Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 759385 relating to disqualification from election candidacy for terrorism convictions.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I begin by thanking Richard Donaldson for creating this petition and the more than 200,000 people across the United Kingdom who signed it. I also thank the 205 people from my own constituency who added their names.

As Members know, my role today is to introduce the petition and facilitate this debate. However, having considered the evidence and having spoken to the petition creator, I believe he raises an important point that Parliament should not dismiss. At its heart this debate asks a simple question: should someone who has been convicted of terrorism offences be entitled to seek public office? For me the answer is no—not because I reject the principle of rehabilitation and not because I believe people cannot change, but because holding elected office is not an automatic right. It is a privilege bestowed by the public, and with that privilege comes an expectation that those who seek to represent our communities demonstrate respect for the democratic institutions they wish to serve.

For most people, the current law simply does not pass the common sense test. We already prevent certain people from standing for elected office. Individuals may be disqualified because they are subject to certain bankruptcy restrictions. Others are disqualified because of corrupt electoral practices, certain sexual offence notification requirements or offences involving intimidation of candidates. Yet someone with a historical terrorism conviction may still be entitled to stand for election. Many members of the public struggle to understand that distinction.

Terrorism is not an ordinary crime. It is an attack on democracy itself. It seeks to replace political debate with violence. It seeks to intimidate Governments, frighten communities and undermine the rule of law. That is why Parliament has consistently recognised terrorism as different. We have unique counter-terrorism powers, unique sentencing provisions and unique monitoring arrangements following release from prison. We recognise that terrorism is fundamentally different because it is directed against the democratic values on which this country is built. If we accept that principle elsewhere in our law—and I believe we should—it is entirely reasonable to ask whether those convicted of terrorism offences should be permitted to hold democratic office.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

Shahid Butt is a convicted terrorist. He was convicted of attempting to blow up the British consulate in Yemen, an Anglican church and a hotel. That vile individual should never have been allowed into the UK, let alone be able to stand for the local council. It makes an absolute joke of our democracy, and I strongly support the idea of changing the law so that it can never happen again. But does the hon. Member agree that what should terrify us more than anything else in his case is that 452 people who have the vote voted for him? They voted for a convicted terrorist to represent them in the city hall in Birmingham. That is what should keep us awake at night.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I will come on to that individual’s case shortly, but I do share his concerns. Indeed, there were cross-party concerns at the time of that individual’s candidacy—both Labour and Conservative politicians expressed concerns about that. As I say, I will move on to that later in my speech.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I do not wish to dwell too much on this point, because we will all come back to it later, but in the interests of accuracy I think it is also important to record that 90% of people in the Sparkhill ward did not vote for that candidate.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that point. That is accurate, but the fact that anybody would want to vote for a convicted terrorist does raise serious questions, which I think we should be concerned about.

Every day we walk through this palace, reminded of the human cost of terrorism. Within these walls are memorials to Members of Parliament murdered in terrorist attacks, including Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Their lives were taken because they believed in democracy. Those memorials serve as a permanent reminder that terrorism is not simply another criminal offence; it is an attack on democratic life itself.

We should not forget the many other victims of terrorism across our country. From Lockerbie to the 7 July bombings, the Manchester Arena attack and the attack here at Westminster in 2017, terrorism has left deep scars on communities throughout the United Kingdom. Those attacks were intended not just to kill innocent people, but to undermine our confidence in democracy and the rule of law.

The petition before us arises because many members of the public were surprised to discover that under our current law, someone convicted of terrorism offences in certain circumstances could stand for elected office. Historical convictions, even for very serious offences, may not prevent someone from standing. Indeed, candidates largely self-certify that they are eligible, with returning officers having only limited powers to determine whether someone is disqualified. The Government’s response to the petition states that there are currently “no plans” to change those rules. I hope that today’s debate will persuade the Minister to think again.

As we heard from the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the catalyst for this petition was the case of Shahid Butt, who stood as a candidate in Birmingham during this year’s local elections. It is a matter of public record that he was convicted in Yemen in 1999 of involvement in a terrorist bombing plot that targeted, among other sites, the British consulate and that he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Mr Butt has consistently maintained that he was wrongly convicted and that his confession was obtained through torture. Those claims have been reported widely. Members may hold differing views about that case, but today’s debate is about something much broader than one individual. It is about whether our electoral law contains an obvious gap that should now be addressed.

There is also a practical consideration that deserves attention. If someone convicted of terrorism offences were elected to this House, the parliamentary authorities would have little choice but to issue them with a parliamentary security pass, allowing routine access to much of the parliamentary estate. Members often focus on ourselves, but this is also about the thousands of people who work here every day: our staff, Clerks, police officers, security personnel, cleaners, caterers and many others. They deserve to know that Parliament takes their safety seriously.

Some will argue that once someone has served their sentence, they should once again enjoy the full rights of citizenship. That is an important principle, but society already accepts that certain positions carry additional responsibilities and require higher standards. Serving in Parliament, in a devolved legislature or on a local council is different from ordinary employment. They are positions of public trust. The public are entitled to expect exceptionally high standards from those who seek those positions. This debate is therefore not about preventing rehabilitation. It is not about denying someone the opportunity to rebuild their life. It is about deciding who should exercise democratic authority on behalf of others. Those are not the same things.

Others may point to Northern Ireland and the peace process. It is important that we approach that history carefully and respectfully. The Good Friday agreement transformed Northern Ireland and brought to an end decades of violence. Nothing I say today should diminish that achievement. Indeed, we should rightly distinguish between those convicted of terrorism offences and figures such as Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, neither of whom was convicted of terrorism offences. Today’s petition concerns something much narrower. It concerns people who have been convicted of terrorism offences. That distinction matters.

It is also worth noting that concern about this issue is not confined to one political party. Following the Birmingham case, both Labour and Conservative Members publicly expressed concern that someone convicted of terrorism offences could stand for election. Victims of terrorism have questioned whether such individuals should be eligible to represent the public in a democracy. This should not be a partisan issue. It should be about maintaining public confidence in our democratic institutions.

Democracy depends on not only free elections but public confidence in those elected. If the public lose faith that Parliament is capable of drawing sensible lines around who is fit to hold elected office, that confidence is weakened. Parliament should never be afraid to legislate where the public can plainly see that the law no longer reflects common sense. I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State for Defence recently acknowledge that the Government are considering this issue through the defending democracy taskforce. That is welcome, but today’s debate gives Members an opportunity to go further. The obvious question is: what should change?

The petition proposes a straightforward legal disqualification, preventing those convicted of terrorism offences from standing for elected office. The detail would require careful consideration. There would undoubtedly need to be safeguards where overseas convictions were concerned, to ensure that politically motivated convictions, handed down by regimes without independent judicial systems, were not automatically recognised. Those are important drafting questions, but they are not reasons for doing nothing; they are reasons for careful legislation.

The principle is clear: those convicted of terrorism offences should not be entrusted with elected office. Our democracy is one of Britain’s greatest achievements. We rightly welcome robust political disagreement; we encourage free speech and we welcome vigorous campaigning, but democracy also has the right—indeed, the responsibility—to defend itself against those who have sought to destroy it through violence. That is not intolerance; it is common sense, it is resilience, and it is about protecting the integrity of our democratic institutions.

I thank Richard Donaldson once again for bringing this matter before Parliament. Petitions such as this demonstrate democracy working as it should: a member of the public identified what he believed to be a gap in our law, more than 200,000 people agreed, and today Parliament has the opportunity to consider whether that gap should be closed. For my part, I believe that it should. I hope that the Minister will move beyond acknowledging the issue and commit the Government to examining proportionate, workable and robust legislative options. Those who seek to destroy our democracy should not be able to exploit it.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I thank all the Members who participated in this important debate, particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). All Members made very valid points, particularly both the Members from Northern Ireland—the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) —who are obviously acutely aware of the challenges of having terrorists operating in their democratic institutions. I apologise to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim; I totally forgot that Martin McGuinness had been convicted. Of course, anybody who is convicted of a terrorism offence should not be allowed to stand for office.

I appreciate the Minister’s response and her initially positive style, but I am a bit disappointed with her conclusion. This is such an important principle: people who want to destroy our democracy, who want to pull the rug from under us and who have gone to great lengths to bring down everything that we in this place believe in, should absolutely not be allowed to stand for election, whether that is for local government, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the UK Parliament in Westminster. If they have ever held those fundamental views about bringing down the very pillars of what our country believes in, they absolutely should not be allowed to stand for Parliament. I was disappointed that the Minister could not quite bring herself to say that.

Yes, there are challenges around overseas convictions, but we employ very clever drafters for our Government; they can come up with wording to get around that to ensure that those who have been wrongly accused of something overseas are not debarred from standing for election. Yes, we have disqualification rules, but we should be able to extend them further to ensure that terrorists—those who want to destroy our country and the institutions we in this place guard and protect dearly—are barred from standing for Parliament.

I hope the Minister and her Government will reflect on today’s debate and on what the petitioner and all those who signed the petition put forward. I thank Richard Donaldson again for bringing this petition forward, and all Members who have taken part.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 759385 relating to disqualification from election candidacy for terrorism convictions.

New Towns

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered new towns.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for this important debate. As we reach the 80th anniversary of the New Towns Act 1946, it feels like exactly the right moment for the House to pause and reflect on what was, at the time, a bold and radical idea, and one that sought not just to build houses, but to shape communities. Eight decades on, as we again face the challenge of large-scale house building and the prospect of a new generation of new towns, it is right that we reflect honestly on both the shortcomings and the successes of that legacy.

This debate has a personal resonance for me. I was brought up in Markinch, on the edge of the new town of Glenrothes. I went to school there, and like many people growing up in and around a new town, it simply felt like home. It was a place shaped by decisions taken long before I was born, but that defined everyday life. It feels like a fitting symmetry that, years after leaving school in 1989 and embarking on my own career journey, I now have the privilege of representing another new town in this House. Cumbernauld has just marked its 70th anniversary, and its story of ambition, achievement, challenge and renewal mirrors the experience of so many new towns across the country, which is why I am so pleased that Members from across the House are taking part today. This debate gives us the opportunity to reflect not only on what new towns have delivered, but on what they can still teach us.

To understand new towns we have to remember why they were created in the first place. Post-war Britain faced severe housing shortages, overcrowding and poor living conditions, and there was a clear recognition that simply expanding existing towns and cities would not be enough. For many families, that was not abstract policy, but daily life. One local resident, who is now a close friend, described moving from a top-floor slum with damp walls, no hot water and a shared toilet on a stair landing to a three-bedroom home with a bathroom, her own bedroom, a garden and space to live. That move was life changing.

The new towns programme was a deliberate choice to do things differently. It was not just about building houses quickly; it was about planning whole communities, with homes alongside jobs, schools, services and green space, so people could build decent lives. For those of us who grew up in or around new towns, there were some very familiar signs. You know you live in a new town when your second driving lesson is entirely about roundabouts—not because your instructor has it in for you, but because there are so many of them. Let us be honest: the only traffic lights in a new town are generally on a roundabout. You also know you live in a new town when housing numbers make no sense to anybody arriving by car, because No. 1 is across from No. 25 and can be seen from No. 43, while the next street starts at No. 420. It looks a bit like next week’s lottery numbers, but residents know—and delivery drivers very quickly discover—that it is designed to make sense on foot, as it works by paths and walkways through neighbourhoods. It may confuse the satnav, but it has been the postal worker’s friend for decades.

Behind those quirks, however, there was a serious purpose. Cumbernauld, which was designated in 1955, was built to meet urgent housing needs and offer better living conditions, access to work and a strong sense of community. It was part of a wider post-war belief that planning done properly could improve people’s lives, and for some families it changed the course of those lives entirely. Another resident told me that they do not believe they would ever have gone to university if they had not escaped Glasgow and attended a Cumbernauld school that treated children with dignity and ambition.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech about the importance of new towns. I was brought up just outside Kilwinning, which is part of the Irvine new town in Ayrshire. She and I are probably of a similar age, so does she remember the campaign—the iconic campaign—in the 1980s: “What’s it called? Cumbernauld”? In her view, how successful was that campaign in bringing people to the town and new employers to the area?

[Katrina Murray]

The fact that you could not go anywhere in the ’80s without seeing that statement meant that people across the country knew about Cumbernauld. I remember seeing that wording on the tube on my first trips to London. Other new towns tried to get in on the act. “Living in Livingston” did not quite hit as well, but those ideas showed the beauty of development corporations shining a light on design more widely.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I agree that the changes that have been made—we have managed to come to a consensus on this—are very important and will make a big difference to forces families and veterans, which we all want to see. I congratulate and commend the hon. Gentleman on working cross party to ensure an outcome that will be satisfactory to everybody who is concerned about this issue, as he is.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

2. What information his Department holds on the proportion of people granted asylum status living in the private rented sector.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

My Department does not hold data on the proportion of people who have been granted asylum status living in the private rented sector in England.

[John Lamont]

It is extraordinary that the Minister does not have that answer. Too many asylum seekers are arriving in our communities far too quickly because the Government have failed on their promise to smash their gangs. People have had enough, and this Labour Government do not seem to have any answers. What actions will the Minister take to support local communities and public services to deal with the growing number of asylum seekers in our communities?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am afraid I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman, as it was the previous Conservative Government—in which he served as a Minister—who lost control of our borders and presided over the complete breakdown of the asylum system. This Government are restoring order to that system, speeding up decision making and reforming the appeals process to cut the asylum backlog and remove those with no right to be here at a much faster rate than the previous Government. Our country has a proud history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. Genuine asylum seekers who have been granted refugee or humanitarian protection status should be welcomed. The hon. Gentleman would have said the same some years ago, and it is a sign of just how far his party has fallen that he cannot now bring himself to do so.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Bringing decision making closer to local people and making it more accountable and more reflective of local needs is a laudable aim, but that is not what the Bill will do. Rather than bringing decision making closer to hard-working local people, it will cement the damaging present system of oversized unitary authorities and dubiously useful mayoralties. If we want our communities to have responsive local government with easily accessible political leaders who deliver on the desires of residents and are accountable at the ballot box, we should not be pushing for larger local government boundaries. If anything, we should be reducing their size.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

In Scotland, we have so-called devolution, but the reality on the ground is that the Scottish Government are centralising more and more power. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Bill creates the potential risk of that?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely share that concern, and I will give my hon. Friend an example of what we face across the Bradford district; the people across Keighley and Ilkley have long known the dangers to smaller communities when such amalgamations occur. In 1974, their well liked and well remembered councils were abolished and absorbed into a larger Bradford council unitary authority, which is one of the largest in the country with a population of 565,000; the average size of a unitary authority is about 250,000 people. Since then, Bradford council has consistently prioritised its namesake, extracting ever higher council tax and costs from outlying areas such as my constituency and neighbouring Shipley and funnelling them into city centre projects of no benefit to the people who have paid for them.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I am incredibly proud that the Government are introducing life-changing measures that will make a real difference when people are at their most vulnerable. I personally thank my hon. Friend for courageously telling her own story, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) for her incredible and tenacious campaigning. Their work will change the lives of so many. We want to bring the benefits of these vital measures to people as soon as possible. We will be consulting on them in the coming months, prior to commencement.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T2.   Home ownership feels increasingly out of reach for many first-time buyers, particularly for young families who want to remain in the beautiful Scottish Borders. What can the Government do to ensure that house builders deliver more affordable family-sized homes in all parts of the United Kingdom so that local people have the chance to own their home in the communities where they were brought up?

[Matthew Pennycook]

The hon. Gentleman will know that housing is a devolved matter. When it comes to affordability, we are taking steps not only to boost housing supply significantly, as I have set out, but to ensure that more first-time buyers can get access, not least through the permanent mortgage guarantee scheme, on which the Chancellor will add more details in her Mansion House speech this week.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Once more unto the breach. I rise to speak in favour of amendment 68 in my name, and I hope to find as much common ground with Ministers as possible. I fully agree with the Government that we need bold reform of the planning system to tackle the housing crisis, and that is what even stronger reform of CPOs would deliver.

We have substantially more homes per capita than we did 50 years ago, yet over that time, house prices in the UK have risen by 3,878%. The Minister for Housing and Planning was right to argue that housing supply is not a panacea for affordability. There have been 724,000 more net additional dwellings than new households in England since 2015, so the Deputy Prime Minister was right to argue that there is plenty of housing already, but not enough for the people who desperately need it. The fundamental planning reform we need is an end to the developer-led model, which Shelter estimates is on track to deliver just 5,190 social rented homes per year, despite those being the very properties that we need to reduce waiting lists and get families out of temporary accommodation.

The housing crisis is one of inequality. We must move away from reliance on the vested interests of private developers, whose priorities will never align with the public good. Amendment 68 is intended to ensure just that. Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population. Between 1995 and 2022, land values rose by more than 600% to £7.2 trillion, which amounts to more than 60% of the UK’s net worth. The amendment would build on Government proposals to give councils the land assembly powers necessary to acquire sites to meet local housing need at current use value, and so would do away with speculative hope value prices, which put taxpayers’ money into wealthy landowners’ pockets. That would finally make it affordable for local authorities to deliver the new generation of council homes that is the true solution to this nation’s housing crisis.

If we coupled strengthened compulsory purchase powers with a more strategic approach to site identification and acquisition, we could not only increase the amount of affordable housing built, but achieve genuinely sustainable development, and would no longer be beholden to whatever ill-suited proposals developers chose to bring forward.

The failings of our developer-led planning system are writ large across my constituency. In the 10 years from 2014 to 2024, North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire delivered a significant expansion of housing supply—3,973 and 7,948 net additional dwellings respectively. What happened to local authority housing waiting lists over the same period? They rose from 1,612 to 2,449 in North Hertfordshire and from 2,005 to 2,201 in East Hertfordshire. There have been more than enough new homes in my area to clear housing waiting lists, but the affordable homes we need are simply not delivered by a profit-driven model. A further fact stands out: over that decade, during which housing supply and waiting lists grew simultaneously in North and East Hertfordshire, not a single council house was built in either authority.

It is time for a genuine alternative to this farce. I urge the Government to look closely at the amendment, and to push onwards to create a planning system that once again puts people before profit.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I will speak to the amendments relating to compulsory purchase powers, and to my new clause 128. I note that much of the Bill and most of the clauses will not affect Scotland, but, unusually for a planning Bill, there are components that do affect it.

Before I talk about the detail of my concerns about compulsory purchase powers, I want to set out a little of the context, and say why the issue is exercising so many of my constituents. I am privileged to represent the Scottish Borders—the place I call home. It is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful parts of the United Kingdom, but it is under attack. The net-zero-at-all-costs agenda of this UK Labour Government, backed by the SNP in Edinburgh, is causing huge concern to my constituents. Massive pylons, solar farms, wind farms and battery storage units are ruining the Scottish Borders as we know them, and compulsory purchase powers are a key part of delivering many of those projects.

[Wendy Morton]

When it comes to infrastructure, such as battery energy storage systems, it is not just the Scottish Borders that are affected, but areas like mine, Aldridge-Brownhills in the west midlands. I support what my hon. Friend says about this feeling like encroachment, and about increasing compulsory purchase powers. Where will it end?

[John Lamont]

I share my right hon. Friend’s concerns. Ultimately, this is about choices. The choice that this Government and the Scottish Government are making is whether we protect our natural environment, and the rural communities that have sustained food production for many years, or turn them into an industrial wasteland. The compulsory purchase powers in the Bill that affect my constituency in Scotland will affect many similar communities in England.

My constituents in the Scottish Borders have had their fair share of new developments. In the Scottish Borders, the countryside is where we live. It is not some distant, remote area that is occasionally visited by tourists from Edinburgh or London; it is the place we call home. Compulsory purchase powers must be exercised with appropriate checks and balances in order to protect our communities, whether in Scotland or in other parts of the UK.

I now turn specifically to the amendment that stands in my name, new clause 128, which deals with compulsory purchase and the community benefit related to it. We all know that when compulsory purchase takes place, it is difficult and often devastating for those who are directly affected. Too often, though, we fail to recognise the impact on the wider community, especially when it comes to new energy infrastructure. We have to improve the relationship between those affected and those acquiring the land. Compulsory purchase can be a complex and intimidating process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about choices, but this is also about fairness. The compulsory purchase powers contained in part 5 of the Bill disregard any hope value over and above agricultural value, which is not fair at all for those landowners who are having their land compulsorily acquired. If my hon. Friend’s new clause were accepted, the 20% to which he refers would be 20% of the agricultural value rather than the market value, as the Government have stipulated, so less money would be going into the benefit scheme. Would it not be better if the Government were advocating market value for compulsory purchase, rather than disregarding it in favour of agricultural value?

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I agree with him. I am sure he will speak to those points further when he contributes later. We should be protecting the market value and not doing anything to interfere with the market—not least because if my new clause were accepted, it would improve the community benefit fund, which in turn would benefit the local residents who are directly affected by these types of projects. If the Bill could be improved in this way, it would be better for the people who live in rural communities, such as those in the Scottish Borders.

As we saw again yesterday, this UK Labour Government have U-turned a lot over the past few months. I hope they will take this opportunity to listen to right hon. and hon. Members from across the House so that we can protect our beautiful environment, protect nature, and do better for rural communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

But the Government are going way beyond that and giving more powers to local authorities and, indeed, Natural England. If the Minister has gone out and spoken to anyone in the agricultural world, he will realise that trust in Natural England is shot, yet the Government are giving it more powers to compulsorily acquire land and then effectively dictate to our farmers and landowners how their land is to be managed. I am not in favour of that. That is why I urge the Government to consider my new clause 127 and amendment 153. It is frustrating that, despite this issue being raised in Committee, the Government have not given it due consideration, and I therefore urge them to rethink their position.

Section 14A orders represent an attempt to run roughshod over our landowners. We can debate the merits of that approach, but we must start by calling it out for what it is. This Bill extends the section 14A powers to parish councils and Natural England, and applies the cut valuation of occupier’s loss, which is a separate payment meant to reflect the disruption to the occupier, not the loss of an asset. That is exactly why I wholeheartedly support Opposition new clause 42, which would increase the occupier’s loss payment from 2.5% to 7.5% of what is paid for the land. It adds to my frustration that the valuation will be based on the agricultural value, not the market value.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that one of the flaws of the Bill, which his amendments attempt to address, is that it overreaches not only in attacking property rights in this country and interfering with the market, but in taking away key aspects of democratic accountability? That is why so many of our constituents across the United Kingdom are so concerned about what the Bill attempts to do.

[Robbie Moore]

That is exactly why I urge the Government, as I have throughout the passage of the Bill—I know this point was also raised in Committee—to realise the huge level of disenfranchisement it represents for landowners. This Bill is not introducing fairness into the system, because it does not enable the state to pay the market value that should be attributed to anything that is compulsorily acquired. That is why I do not support the Bill, and I will be proud to vote against it on Third Reading.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)]

We have invested almost £1 billion in tackling homelessness and rough sleeping, and we have recognised the scandal of temporary accommodation, which we inherited. We are taking action to ensure that there is a cross-Government strategy to get us back on track to ending homelessness.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T4. Oxton in my constituency has a newly refurbished community shop, and it exists thanks to the hard work of local volunteers. The Plunkett impact report highlights how community-owned shops are at the centre of the local economy. What are the Government doing to support the ownership of community shops?

[Alex Norris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to talk about community ownership of those locally loved assets. We know such places endure during difficult times; they provide good employment for local people and they normally employ a more diverse workforce base. We were pleased in the previous round to get money out to a number of schemes through the community ownership fund. We will legislate for an improved community right to buy, too. We are very much aligned in this space on the exceptional importance of community ownership.

Construction Standards: New Build Homes

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Michelle Welsh]

I completely agree. I was pleased that the Government announced they are accepting some of the recommendations in the Competition and Markets Authority’s housebuilding market study. I am particularly pleased that we are implementing a statutory UK-wide new homes ombudsman scheme and supporting the development of a voluntary ombudsman scheme to improve consumer protection ahead of the statutory scheme’s launch. For too long, customers have felt like they have nowhere to turn, are not being listened to by the big developers, and do not know their rights. I hope this is a step towards changing that.

I ask the Minister that when drafting the new UK-wide scheme, the Government put quality at the heart and ensure that people have all the necessary protection in cases such as those of my constituents. We must also have better oversight and accountability for companies that do not deliver high-quality construction standards. It is vital that we showcase what good practice looks like. I know there are many builders who do an exceptional job, and take great pride in their work. We cannot let the reputation of new build homes be ruined by a few rogue companies.

I mentioned earlier that I am proud that this Government have committed to delivering 1.5 million quality homes. In my constituency, the quality has sometimes been very lacking, the infrastructure has been very lacking, and the local Ashfield district council has been gerrymandering with its local plan, which continues to put precious historical land at risk, while there are more than enough brownfield sites to be used across the district. I ask the Minister that when we deliver these homes, the necessary steps are taken to ensure that the right companies and builders are selected to complete this work; that we work to provide the infrastructure that is needed; and that when councils let their communities down, like Ashfield district council has, the Government will step in.

I ask the Minister to ensure that the Government and local authorities have the necessary oversight powers to ensure that quality is maintained throughout the house building process. We have a real opportunity to build the homes we desperately need, while beginning to close the skills gap and shutting out rogue companies that underperform. Tradespeople need protection so that they are able to do a high-quality job.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech, and I agree with many of her points. Does she agree that when someone buys a new home, not only do they expect to have the mains water running, electric and gas, but in this day and age they expect to have a good broadband connection? Although the last Government made significant progress with obliging new house builders to connect properties, the £2,000 cap is sometimes giving developers an opt-out—a get-out—from connecting some properties to high-quality broadband. Does she agree that we should go further to ensure that all properties have access to high-speed broadband?

[Michelle Welsh]

I completely agree with that, as somebody who represents a constituency that has a large very rural chunk. With these new builds it is really important that such communities stay connected.

Future generations deserve to know that they are buying and/or living in quality homes, whether that is in new social housing, or their own home that they have purchased. Our construction workers of today and tomorrow, and the future of our housing, rely on us, as a Government, to get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this important debate. I am very happy about it, because for about 10 years Persimmon Homes, which she mentioned, has been on my radar both as a local councillor and as a Member of Parliament.

We have an estate in Huthwaite in my constituency called the Mill Lane estate, which was built by Persimmon some 12 or 13 years ago. The standard of work was, to say the least, quite shoddy. There were lots of snagging issues when people moved in, but it is too late then—they have paid the money, they have got the mortgage and they are in these houses with dodgy patios, patio doors that do not fit, kitchens falling to pieces, uneven floors, walls that are not lined up and doors that do not fit. When they complain to Persimmon, it takes ages to come out and see people and put the work right.

In fact, Persimmon did not come out at all, so I ended up, as a councillor, putting in formal complaints on behalf of the residents who had snagging problems. I did it through the previous MP’s office, and lo and behold, once the MP got involved and we put in formal complaints, Persimmon started to come round to people’s houses and put the problems right. However, it should not be for somebody who has just forked out thousands and thousands of pounds, and made themselves skint to get their new dream home, to have to go to the local MP or councillor to complain about a brand-new but shoddy home and try to get the work put right. The owner of a brand-new home would expect it to be right first time. Imagine waking up one morning and seeing all these problems after being in there for a week. That has been happening to residents in my constituency.

We have another Persimmon estate in Ashfield—the Owston Road estate in Annesley. Persimmon—I will name and shame it because I think it is important to do so, as it has been dreadful to my constituents—decided to put a road on this estate made out of semi-permeable blocks of stone. It is not a normal road, but a type of block paving that has been put on the whole estate. Nottinghamshire county council had never seen this block paving before, so it quite rightly refused to adopt the estate, because once it adopted the estate, it would be responsible for the block paving. They have been arguing the toss for over 10 years, and I have been working on this for 10 years as a councillor and an MP. Every year or so, Persimmon staff turn up on site with their high-vis jackets and their boots, and they meet me and speak to residents. They promise to have a plan to put it all right within six months, and six months later Persimmon has swapped staff or sacked somebody, and another person turns up.

This has been going on for 10 years, and I have a resident called Mr Warhurst—Alan Warhurst—who has been campaigning with me for the past 10 years. I actually feel sorry for this bloke, because it has got to the point where he thinks he is banging his head against a brick wall. The killer is that when people try to sell their houses, they may struggle. Some of them may struggle to get a mortgage on these houses, because the estate is in essence a private one. Nobody has adopted it, and nobody wants to adopt it or the highway, because it could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to put this work right.

I have a solution. I am not sure whether the Minister will agree with me, but I strongly suggest this for house builders such as Persimmon. Don’t get me wrong; I have had this with Ben Bailey, Avant and other house builders, but they have been much better and much more forthcoming in putting right the repairs. I suggest that if we have persistent problems with a house builder, we should reject any planning application from it in the future, until it starts to build houses correctly. I think that is the only way to stop these people.

When a council adopts a new estate, it takes on full responsibility, and the house builder knows that. However, once the house owner has purchased the house—once they are in their house, have the keys and have a mortgage —they are locked into that house and they are stuck with it. They cannot really battle with the house builder, whereas a local authority can. The local authority holds all the aces. It can say, “No, we’re not adopting that road, these pavements or these street lights until you’ve built them to our standards.” It is the same with the local water authority, such as Severn Trent, which can say to the house builder, “No, we’re not adopting that sewer or that freshwater supply until you’ve built them to our standards.”

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member is doing an excellent job of highlighting the problems with new house developments in his constituency. The National House Building Council will in many cases provide a guarantee backing up the developer to fix the repairs that are required, but I have certainly had difficulties with the NHBC in the past. Has he any reflections on the role it plays?

[Lee Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which, as usual, is spot on. He is quite right, and I have had loads of these problems over the years. In fact, I had a big project running on a few of my new house builds in Ashfield a few years ago, and I was getting exactly that problem. People think they have a 10-year guarantee, but when they try to get in touch with the NHBC to get the work put right, they find it is next to useless. That is why the people on these new housing estates are contacting their local councillor and their local MP in great numbers.

While I am here, I will give right hon. and hon. Members a tip. Because of what the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest has said, if they get a new housing estate in their patch—I am getting one shortly—they should go and knock on the doors, deliver a snagging leaflet or do a survey to ask people whether they are satisfied with their house builder. Hon. Members would be surprised how many surveys we get back from constituents who are deeply unhappy with the state of their house.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this important debate. As I said in my earlier intervention, it seems that we have both experienced the challenges of Harron Homes, and she has my full sympathy for having to deal with them. In my own constituency, I had the managing director come out—not that he wanted to, but I managed to get him there—and we had a meeting with residents to talk through some of the challenges. I share the concerns that she raised on behalf of her constituents, because it is not a good housing developer and it does not have its residents’ best interests at heart.

Construction standards are not just about bricks and mortar; they go into a home, and they go beyond that, into the sense of belonging that one feels when living in a good quality space. Construction standards are also about the process of planning, site security and development maintenance, all of which play a part in the experience of a resident who moves into a property.

I will use this opportunity to talk about some of the challenges that I have experienced in my constituency, particularly in Long Lee. In Redwood Close, a development is being undertaken by Accent Housing Group. I was called to look at the condition of an existing construction site about eight months ago. It is derelict because those involved in the construction went bust, but this is a site that is right in the heart of Long Lee and, dare I say it, has been causing a huge nuisance not only to those who wanted to move into the development and are now experiencing delays, but to those living in close proximity. I was invited along to see the access challenges to this particular site for myself. Neighbouring properties have had boundary walls, drainage and access all disturbed as the result of ongoing, existing construction. It is completely unacceptable.

I met again with the director for development, who came out on to the site with me around four months ago and reassured me that things would change at speed. I can tell hon. Members that nothing has changed at all, other than giving me further reassurance and then holding a residents meeting. They have told me that Esh Construction Ltd has now been appointed to complete the works, but those works are not due to start until mid-spring and construction of the site at Long Lee will not be completed until 2026.

All the while, those neighbours—who have had their property damaged, access hindered and boundary walls to their properties completely removed, allowing easy access to a dangerous site—have had to live with this right on their doorstep. It prompts the question: what has the local authority been doing throughout this whole process? Bradford council has not monitored the construction, nor has it carried out sufficient enforcement action; indeed, no enforcement action seems to have been taken at all. That is not a satisfactory outcome for the residents in Long Lee.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and he is right to highlight the important role that local authorities have. However, speaking as a former commercial property lawyer, I think part of the problem is that, when buying a new home, the purchaser is forced to take a contract package that is geared in favour of the developers. When someone buys a second-hand home, there is a degree of negotiation between the parties, but when buying a brand-new home they take the pack from the developer and the remedies for the purchaser to deal with snagging items are very limited. Does he agree that that is part of the problem?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree, and that point has been made by the hon. Members for Sherwood Forest and for Ashfield (Lee Anderson): once someone has purchased a property or is tied into a contractual relationship, dealing with those snagging issues is a huge challenge. Where can they go from there? They have been taken out of the local authority’s remit to deal with it, because it has approved the planning application—having probably not carried out any enforcement action at all. That is the problem I observed with Bradford council’s lack of any attention to the challenges that we faced in Keighley, Ilkley and the wider area that I represent.

The problem is that, when someone is locked into a contractual relationship, or has even moved into a property, and there are snagging issues, they are effectively trapped and there is no real ability for any organisation with any weight to deal with that. Will the Minister address in her closing remarks what action the Government will now take to deal with cases where new developments have been constructed of a poor quality and concerns have been consistently raised?

It should not take a Member of Parliament to deal with those concerns—it seems that only housing developers only then suddenly realise they have to do something about them. What will the Government do to provide more weight to these concerns that are being raised, so that people with snagging issues can have reassurance that those problems will be sorted out?

I will conclude my comments by discussing the challenges associated with dealing with section 106 moneys. When planning applications have been approved, there is then effectively a negotiation that takes place between the developer and the local authority. I again have to rely on Bradford council negotiating the best deal for whatever that section 106 money is contributing to. Section 106 money is effectively a payment to deal with any mitigating factors that have been negatively imposed on our community through that development. I give the simple example: if those negotiations are not robust enough, that disadvantages the communities we represent. If that section 106 obligation is not spent or enacted within a reasonable time, our constituents are significantly disadvantaged as a result of a local authority—such as Labour-run Bradford council—not responding well enough. That disadvantages the communities we represent.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

There are so many points to address in the Bill, but I will keep my remarks to just a few. I have grave concerns that the Government’s agreeable aim of freeing up our planning system will be dragged further by this Bill into the bog of planning delay and indecision.

There has been a lot of talk about whether the Bill will afford special protections for peatland on sites of special scientific interest, but I have looked at the detail and have concerns that, rather than leading to better protections for peatland areas, the Bill does the opposite. I will start my contribution by explaining why that is such a huge issue.

Take Walshaw moor, which borders my constituency, just next to the Worth valley in my beautiful part of West Yorkshire. Most importantly, it is an irreplaceable blanket bog peatland and carries protected status. It is a site of heavily protected bird species and ground-nesting birds. Recently, it has become the proposed site for what would be England’s largest onshore wind farm.

I am firmly opposed to that development. The disruption that a new wind farm would cause, through the constructions of 65 turbines—each taller than Blackpool tower—would be devasting to the blanket bog peatland. In fact, peat bogs across the UK store many times more carbon than our forests. Disturbing that peatland by constructing a wind farm on top of it could release many tonnes of carbon back into the atmosphere, directly contradicting the aim of the whole development—namely, to reduce carbon emissions. It is simply nonsensical to use Walshaw moor when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has shown that the Government could achieve their targets for wind power without building on a single acre of protected peatland.

Let me come to the substance of the Bill as it relates to that development. The introduction of environmental development plans seems like a good idea: why shouldn’t developers pay some form of compensation for the environmental damage that their developments cause? As is always the case, however, things begin to unravel when we delve into the detail. What this change effectively amounts to is a mercenary approach to environmental protection that gives developers a much freer hand to negotiate their commitments. Indeed, local planning authorities will be given a much freer hand to take a looser approach in ensuring that developers do their fair bit for any environmental mitigation measures, particularly on protected sites, with the emphasis on a financial contribution.

Funding for restoration, either on site or indeed mitigated elsewhere, does not undo the damage caused by the development—be it to assets of scientific, natural or cultural value. In the case of a protected peatland such as Walshaw moor, that is exactly why the current proposed development is completely the wrong approach. The bogs themselves take millennia to reform, and sphagnum moss breaks down so slowly—by just 1 mm a year—to form peat. That is why the removal of the moratorium on onshore wind farms, which will allow more protected peatland to be built on, is the wrong approach from the Government. I cannot stress that enough. The Bill moves us from a dynamic in which we proactively protect what we value to one in which we barter what we can price up and pretend that value and price are the same.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Many aspects of the Bill will affect Scotland and make things much more difficult for local residents to oppose certain types of application, including those in my constituency who are fighting hard against a 94 km pylon route and battery storage plants. For me, democratic accountability should be at the heart of the planning process, but we seem to be moving towards a planning system that China would be proud of. Does he agree?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. It is why the Government should be honest with the public that, far from strengthening environmental protections, the Bill creates a direct avenue for developers to pay to do environmental damage and get around otherwise more stringent protection laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

The hon. Member is making an excellent point—it is a rare moment of unity between him and me. I agree that the compensation is not enough. Does he agree that part of the problem is that the developer—in our case, Scottish Power Energy Networks, which is building the pylons across my constituency—assumes that it will get consent and approval, so it pushes ahead and the compensation does not really matter?

[Dave Doogan]

I agree that the compensation is risible. Many people in the hon. Member’s constituency and mine who are subject to these installations are pretty much resigned, because no matter what they do or say, it will happen. Will the Minister confirm that where constituents are subject to multiple developments, that £250 a year will be cumulative per imposition on their property? Why is it limited to 10 years? Will the developers come and take the pylons away in 10 years?

In the ambitions that are represented by clause 22, people will see the very minimum that the Government can do while acknowledging that this infrastructure is an imposition. It is not reasonable that people should have a 10-year miserly compensation for a lifetime’s imposition on their home. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will grant you 30 seconds for somebody else.

Local Government Finance

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore]

I will not give way, because I do not think the hon. Lady will agree with me and many of the constituents across the Bradford district in opposing a nearly 10% increase in council tax. I hope that her constituents are watching.

Not only that; it also comes down to the absolute mismanagement of children’s services by Bradford council. Let us not forget that the previous Conservative Government had to step in and take children’s services off Bradford council because multiple damning Ofsted reports indicated that it was not through the fault of those providing children’s services and the level of care needed on the ground that the services were failing; instead, the disconnect in management at the very top of Bradford council was so bad and was failing our children that the Government had to step in and set up a children’s trust, which I must say is now having benefits.

Is it not ironic that the Labour Government will refer to our 14 years, but in 2021 the Labour administration at Bradford council submitted, as part of its statutory duty, a report stating that the council was in a “sound financial position”? Yet now the council is claiming that it is £150 million in debt and seeking a council tax increase of 9.9%, despite having requested a 15% increase. What on earth are this Government doing to hold to account local authorities that are failing constituents in the delivery of services? Where on earth is that accountability?

Bradford Live is not the only place on which huge amounts of taxpayers’ money has been misspent; One City Park, in the centre of Bradford, is another such venue. Car parks are being knocked down. That is not the job of a local authority. We should be relying on private sector inward investment to pay for regeneration projects. The job of a local authority is to focus on providing statutory-based services, not dipping in and out of regeneration schemes, and failing, at the cost of my constituents. Now we see through our city of culture status, which does not seem to be benefiting many of my constituents, the council wanting to construct a fancy art piece in Centenary Project. Who on earth in the Keighley and Ilkley constituency is benefiting as a result of that work?

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

As ever, my hon. Friend is doing an excellent job of standing up for his constituents in Keighley and Ilkley, and exposing the failures of Labour-controlled Bradford council. In Scotland, this finance settlement will not affect my council, but my council is having to deal with a £265 million hit, along with all the other councils in Scotland, because of the national insurance rise imposed by the Labour Government. As well as all the mismanagement by Bradford council, does he agree that many local authorities across the UK are having to take money away from vital services to fund this tax hike by the Labour Government?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. That point has been made not only by my hon. Friend, but by many Conservative Members. They say that the Government may, on the one hand, be passing down finance to local government, but they are, on the other hand, taking it away through the increase in employer national insurance contributions. This is a classic socialist policy: they are taking with one hand and telling councils how to spend it with the other.

Not only are my constituents going to be exposed to an increase of just about 10% in council tax, without the opportunity for a referendum to decide, but they are experiencing vast cuts to local services. We have had two household waste and recycling centres close in my constituency. The council is selling off assets. There are assets that have not yet been protected, despite the warm words coming from our Labour local authority. Assets such as the Ilkley lido, Keighley market and shops are now being considered for disposal, creating added worry to many of the occupants of those shops that the council own.

We have seen parking charges rise in villages such as Addingham, which means that the shops, which need those people to buy their products and to benefit their local economy, are now facing detrimental impact. Where does the issue of fairness kick in? In my constituency, the local council, which has increased council tax, spend that hard-earned money on a huge amount of mismanaged projects, wastage projects and projects that are not even open.

I submitted a freedom of information request to find out whether my constituents were getting a fair level of spending in the constituency. I asked the local authority how much had been spent on highways in my constituency over a two-year period. There are five constituencies across the Bradford district, so one would expect the figure to be about 20%, but it was about 7% on average over the two-year period. No wonder the state of potholes in my constituency is far worse than in the inner-city centre of Bradford. How can I justify backing any increase in council tax when the spending is so dire?

I want to come back to the issue of accountability. The last chief executive of Bradford council, Kersten England, held that post for a long period, and oversaw the mismanagement of finance and the diabolical handling of children’s services before the last Conservative Government stepped in, but—jobs for the boys—what is she doing now? She is chairing city of culture. What an absolute disgrace, in terms of who is being held accountable by the Government.

Let me quote some of the concerns that constituents have raised with me about council tax being raised by 9.9%. One said, “I will be 70 next year, and I am still having to continue to work to make ends meet.” Another said, “I am disabled and now, as a result of this council tax hike, will have to use my own savings to look after myself.” Another said, “I am a single mother with three children and I simply can’t afford this.” Another said, “I didn’t ask the council to throw money at a concert venue that is not open”—and therefore not benefiting my constituents—“yet they have done that and are expecting me to pay the price.” Another said, “It’s difficult to see why I would like to live through my retirement, having to spend this much more.” The list goes on.

There is only one long-term solution, and I will be interested to see what the Government have to say about it. I have long been campaigning, along with the former Member of Parliament for Shipley, Philip Davies, to pull our two constituencies out of Bradford council and create our own unitary authority away from the mismanagement of Bradford city.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

The hon. Member took the opportunity to make a speech. I am sure he will get his clicks on Facebook and Twitter, so he does not need to continue in that vein.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Please indulge me. Could you give some guidance, on how, under Standing Orders, we can encourage Ministers to debate? This is, after all, a debating chamber. The Minister is either unable or unwilling to debate with right hon. and hon. Members.