David Simmonds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Sept 2026 · Urban Housing: Densification · Hansard source

  More

  Planning permissions for new homes, of which there are already around 1.5 million, are one thing, but getting those units built is another. With Savills reporting that two thirds of London boroughs have seen net zero new housing starts under the Mayor of London, what proposals do the Government have to ensure that units with permission actually get built, rather than concreting over our green belt?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Dispatch Box, and I thank her for early sight of her statement. I am not sure that this was the triumphant return to the subject of devolution that she had in mind, because our councillors and the communities that they represent are looking aghast at yet another shambolic U-turn from this Government. Ministers have repeatedly given assurances to this House from that Dispatch Box that have not been honoured, and it speaks volumes for the Government’s sense of priority that, this far into this Administration, only Surrey has proceeded with its reorganisation—despite all those assurances. The Secretary of State has already told the House that she is not satisfied that the process that was followed by her predecessor was lawful. Can she tell the House from the Dispatch Box why she is not satisfied that it was lawful, and will she place all the non-privileged documentation and correspondence relating to this debacle in the public domain and in the Library? Given that the Government have agreed to pay the legal costs of councils that have challenged them on this matter, can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment has she made of the legal costs that will be borne by taxpayers as a consequence of this U-turn? Given that the Government have been banking on millions of pounds in savings—we have challenged them on those savings repeatedly across the Dispatch Boxes—to mitigate costs, which include the massive rise in national insurance that has driven many councils to the verge of bankruptcy, what assessment have Treasury colleagues made, and what advice have they given to the Secretary of State about how they will need to mitigate this further delay in any of those savings being achieved, should they ever materialise? The Secretary of State has told the House from the Dispatch Box that elections will go ahead. We have all heard that promise made at the Dispatch Box before; indeed, in some cases it has been reversed literally the following day. Given the promises made and that all our political parties have selected candidates who have been campaigning for mayoral elections and new unitary authorities that the Government promised were coming into being, with elections to take place next May, will she give a categorical assurance that those new authorities will be in place, or promise the House clearly that they will not be? Will she tell us what is the timetable—if there is one at all—for bringing those new mayoral combined authorities into existence, particularly given the store by which the Government have set those as their path for devolution? Finally, I appreciate that the Secretary of State has returned to the role after others have been stewarding it, but will she apologise to all those councillors, all those local government officials, all those political candidates and activists and all those businesses who have engaged in good faith with the Government’s process? All of them have been shamefully let down by this betrayal of local democracy.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Regional Devolution: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  With the Government having earlier today briefed the media that much of their devolution programme is being paused, with only Surrey looking like it is going to get its way—I am sure it is the subject of relentless lobbying by Labour Back Benchers—can the Minister tell us how many of the new mayors promised by this Government after their election will be in place by the next general election?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Draft Nature Restoration Levy regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. As the Minister set out in his introduction, there was extensive debate during the Committee on the Bill that has brought this set of regulations to life. There was certainly a lot of cross-party debate about the provision; that reflects the public interest in the impact that development can have on nature and wildlife in particular. Although there was a degree of political disagreement about the policy itself, I think we all shared the objective: having a more functional system. That is clearly the Government’s objective, so we will not seek to divide the Committee this afternoon. However, I have some questions for the Minister. When we debated the issue in Committee, he was clear that in due course this legislation would come forward and there would be an opportunity to look at the points of detail that Members had raised. My first question is about any assessment that he has undertaken of Natural England’s capacity to administer the process. We heard in the Committee evidence sessions from different development organisations that talked about how difficult it sometimes was to get a decision from Natural England because of its lack of capacity when a development had been approved but there remained elements that Natural England needed to sign off. Clearly, this legislation envisages a significant role for Natural England in the planning process—much larger than it currently occupies, and one that it said in evidence to the Committee it would welcome. But making those decisions and the financial underpinning will come at a significant cost, in terms of both people and skills. Will the Minister set out what assessments have been undertaken to ensure that the provision does not lead to further delays through the administration of the levy scheme? The second question relates to a point that we touched on in Committee and is not, as far as I can see, fully addressed in the papers: the treatment of levy payments in kind. We heard examples of when developers had said that, rather than make a cash contribution, they would seek to offer another site where they would create an appropriate wetland habitat, habitat for birds or whatever, which would have a value attached to it. In the normal course of events, the Government already negotiate to determine whether a financial contribution can be made in the form of an asset that has a value, rather than in cash. It is not immediately clear how that type of situation would be handled, especially given that Natural England will be separate from the planning authority making the decision on the scheme. It would be helpful if the Minister told us how the Government envisage dealing with that. Finally, in Committee a point was raised that I do not think the papers entirely address: how the policy will operate where we are talking about cumulative impacts. It is straightforward for a developer that has needed to raze a woodland to demonstrate that it is financing an alternative site, to be managed by Natural England, that will recreate that habitat elsewhere. But what about developers with numerous smaller sites? How will their accumulated contribution be used to ensure that there is appropriate remediation? When those sites are in different planning authorities, how can there be an appropriate negotiation so that things are not held up because one planning authority is trying to determine the impact and another has a separate application, but the contributions from both are key to ensure that the remediation is sufficient?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Draft Nature Restoration Levy regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I want to test the Minister’s thinking on that point. As constituency MPs, many of us have heard about section 106, where a significant number of contributions may be attached to school places, road improvements or whatever it may be. When the money is not spent within a specified period of time, the developer can reclaim it so that it cannot be redirected to other purposes, depending on what is in the agreement. Another challenge is what happens when developers in a new town, for example, prefer to pay the levy, but the total of all the payments exceeds the value of the work that Natural England is undertaking because of the extent of the development, so something else needs to be substituted. Will the Minister set out briefly how the Government propose to address such issues so that the legislation does not, in practice, turn out to be a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare for many of the communities involved?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Draft Nature Restoration Levy regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has helpfully set out how we expect the EDP process to work in practice. When he was talking about how it would be financed, he described what could be extensive and lengthy public consultation, requiring expert input in designing habitats and so forth. Clearly, that will come at a significant cost. Will the cost to Natural England of administering the scheme be paid for out of the levy income itself or is there a separate funding mechanism that will enable Natural England to carry out that work?

• 8 Jul 2026 · The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am sure that Members will be pleased to know that, because the Opposition agree with the principle underlying the statutory instrument, we will not seek to divide the Committee. The Minister has brought his usual clarity to introducing the order. Although I am sure that there are many questions that could be hotly debated, because there is always discussion about whether measures have the correct boundaries and powers, I would simply like to ask him a few questions that my colleagues have raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne touched on the impact of local government reorganisation on the proposed development corporation. One issue is that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 envisages that new mayors will take on many of these development powers. Given that a decision on local government reorganisation structures in greater Cambridge and many other areas is likely to be imminent, what thinking has there been about how the powers of the corporation will be transferred to the new mayoral or combined authority once it comes into being, if at all? The Minister might have already decided that that is not going to happen, but it would be helpful if he clarified how that will work. As the instrument establishes a new development corporation that transfers planning powers that currently sit with two district-level authorities, how does that sit alongside the amended planning regulations that the Minister set out to a Delegated Legislation Committee last week, and on which a deferred Division took place earlier today? In particular, what impact will the changed numbers and the changed responsibility for members have, given that the instrument will aggregate planning responsibilities that are covered by legislation on political balance in each of the constituent authorities? How will that democratic capacity be carried through so that the new authority reflects that legislative requirement? How will the new planning authority that the instrument brings into being handle accumulated section 106 balances? As greater Cambridge is a very economically vibrant part of the world, a significant number of housing, economic development and transport projects are already in train. Many of those involve existing legal agreements that determine if a section 106 or community infrastructure levy contribution will be paid. Some of that will be paid at commencement, and some at milestones during those projects. Given that there will be residents’ expectations about what those contributions will fund, how will the process operate? Excellent as he is, the Minister is not the Minister responsible for local government reorganisation. A brief glance at the map reminds us that greater Cambridge sits at the boundary with numerous authorities, including Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and Suffolk, that either envisage or have recently gone through a process of local government reorganisation. A good many politicians, including some involved in that, hold the view that the boundaries of the zone will need to be larger if the process is to achieve its potential, particularly given the zone’s location in the Oxford-Cambridge arc. Will the Minister set out his thinking on the future of the zone? How can we provide a sense of certainty to those who have that concern, and to investors who may be wondering about the contribution to the development of new transport links that would attract their business to invest in this location? What is the timeline for that?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Civil Service Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister set out for the House the robust accountability measures that he has in place. I appreciate that it is difficult for him to ensure that he gets the response he wants from Capita, but can he please ensure that when constituents of mine, like Keith Wyvill, contact their former employer, the Cabinet Office, they are not simply given the brush-off and told to raise the issue with Capita, but at least have set out for them the actions that the Government are taking?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Cadets · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps he is taking to support cadets.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Cadets · Hansard source

  More

  Cadet centres such as the TS Pelican in Ruislip in my constituency are a vital part of our armed forces community, but given that the Government have decided to cut the funding that supports our cadet groups, can the Minister tell us what progress is being made with the private sector investment that the Government have said will backfill the consequences of those cuts?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has set out clearly, and I think boosted, the point about the complexity. She is absolutely right that we should not have a situation where someone feels that their election to office overrides their obligation to the basic good conduct and due process we expect of all politicians—the basic respect for human rights, the lives of other people and everything that makes this country strong. We need to make sure—I am sure the Minister will—that the Government reflect on the long-term lessons from Northern Ireland. This is not just about what Shahid Butt may have done in Yemen in 1999; it is about our experience as a country of terrorism influencing our politics and our communities, and about making sure those lessons are taken into account, so that we can be better protected for the future. The Opposition will support the Government in seeking to bring forward whatever policy changes are necessary, and some suggestions have been made in the debate about what those might look like. That could include a test specifically around convictions for terrorism or around crimes of violence that would impact on the suitability of someone for public office. It could include how we work with other countries to ensure that convictions abroad are captured through the nominations process, so that we know what people may have been convicted of and are able to make an effective appraisal of the soundness of that conviction—recognising that a conviction in Russia or China may not carry the same weight in the view of our politics as a conviction in France, Germany or Ireland. We pledge to work with the Government to seek to address this issue and make sure that all of our communities, for the long-term future, can have total confidence in the integrity of our political system.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) on the way in which he introduced this complex debate. Let me start by addressing the issue that prompted the petition that we are debating. Many of us will have heard of Councillor Robert Alden, the leader of the Conservative group in Birmingham, who called on voters to “help keep extremists out” of Birmingham city council. We have heard examples from a number of different parties of how, in response to a high-profile individual with a very serious conviction, there was a sense across the political system in that city that they would not welcome division into their local politics. Although some in the ward voted for that individual, the community exercised what I think most of us would respect as being good judgment. That leads to the broader question of how, particularly in local elections where turnout can be extremely low—sometimes as low as 20% at ward level—and in complicated politics with sometimes five or more political parties and a number of independent candidates, we ensure that people who wish to bring extremism into politics do not use those types of elections to leverage public office to pursue extremist aims. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) represents a community that has had to face and deal with some tensions, and he has led the response to that extremely effectively. He set out in his clear contribution that we need to ensure that in our politics and democracy—how we come together to collectively make the best decisions to support our communities and national interest—we do not see people seeking to leverage political office to create division. This debate comes at a time when there is a bigger picture when it comes to those seeking to import disputes from other parts of the world into our politics. All of us, as constituency MPs, deal with that on a daily basis. Sometimes there are heartfelt requests for the intervention of the British state. I recently met constituents who wanted to talk to me about access to reservoirs and water in Sri Lanka. They felt that people in their country would respect the intervention of the British Government and that it would produce a positive impact on something directly affecting the lives of their friends, family and relations in a community with which they, like Britain, have a strong connection. However, there are also those who seek to use British politics as a means of pursuing conflict and division, and clearly we do not welcome that. In considering cases like that of Shahid Butt, we know that Yemen is a country beset by terrible conflict and violence that have cost the lives of many thousands of innocent people. We do not want that conflict to be pursued either in Birmingham city council’s town hall or in any other part of our politics. The challenge for the Government, who currently hold the responsibility to address this issue, is how we strike the right balance when seeking to draw boundaries around who is eligible for public office in our country. We are a country that respects and cherishes freedom of speech, and we support the right to the freedom of religion and belief. We believe, and it is enshrined in our rules, that there should be a path to redemption and reconciliation for people who break the law or the norms of our society. However, as politics becomes an increasingly contested space, we need to ensure that we balance those principles with preserving the integrity of our politics. People could seek local office not to benefit the wider community but because they want a decision to be made in favour of a planning application, a grant from the council or the sale of a piece of land to the benefit of them and their associates. People could also seek election to this Parliament to try to change the policy of the British Government in respect of interventions in conflict, wars and disputes in other countries. None of those things is about the longer-term interests of the British people. Given the rising tide of antisemitism, which most of us will have heard about from our constituents—the Maccabi football team case in Birmingham was a classic example—we need to ensure that our governance and local ethics are free from the taint of extremism, wherever it may be found. The official Opposition support the Government in seeking to take forward their policies on this area. I reflect on what the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) set out in respect of the complex history of Northern Ireland. It must be difficult for members of that community to find themselves face to face with people who are not only terrorists but may have been involved in the murder or harm of their own relatives. I have personally heard about that from Northern Ireland politicians. They have told me what it is like to sit in a council chamber knowing that somebody there was directly involved in the killing of someone very close to them, and trying to work out how to put that dispute behind them and move forward in the interests of the community, while not disrespecting the memory of those they loved.