Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard the point I just made. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land will be turned over to solar farm use. Some of the hyperbole that has been associated with the issue over recent months is unwarranted. I say directly to him, because I want to move on and speak to the Bill, that these are matters that relate to the national planning policy framework, rather than to any proposals in this piece of legislation. I am more than happy to sit down with him and talk about them outside of the context of this debate, but I do want to make some progress.

We made a number of improvements to the Bill in Committee to ensure that it operates as intended and that its expected benefits are fully realised. In many cases, the changes were a direct result of constructive feedback from key stakeholders and parliamentarians. The result is the stronger and more impactful Bill before us. I will briefly outline the more substantive changes made to the Bill in Committee, including in relation to the nationally significant infrastructure projects, statutory consultee funding and the nature restoration fund, before turning to further amendments that the Government tabled last week.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the very open way in which he has approached this process so far. He is absolutely right that the Government made many positive changes and concessions in Committee, but he will be aware that many stakeholders remain concerned about the Bill’s impact on nature. As the Bill progresses, is he minded to listen to representations from people who are absolutely behind him on his growth mission but who want to ensure that there is no further loss of natural habitat in one of the most nature-depleted nations on the planet?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend and I spoke just days ago about that issue. We are of course more than happy to continue engaging with and listening to the views proposed by hon. Members from across the House and by organisations. If he will allow me to make a little progress, I will deal specifically with the nature restoration fund in fairly short order.

Let me begin with the improvements made to the consenting process for critical infrastructure. As set out in my written ministerial statement of 23 April, the Government have removed the overly prescriptive and burdensome statutory consultation requirements for major economic infrastructure projects that were unique to the NSIP system established by the Planning Act 2008. Over this Parliament, that change could result in a cost-saving of over £1 billion across the project pipeline. By speeding up delivery, increasing capacity and reducing constraint cost, it will also contribute to lower household bills.

We have decided to proceed with the change because considerable evidence attests to the fact that the statutory requirements in place are driving perverse outcomes. Rather than providing a means by which engagement drives better outcomes, statutory pre-application procedures have become a tick-box exercise that encourages risk-aversion and gold-plating. The result is consultation fatigue and confusion for communities; longer, more technical and less accessible documentation; and an arrangement that actively disincentivises improvements to applications, even if they are in a local community’s interests, because applicants worry that a further repeat consultation will be required.

In removing the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for NSIP applications, and bringing requirements more closely in line with other planning regimes, the Government are not downgrading the importance of high-quality pre-submission consultation and engagement. We still want the NSIP regime to function on the basis of a front-loaded approach in which development proposals are thoroughly scoped and refined prior to being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and we still expect high-quality, early, meaningful and constructive engagement and consultation to take place with those affected as part of that process. Given that such engagement and consultation routinely takes place and leads to improved proposals in other planning regimes without such statutory requirements, and because the development consent order examination procedure rewards high-quality applications, we are confident that developers will continue to be incentivised to undertake it.

To support that change, the Government intend to publish statutory guidance setting out strong expectations that developers undertake consultation and engagement prior to submitting an application. We will work with stakeholders to design that guidance—a public consultation will be launched in the coming months—so that it encourages best practice without recreating the flaws of the current system.

We have also made a number of other changes relating to the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, including by amending the Bill to ensure that promoters can gain access to land to carry out surveys assessing its condition and status and inform environmental impact assessments, and to make the process for post-consent changes to development consent orders more proportionate to the change requested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that was in power for the last 14 years. The result of that 14-year period is that we are a nation with a housing crisis and huge numbers of people in inadequate accommodation or no accommodation at all, and that we are the most nature-depleted nation on earth, so the system clearly is not working. Does he have any real sense that there needs to be change, or is he saying that we can carry on with the system that we have?

[Paul Holmes]

I would have more truck with the hon. Gentleman’s argument if anything that his Government proposed had the intentions that he has outlined. Just this morning, Savills has indicated, knowing what the proposed legislation will do, that the target of 1.5 million homes will not be met and that only 880,000 houses will be built by the end of this Parliament.

When it comes to the environmental protections that the Minister has outlined, it is quite clear that many of the concerns of Members across this House should be listened to. The environmental proposals made by the Minister will have a detrimental impact on local areas by shipping the problem elsewhere.

[Mr Perkins]

Does the hon. Member have any proposals?

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman asks whether I have any proposals. The last Government built the largest number of houses in history. There are many things that we agree need to be done, and there are some areas of this Bill that we agree with, but the hon. Gentleman needs to realise that taking power away from locally elected councillors is a disgrace. The Minister is saying to the hon. Gentleman and his councillors that they should not be trusted to make decisions on behalf of their local communities. I am sure he will not be happy with that when he gets to his annual general meeting in a few months’ time to be reselected as a parliamentary candidate.

There are other concerns about this legislation. As we have said, the Government have consistently said that they want to build 1.5 million homes, but the independent Office for Budget Responsibility—a body that Labour held in high regard when it was in opposition—has forecast that the Government will fail to deliver on their manifesto commitment and will fall short of that figure. As I have said, that was echoed today by Savills, which estimates that the Government will build just over half the number of houses that the Deputy Prime Minister has promised, even after coming out of her very testing meetings with the Chancellor.

The Government’s proposal to reduce the number of legal challenges available to opponents of major infrastructure developments from three to two—and in some cases just one—should alarm anyone who believes in checks and balances. Legal scrutiny is not an inconvenience; it is the backbone of our democratic system. Infrastructure projects often have far-reaching environmental, social and economic consequences, and by curtailing legal recourse, we are not removing red tape but removing the public’s right to hold power to account. In the name of speed, the Government are undermining the legal mechanisms that protect us from Government overreach.

As I have said, the clear implication of the Minister’s proposals today is that powers will be removed from locally elected planning committees. That is a disgrace, and it is in addition to a gerrymandering housing algorithm that punishes rural areas and rewards Labour councillors in urban centres for failure. We are told that the Bill will speed up planning decisions, but at what cost? Local planning authorities are indeed struggling, under-resourced and overburdened, but granting them fee-raising powers without guaranteed central support is like asking a drowning man to swim harder. More alarmingly, the shift of decision-making powers from elected councillors to unelected planning officers under the guise of efficiency diminishes local democracy. It takes key decisions out of the hands of public representatives and places them in the hands of a bureaucracy increasingly dictated by central policy.

We are also told that the Bill will make planning more strategic. That is a noble aim, but let us not forget that the strategic failure of recent years has been due not to too much local input but to too little co-ordination. The requirement for regional spatial strategies was scrapped by this Government’s predecessors. Now, the pendulum swings once again, with combined authorities being told to draft regional plans; however, those same authorities are being starved of the funding and staff required to do so. We risk repeating history, only this time with fewer safety nets and a weakened capacity to challenge flawed strategies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point he makes. It is vital to protect the character of existing places and communities that are so valued, which is why we want a more locally driven approach to assessing housing numbers and local plan making.

Finally, if we build the GP surgeries, the healthcare and the other infrastructure before the homes, we will be building in the interests of our communities, not against them. That is the kind of community-led development that Liberal Democrats want and that our amendments would help to bring about, and I humbly urge Members to support them.

[Mr Perkins]

I rise to set out the case for amendments 136 and 150 and new clause 62, in my name. I am very pleased to hear what the Minister has said so far. The Bill would tackle the long-standing conundrum of how to deliver the ambitious house building targets to which the Government are rightly committed, while protecting the environment and enhancing, not reducing, protections for nature. Before I turn to my amendments, I want to speak briefly about the extent to which the Bill achieves those aims.

I absolutely share the Government’s commitment to freeing up the planning system and ensuring that fewer people are unable to get on to the housing ladder and fewer children grow up in unsuitable, overcrowded and temporary accommodation. I see the impact of this country’s failure to build the homes it needs in my surgeries every single week, so I support the Government’s aims to speed up that process. I also agree that planning has too often been a barrier to those ambitions, and the Government are absolutely right to attempt to remove this blocker.

Freeing up unnecessary restrictions, however, must not mean allowing further nature degradation, nor does it have to. The Government have said that these ambitions will be achieved alongside nature recovery. Wildlife populations in England have fallen to around 67% of their 1970 level; as I said a few moments ago, Britain is now one of the “most nature-depleted” places on earth. Most of England’s rare and vulnerable habitats are in poor condition. Alongside building the homes and infrastructure that our society needs, we must rebuild our natural capital—the air, water, soils and biodiversity —on which our society depends.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It sounds as though the hon. Member, like me, has a deep passion for ensuring that we maintain nature, so does he agree that a simple measure would be to accept new clause 30, which would extend permitted development rights for ponds of up to 0.2 hectares, providing vital freshwater habitats for up to two thirds of all freshwater species, exactly as he has been saying?

[Mr Perkins]

I thank the hon. Member very much for that intervention, and I look forward to hearing her speech in support of her new clause. I do think that has merit and is worth considering, and I look forward to hearing her make her case in more detail.

The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, initiated an inquiry into housing growth and environmental sustainability to scrutinise the Government’s national planning policy proposals. Achieving growth and delivering for people, climate and nature together is a vital but challenging task. There are many provisions in this Bill that I welcome, and I thank the Minister for his efforts and his detailed engagement. I was grateful that he made time to meet me recently to discuss my proposed amendments.

Overall, I support the Government’s intention in part 3, and I think those parties that wish to simply scrap the approach entirely are wrong. It is right to introduce a more strategic approach to satisfying developers’ environmental obligations. If done well, the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy proposed in part 3 could simplify and accelerate the process of meeting existing environmental requirements, where developments impact protected sites or protected species. Importantly, I see the merit of this strategic approach in delivering larger-scale and more effective nature conservation measures where development has unavoidable impacts on protected sites and protected species.

However, the strength of concern from knowledgeable stakeholders should give the Government serious pause for thought. The Office for Environmental Protection, which was mentioned earlier, published advice for the Government stating that the existing provisions in the Bill would amount to a regression in environmental law, so it is welcome that the Minister continues to be open-minded about making further amendments. I look forward to hearing about the engagement in another place, where I am certain that further amendments will be brought forward.

The Environmental Audit Committee has heard evidence that there must be stronger safeguards for the proposed nature restoration fund to genuinely deliver on its potential for nature. My objective in tabling amendments to this Bill is to engage constructively with the Government’s approach to part 3, and to strengthen it so that it delivers for nature and development at the same time.

To turn first to amendment 136, I very much welcome what the Minister had to say about scientific safeguards, and I look forward to what he comes forward with. This amendment would ensure that environmental delivery plans are used only where there is scientific evidence that they will work. In other words, there must be robust evidence that a particular negative effect on a protected site or protected species can be mitigated or compensated for at a strategic level, rather than on a site-by-site basis.

Although the strategic approaches that will be delivered by EDPs can work well for some habitats and species, such as nutrients or newts, they do not always work for others. This amendment would safeguard against the EDP approach being applied to inappropriate species or habitats. The Government have recognised this principle and have committed to a modular approach to expanding EDPs with new plans applying feature by feature, and existing protections remaining in place for those not yet covered. I support this approach, and I encourage the Government to enshrine this principle in legislation to give certainty that the scientific safeguards to which they have committed cannot be altered by any future Government without revisiting this legislation.

On amendment 150—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

St George’s Day and English Affairs

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered St George’s Day and English affairs.

I am grateful to my colleagues who co-sponsored this debate, and I wish all those right across our island home a belated but very happy St George’s day.

The cross-party support for this debate speaks to the power of St George and our collective pride in our Englishness. While the debate brought many colleagues together for all the right reasons, regardless of background or political persuasion, we as a House must be very clear that no political party, politician, region, faith, colour or creed has a monopoly on patriotism or pride in our national identity.

We gather here 80 years to the day since VE Day—the day of victory in Europe, victory against fascism and victory for decency, democracy and all that makes England and our United Kingdom great. As we celebrate 80 years since the end of the most terrible global war in modern history, I will, like many other colleagues who would otherwise be here, head back home to my constituency to celebrate with my neighbours, friends and constituents. I pay tribute to all those who fought so that we could live. I give thanks for their lives and legacies, and on behalf of the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme, I rededicate myself to building a world that is more tolerant, more respectful and, yes, more peaceful. As Churchill said on this day 80 years ago,

“Long Live the Cause of Freedom! God Save the King!”—[Official Report, 8 May 1945; Vol. 410, c. 1869.]

From Newcastle-under-Lyme to North Northumberland, from Newquay to North Yorkshire and everywhere in between and beyond, St George’s day is a time to celebrate England and our Englishness and to show pride in our country—my country—and in our values, our flag and our history. My Englishness is central to my identity. My family roots are from all over the Commonwealth, and I have spoken in this House before about my grandfather who left the colonies, as they were, to help the war effort here in the United Kingdom. Yet it is in England where I was born and raised; it is England that shaped me and allowed someone of my mixed background to thrive, succeed and get on in life. That is the story of our England.

I have said in the House before that I am proud of my Englishness and my Britishness, and of the simple truth that in our beloved country—“this blessed plot”, as Shakespeare once called it—we can be anything we want to be with the right support, a work ethic, real opportunities and a good heart. There is so much that any, many and all of us could say about our nation home, but the time limits do not allow me that opportunity—although, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are well known for your indulgence.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and thank him for doing so. It is important. I am one of those people— I suspect many of us are—who are proud to be English and proud to be British; I recognise them as different things that we should celebrate uniquely. Does he agree that those who seek to use Englishness to divide us, rather than bring us together, do a huge disservice to what being English is all about? Does he also agree that those of us who believe that we can have huge patriotism and pride in our Englishness, but who also recognise the values of inclusivity and generosity that our nation has shown over the years, need to do a much better job at defining exactly what it is as we go forward in difficult political times?

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a very important intervention. There is so much more that brings us together, and it is incumbent on all Members of this House to make that case, and to focus on bringing people together, rather than pushing us further apart.

England’s greatest asset is its people. That is nowhere clearer to me than in Newcastle-under-Lyme, the northern corner of the ancient county of Staffordshire that is my home and my constituency. Our people are hardworking, and many are God-fearing, decent folk who do not walk by on the other side, but who turn up to be counted. We see that in our national health service, in our schools, on our railways, in our veterans’ centres and in communities up and down England. We saw it during the pandemic and in the struggle alongside the people of Ukraine against Putin’s tyranny. We see it every single day.

One of England’s greatest features is our countryside, and my home of Newcastle-under-Lyme has plenty of it. Our farmers, who produce food of the greatest quality to the highest standards, deserve real and meaningful support. They feed us, work hard and lead the world when it comes to tending to and caring for our land, and I urge Ministers in this Government to keep that in mind. Where the previous Government failed, we must listen, learn and turn up to be counted.

The contribution of the English language to western literacy is simply immeasurable. England was home to the greatest writer of all time, William Shakespeare, and the works of Shakespeare alone continue to put England head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to influence on global literature. Alongside him, England can claim T. S. Eliot, the Brontë sisters, George Orwell, Jane Austen and many more.

English music is some of the most popular and influential music of all time. Still today, the Beatles— I see the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey)—are considered by many to be the greatest band of all time, but that is a debate for another day. Alongside the Beatles, we have the Stones, David Bowie, Amy Winehouse, Queen, Adele, Elton John, Kate Bush, the excellent Joan Armatrading, Cilla Black, Oasis, the Clash, Pink Floyd and, of course, Robbie Williams—a man of and from north Staffordshire, whose mother lives in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme.

England has made some of the most enduring and significant contributions to music of any nation on our planet, and that is without mentioning the many other cultural endeavours mastered by the English. English film remains dominant globally. A new James Bond film is still one of the premier cinematic events, and no tariff will get in the way of that. Christopher Nolan, an Englishman, is arguably one of the most exciting and skilled film directors working today. We give thanks for actors like the late Dame Maggie Smith and the late and wonderful Glenda Jackson, formerly of this parish, and to those still going strong like Dame Joanna Lumley and Dame Judi Dench, who I had the pleasure of celebrating my birthday with last year—[Interruption.] A story for another day, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As the birthplace of Reginald Mitchell, the designer of the iconic Spitfire plane; home to a university; birthplace of a Prime Minister—albeit that he moved to Australia to serve in that high office—and the home of the founder of the modern circus, Philip Astley; the ancient and loyal borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme has left its mark on English history and culture. If that is not enough, we also have the popular Stoke City clown icon Nello Baldwin—a constituent of mine. Speaking of Stoke City, I could not make this speech without mentioning England as the home of the beautiful game. With the local football landscape back home in mind, I of course also pay tribute to Port Vale.

Today it is important to call for action to ensure that the truths of England’s story and potential are preserved. We must work to ensure that people across England, and indeed all across the United Kingdom, continue to feel pride in our flag and our communities, and feel hope for the future and respect for our past. Any talk about love for flag and country must be matched by an investment in the people who make them what they are —investment in our national health service, our education and employment support services, our arts and culture, and our villages, towns and cities.

I do not want my speech to focus solely on the past, when there are so many exciting things to say about England’s future, but it would be remiss of me not to touch on some parts of our history that fill me with a particular sense of reverence. Our democracy is one of the oldest in the world. An English Parliament has existed in some form since the 13th century, and monumental events, such as the signing of the Magna Carta, have solidified England’s position in history as a forebearer of individual rights and freedom of political expression. Those rights were fought for and hard won across centuries by brave women and men who had the vision to see a better country and a better world for all of us.

There are many things I could say about England’s relationship to the wider world, but one of the enduring strengths of our country that I always come back to is the courage, tenacity and character of ordinary English people right across history. England is home to people from all over the world, and we are much better for it. Of course, we cannot forget that England, too, left its mark on all corners of the globe.

For some—misguidedly, in my view—talking England up is alien to them. To speak of the exciting future ahead of us in the vibrant country that we have become is difficult for some to do. All they seem able to contribute to our national conversation is a view of England as a nation in decline—a nation once great, now not. I have spent much of my several minutes speaking outlining the incredible successes and achievements of England’s past, but for those people, there is nothing more to England than its past. To them I say, “You don’t know England.” We have faced our fair share of adversity, and today of all days reminds us of that, but as Disraeli said:

“The English nation is never so great as in adversity.”

I am never so proud to be English as in those moments. It is when times are toughest that I am blown away by the courage, tenacity and generosity of the good people of this country.

The English have always found a way to get on, persevere, and, as Churchill put it, “keep buggering on”, whether after the destruction of two world wars or through the heartbreak of a disappointing Euros final. We will continue to do so. I will continue to look back at our past with the respect and reverence that it deserves, and look forward to our future with hope and optimism, because doing so is part of what makes us English, and things can only get better.

I leave my final words to the last verse of one of my, and my late grandfather’s, favourite hymns. He moved to this country in the late 1940s to help ensure that we beat fascism and defended democracy. I shall resist the temptation to sing the verse to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Disappointing? Not for some.

“I will not cease from Mental Fight,

Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand:

Till we have built Jerusalem,

In England’s green and pleasant Land.”

We have much to do, in this House and in communities right across the country, so let us get on with. Happy St George’s day to one and all!

Coalfield Communities

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for coalfield communities.

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. As ever, I will seek to follow your instructions, as gently as they were put. I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate this afternoon, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it time. It will give Members of this House the opportunity to make the case for the coalfield communities up and down our United Kingdom to get the opportunities, investment, focus and support that they need and deserve.

Newcastle-under-Lyme is nestled within the north Staffordshire coalfield. Our ancient and loyal borough has a rich history that is intertwined with coalmining. In the early 20th century, our coalfield supported more than 50 pits, employing more than 20,000 men and boys. Newcastle-under-Lyme was home to several notable collieries, including Silverdale colliery, which was among the last deep mines in the area and closed in December 1998. The pit wheel monument stands proud as a reminder of the past and gives hope for the future. We also have the Minnie pit monuments up in Audley, in the northern part of my constituency.

Just a fortnight ago, I was privileged to have the opportunity to attend the commemorative events to mark the 130th anniversary of the Diglake colliery disaster, which took place in Bignall End in Newcastle-under-Lyme on 14 January 1895. That disaster saw 77 men and boys lose their lives, and is commemorated every year. It was a wonderful opportunity to reflect and remember, and I am very grateful to the Reverend Joy Ventom and the church wardens, led by Bob Alcock, at Audley Methodist church for hosting such a brilliant weekend of remembrance, featuring the excellent Audley brass band.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this really important debate. He is reflecting on the historic past of the coalfields, which is absolutely integral to any of us who represent coalfield communities. However, does he agree that what people in the coalfields want is not mainly a focus on their past, but a Government with a sense of ambition for their future? What we really need to see in the coalfields is that the Government’s industrial strategy recognises the unique contribution that they can make, so that we can focus on a bright future for our coalfields as well as our proud past.

[Adam Jogee]

I thank my hon. Friend. During the election campaign, he came to support me and saw many of the communities to which I am referring, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. It is important that we know where we have come from, but it is more important that we set the path to where we want to go.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing this important debate on coalfield communities. It is very oversubscribed, and I wish we had more time. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, the Industrial Communities Alliance, Coalfields Regeneration Trust, and the House of Commons Library for the useful briefing paper it produced. I also thank my fellow coalfield MPs for their sterling work on behalf of their constituents.

Our mining communities not only have a proud past, but with the right leadership and investment we have an exciting future. After 14 years of Conservative Government, coalfield communities have been left grappling with relentless austerity and a rigged levelling-up agenda, which in practice meant that resources never reached the places in my community that needed them most.

Today, I want to talk not only about the challenges that our communities face, but the potential within them to drive economic growth, attract investment and create jobs that can transform lives and revitalise local economies. Some 30 years after the pit closures, the talent, resilience and ambition of our coalfield communities remains undiminished. It is not just about righting the wrongs of the past, but harnessing the energy in the community to build a stronger, greener and more prosperous economy.

I must say something about the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. To their credit, my Government—this Labour Government—have already demonstrated their commitment to coalfield communities. For too long, successive Governments have denied pension justice to retired miners and their widows. Money that should have been providing security in retirement was instead filling the Treasury’s coffers.

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend generously thanked coalfield MPs, but I would like to repay the compliment to him, because his leadership on the mineworkers pension scheme has been exemplary. We are all happy to support him as the chair of the APPG. I put on record how important a part he played in that significant commitment that this Government made.

[Grahame Morris]

My hon. Friend is kind and generous, and I thank him for that, but this is not about me; it is about the communities we represent.

We have to give credit that, at the recent Budget, the Chancellor righted the wrong on miners’ pensions and the MPS and delivered on Labour’s manifesto commitment on the mineworkers pension scheme surplus. The decision to transfer the MPS investment reserve fund was a moral obligation, and it resulted in an economic boost. In my constituency, the decision is injecting £5.6 million into the local economy every year through increased pension payments to the 3,755 MPS members—retired miners and widows—in east Durham. That money is now being spent in our high streets, local shops, cafés and pubs, boosting the economy, creating jobs and supporting growth. However, this pension justice issue is only partially settled. There is a similar issue with the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, which has 40,000 beneficiaries who are former British Coal staff and their widows. Since 1994, the Government have taken out £3.1 billion from that scheme, without contributing a penny.

I say with all respect to the Minister, and specifically to the Treasury, that it is time to release the £2.3 billion BCSSS investment reserve, so that all former mining staff can receive a pension uplift. Time is of the essence. Thousands of retired miners have already died, with 2,000 in the BCSSS passing away each year, including many women who were among the lowest-paid workers in the coal industry, having worked in pit canteens like my mother, or in administration and auxiliary roles. When we say numbers, they are meaningless, perhaps, to civil servants and ministerial advisers, but I know these men and women. They are men like Eamon Kavanagh, now in his 80s, who was an absolute stalwart, not just of Murton colliery, but the Seaham collieries; Bill Waites, who was a good friend of my late father; and my dear mother, who is 88. Time is of the essence to settle this issue. It is about fairness, pension justice and putting money back into communities that powered an industrial revolution that made Britain great, fuelled economic growth, and were the foundations on which our nation’s wealth was built.

On a positive note, we are moving from coal to clean energy. We can lead the green industrial revolution. The closure of the coalmines marked the end of an era, but just as we powered the last industrial revolution, it is now time for our communities to lead the next one, as we transition to a clean and green economy. Indeed, in east Durham, we have already been laying the foundations for this future. Mine water heat, an innovative low- carbon energy solution, is being developed in Seaham and Horden. If properly supported, it could provide sufficient heat for all properties in the UK’s coalfield areas, offering a sustainable and affordable alternative to traditional energy. Then there is Power Roll, a start-up based on the Jade enterprise park in Murton that is pioneering lightweight, flexible solar technology that does not rely on rare earth metals. This is British innovation at its finest, ready for reinvestment to scale up production in a gigafactory. With the right support, we can create new green-collar jobs. We have heard about white collar and blue collar; let us have green-collar jobs and position the UK as a global leader in renewable technology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Mining has long been deeply woven into the practical and cultural fabric of people’s lives in Chesterfield, as it has in all mining communities. I need only look out of the window of the Labour club where I base my constituency office to be confronted with the former Derbyshire Miners’ Association offices, and the statues of Chesterfield’s first two miner MPs. Indeed, until the election of Tony Benn in 1984, every Member of Parliament for Chesterfield in the 20th century had been a former collier.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) spoke about the educational role of the National Union of Mineworkers. That is one of the many legacies that have been lost as coalmining has disappeared. The union had a real commitment to making sure that its members were educated to the highest standards.

Evidence of mining in Chesterfield and Derbyshire ranges from tragic memorials to miners lost in our various tragedies to the dwindling number of miners’ welfare clubs and former offices on Saltergate. They serve as a reminder of the past—a window into a time when the region was dominated by the pits and the opportunities that they provided. It is important, however, that this debate also focuses on the future for coalmining areas, and on investments, such as the investment in junction 29A secured by my former colleague Dennis Skinner. It means that more people are now employed on the old Markham pit site than ever worked underground there.

This timely debate reminds us that the former coalfield areas, cruelly put out of use by the industrial vandalism of the Thatcher Government, have never been satisfactorily repurposed in any strategic way by subsequent Governments. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust recently reflected on the impact on health, not just for those with an industrial legacy, but for the one in five people in my constituency who are out of work due to long-term sickness. The same proportion have no formal qualifications. Those statistics paint a picture of what can happen when industry retreats from an area and no plan is made for what happens next.

I have heard former Conservative MPs talking about a benefits culture, but who created that? It was, of course, the Thatcher Government, putting all those miners out of work and expecting them to go on to incapacity benefit. The coalfields are fighting back, however. I pay tribute to John Burrows, the former Derbyshire NUM president and leader of Chesterfield borough council for six years, and his successor, Tricia Gilby. They were successful in attracting £25 million in town deal funds from the previous Government, and the dedication and success of the Staveley town deal board, of which I have been a proud member for the last five years, has brought about welcome investment that will support Staveley to support itself through the regeneration that we need.

However, I agree with colleagues that what we need is not occasional little pots of money, but a long-term strategic plan for re-energising coalfield communities. They are very different from cities, which Governments tend to find it easier to get investment into. We desperately need the new Government’s industrial strategy to speak to the needs of constituents like mine, and to set out a thought-through plan for coalfield communities.

I see a real opportunity for coalfields to be at the vanguard of the green revolution. The Government’s “clean power by ’30” mission alone will unlock £40 billion of investment a year and create thousands of skilled jobs. The coalfields have kept the lights on in this country over the last century, and there is so much opportunity for them to be at the forefront of doing that again. The people of Chesterfield have a proud history of working hard to keep the lights on, and they can keep that noble tradition going.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing this debate. The House will know that Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is not a coalfields constituency. Our mining tradition is far older. It goes back to the days of chalk. Its legacy today is seen in the impact of sinkholes in the local area.

Today’s debate is very much focused on the lasting legacy and impact of an era when coal was king. Although I do not represent a coalfields constituency, I certainly grew up in one. The old men with the blue scars and the hacking coughs from emphysema—or pneumoconiosis, as we now know it to be—were the background to my childhood. I feel lucky that I had a great-grandfather who, unlike many miners, lived a very long life. He started working in a pit at Cwmcarn at the age of 12 and carried on to the age of 70. He shared the impact of things such as the Universal Colliery disaster in Senghenydd on his life and the community in which he lived and grew up, and of seeing his brother die after being buried in a rockfall.

Although the industry created the enormous economic opportunities that have been described by many Members, we know that the environment was very harsh and difficult, and as we recognise in our many debates about climate change and the transition to net zero, it created a product that, although valuable and effective at generating energy, is enormously polluting.

[Mr Perkins]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. We have just had a very good debate, but it must be a considerable embarrassment to him that not a single Member of His Majesty’s Opposition thought that it was worthwhile attending to make a substantive speech. I appreciate that he is not a coalfield MP, and I appreciate that not many Conservative Members are, but does he not think that, if the Conservatives are serious about being ready to represent the whole country again, we should be hearing from some of their MPs in a debate such as this?

[David Simmonds]

As we see in all the debates that we have in this House, Members will attend to represent the interests of their communities and constituencies. I know that the same point has been made in the past about the lack of Members of Parliament from certain parties attending debates on farming and things such as that. We need to recognise that the central focus of this debate is on the historical impact and the way that we deal with that legacy. As the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, there are, to my regret, not many Conservative Members of Parliament who are dealing with those issues in their constituencies. That is a political fact. However, we will see them very active on issues that directly impact their constituencies on a daily basis.

English Devolution

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

In some ways we have to give direction. What we heard during the consultation stage with local government—that includes, by the way, the County Councils Network and the District Councils’ Network—is that the more clarity on a framework that can be provided by central Government upfront, the better for local government to be able to organise. We are very clear that on an efficiency level—if the drive is for efficiency—the 500,000 is roughly the population needed to draw out those efficiencies. In the example that the hon. Gentleman gave, it would not be 1.2 million. It might be two or even three councils, because in areas in discussions about a mayoral combined authority, we have accepted—it is outlined in the White Paper—that there will need to be some flexibility in terms of scale and size of the local authorities that sit under it.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Derbyshire already has a mayor, but we have a two-tier authority. If we cannot get agreement on the size of the unitary authority, will Derbyshire and similar authorities still hold elections next May, and how will my hon. Friend break the impasse if those at county level want one Derbyshire and those in the districts want two or three?

[Jim McMahon]

The assumption is that elections in counties will take place as planned, unless authorities actively approach us to say that they want reorganisation discussions and have proposals that they can work up. In those circumstances, we will take the view that elections to an authority that will not exist should be postponed so that an election for a shadow authority can follow. On Derbyshire, we need to be careful: the Government’s role is to invite and to receive, not to draw the maps, which is for local authorities to do. As my role is quasi-judicial and I will need to take a view on potentially competing proposals, I cannot comment on what individual counties may or may not look like.

Building Homes

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I return to a point that I have made several times during this statement. The onus is on local communities and elected leaders to put in place up-to-date local plans that shape where development is to take place. I know from previous conversations with the right hon. Lady that she wants brownfield-first developments—so do we. We have put in the framework published today a number of targeted changes to support the delivery of brownfield sites. We have also consulted, through a working paper soft consultation, on proposals for a brownfield passport to further accelerate and fast-track brownfield development. Local areas can look to bring forward and densify brownfield sites. However, in response to the point that there are not enough such sites, or that communities cannot work across boundaries with neighbouring authorities, we are saying, “Please look at the release of low-quality land within the green belt.”

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I salute my hon. Friend’s energy for and commitment to these targets. It is great to see that they are supported by the Prime Minister. The Environmental Audit Committee is looking at the new planning framework and its environmental consequences. I am pleased that, since the original consultation, there have been changes to strengthen environmental protections. Can my hon. Friend say a little more about how he will ensure that nature is not the victim of his passionate commitment? Brownfield sites are often very biodiverse, and trying to achieve the biodiversity net gain alongside all the other commitments simply means that they are not profitable. How will he ensure that those sites can be brought forward viably by both the private and public sectors?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. He is right: we have made a number of changes to the framework to further strengthen references to climate mitigation and adaptation. We have made a number of other changes relating to flood risk and sustainable drainage systems, and how we can support those through the planning system. On BNG specifically, I am more than happy to have a detailed conversation about our thinking on how to successfully roll out BNG across the country and ensure that it works not just on large sites, but on small sites in particular.

Planning Committees: Reform

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we consulted on a revised standard method that we think meets the scale of the ambition required to build the homes that our people need across the country. We realise that it will put pressure on those areas that need to increase their targets. We have put forward proposals on how support will be put in place, but that is the level of ambition that we need to meet an acute and entrenched housing crisis, the consequences of which I have set out.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister was at pains to say this weekend that nature recovery could happen hand in hand with the ambitious planning target she set. The Environmental Audit Committee is looking at the matter. Our opening inquiry is into the environmental impact of the plans being set out by the Minister. Will the training of planning committee members cover matters such as renewable energy, floodplains and renewable transport to ensure that new planning applications do not negatively impact the environment?

[Matthew Pennycook]

On mandatory training, we are considering a wide range of implementation options. We are keen to work with all stakeholders. I encourage my hon. Friend in his capacity as Committee Chair to put his views into the consultation—we want to determine the best way forward. On nature more generally, we are clear that there is a win-win to be had. The status quo is not working. Nature recovery is not proceeding in the strategic way that is possible. Development is not coming forward; it is being held up and deterred. If there is a win-win that does not involve a reduction in environmental protections, we want to bring it forward, and that is what we are looking to do in the planning and infrastructure Bill next year.