 40 years each down the pit. One is in the MPS and the other in the BCSSS. They worked side by side underground. The brother in the MPS has just had a 50% uplift in his pension thanks to this Labour Government, but the one in the BCSSS has had nothing. That cannot be right; it is not fair.

I hear people in this bubble in Westminster say that young people would not go down the pit these days, but you are all wrong—every single one of you. In the coalfield communities, mining, hard graft and a sense of working-class pride are in our DNA. When the time comes for mining communities to step forward and go back underground, the descendants of our brave miners will do their duty. That time will come, mark my words. In the meantime, it is time for this place to deliver justice for the miners.

I would like to hear the Minister state from that Dispatch Box that she fully supports the trustees’ two main requests and that she agrees that the whole of the investment reserve fund, and not just part of it, should be shared out. There was a saying when I worked underground and all the pits were shutting. It was: “Have we heard owt, duck?” That is what ex-miners are saying right now to their pit mates, so I say to the Minister, who I know has been speaking to the Treasury and the trustees: have you heard owt, duck?

Closure of High Street Services: Rural Areas

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone]

Indeed. The hon. Member makes a sound point. My wife hails from Northern Ireland, and I know that the problems there are very similar to those in Monmouth, the highlands of Scotland or wherever.

Recently, my splendid team and I had the pleasure of visiting the Acton banking hub. We were mightily impressed by its operation and commitment to making cash accessible to the community. The good news, turning to the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), is that we are going to get a banking hub opened in Wick in my constituency this summer. That will be most welcome. The organisation in charge met the local people last week and the reception was very warm indeed. There is a sense of relief that banking hubs are at long last being rolled out, but the point about the speed of rolling them out is well made.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

A lot of people, when selecting their bank, go to the local town and choose the bank that their parents used; but with the volume of closures taking place we might be getting to the point where banks lose business, as we stop going to the NatWests and the Lloyds, the high street banks of yesteryear, and people start going to online banks. Does the hon. Member agree with me that the banks’ approach is counterintuitive?

[Jamie Stone]

That point is exceptionally well made. From little acorns, mighty oaks grow, and in the old days a good bank manager would specialise in spotting a potential business that was going to grow, which in turn benefited the bank. We all know of examples over the last 30 or 40 years where that happened.

Banking hubs are not a universal solution, however. In my constituency, the last bank branch in the county of Sutherland, Bank of Scotland in Golspie, is about to close. When it was looked at for a banking hub, it was deemed too small. There is not going to be a banking hub because it did not fit the stats. That means that the whole county of Sutherland—a vast county in the UK—will not have one single bank branch. As I say, access to cash is not the paramount function of banking services; cash access is just the tip of the iceberg in solving the problem of closed branches. It is the other functions I mention, such as face-to-face services, that provide the local community with an invaluable service. The economic impact of these closures cannot be overstated.

High streets are more than just retail hubs; they are engines of the local economy. Returning to my constituency, in the two large towns of Wick and Thurso, which are the largest population centres, high street businesses provide jobs. My two daughters have worked in shops in my hometown of Tain—one in a chemist, the other in a fruit and vegetable shop. The high street attracts visitors who contribute to the local economy—one thinks of Monmouth in that respect.

When these services disappear, so the jobs go. The threat of having to move south when the tourists leave at the end of the tourist season affects the highlands. I know of people who had a summer job; when the tourists go, away they go too, and they may not come back again. That casts that dark old shadow of highland and island depopulation, which the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) will know well. It haunts all of us in the more remote areas of Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone]

I absolutely agree with that point. In my area of the highlands, employees sometimes have to travel long distances with a large amount of money to deposit it, and I wonder about their safety. For somebody of evil intent, it would be quite easy to target them as they make the bus journey or whatever.

The Visa survey revealed that four in 10 people agree that small businesses local to them make the area a nicer place to live in, and 40% of local business owners said that customer interaction has a positive impact on their overall job satisfaction. My two daughters loved working in the chemist and the fruit and vegetable shop, because it meant happy chat when they saw their friends.

There is a deep-rooted appreciation in our communities for such businesses, which greatly contribute to the value of the local area. That value is felt by those who work for the local businesses and, as a result of feeling appreciated, they feel a sense of higher job satisfaction. Those two phenomena cannot be separated.

In Scotland, 87% of independent retailers take part in some form of community engagement, so we cannot underestimate how important sustaining businesses is to all aspects of community life—[Interruption.] I am aware of the time, and I shall finish my speech very shortly. For example, the Tain Gala is wonderful thing that is much loved by the community, but 20 years ago the businesses would each chip in. As there are fewer businesses on the high street, it is much harder to run the Tain Gala. I am sure the same is true of Stornoway and other towns across the length and breadth of the UK.

Here in Westminster, we are calling for economic investment in our communities to boost growth. I am very grateful to the previous Government for helping to establish the Inverness and Cromarty Firth green freeport, but if we do not have the local infrastructure to support it —the banks and shops—it will be much harder. Without our high street, without our banks, post offices, hairdressers and chemists, it is harder to support the local population.

[James Naish]

I want to clarify the point about empowering local councils to make a difference. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to remove the shackles from the funding packages that the previous Government give local authorities and empower local decision makers to make decisions in the interests of those locations?

[Jamie Stone]

I hope Treasury Ministers take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention into consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall today. I am proud to represent the constituency of Rushcliffe, which includes large swathes of rural Nottinghamshire. From Cotgrave to East Leake, rural communities across my constituency are facing ongoing challenges, as the services that many residents rely on are slowly disappearing. Banks, post offices, pharmacies and even pubs, once the lifeblood of villages and towns, are shutting their doors, leaving many residents increasingly isolated and without the essential services they need.

For me, and I think many hon. Members present, this issue is not just about convenience. As has been described, it is about social cohesion, economic sustainability and the fundamental right of rural residents to access the same level of services as their urban counterparts. If we are to ensure that our rural communities are thriving rather than declining, we must take action to address the concerning trends that we have witnessed over the past decade.

The statistics paint a worrying picture. Between 2015 and 2023, more than 6,000 bank branches closed across the UK, with rural areas hit hardest. We have talked about post offices, which often serve as a replacement for lost banking services, but they are also under immense pressure: in 2000, the UK had more than 17,500 post offices; today, that number has fallen to 11,500.

Also key are pharmacies, which I do not believe have been mentioned yet. They too are vanishing from our communities. The National Pharmacy Association warns that closures are accelerating, leaving many rural residents, especially elderly and disabled individuals, without easy access to prescriptions and essential healthcare advice.

[Ben Maguire]

Bodmin, in my rural constituency of North Cornwall, has lost almost all its pharmacies; it has one on the high street. The Cornwall health and wellbeing board has stipulated that no two pharmacies can be within 1 mile of each other, meaning that any future pharmacies will have to be at least 1 mile out of town. Does the hon. Member agree that that rule is not helpful to our high streets, and certainly not helpful to our residents in rural areas, who struggle to get to pharmacies?

[James Naish]

I absolutely agree. I am strong supporter of the Pharmacy First initiative, and it is essential that as a Government we look at ways to expand that scheme, so that more and more people use their pharmacies and the pharmacies are therefore more sustainable.

On average, 29 pubs close every week in the UK, and in many cases there is no alternative place for our communities to gather. We need urgent action to reverse this decline, and in my view Government support is critical.

I welcome initiatives around banking hubs, but we also need to press our banks harder to ensure that they fulfil their moral obligations to our communities. I welcome the high street auction initiatives, which allow vacant properties to be brought back into use. It is vital that we unshackle funding to empower local councils and decision makers to support their areas. I also encourage the Government to accelerate business rates reform, which I know we are committed to.

We must ensure that rural communities have the same access to essential services as urban centres. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how we can all work together to safeguard vital community assets and keep our rural high streets alive.

[Several hon. Members rose—]