How are speeches selected and edited?
- Quotes and speeches are selected on the basis of their relevance and notability - whether they bring new information to a debate, are rhetorically interesting, or whether they are interesting in the context of their speaker.
- Omissions to speeches are noted by ellipses (...) but are otherwise as recorded in Hansard.
- Not all speeches are selected here.
- AI is used to draft articles summarising Parliamentary debates. All summaries are reviewed and edited manually before publication. You can read the script used to generate the summaries.
Planning Reform
Edited by Peter Warrington, 2026-06-13 Speeches from the landmark debates on the government's plans to reform planning laws, speed up building, and bypass the 'vetocracy'.The Labour Government has introduced its highly anticipated Planning and Infrastructure Bill, promising to “get Britain building” with a target of 1.5 million new homes. However, the legislation has sparked fierce debate over compulsory purchase rights, the loss of local democratic control, and ministerial overreach.
Key Quotes:
“[When asked how France built nuclear power stations with so little objection] the French Minister, without realising the double entendre, replied, ‘When you are draining the swamp, you do not consult ze frogs’. But we do have to consult ze Brits in this country.” - Lord Lilley (Conservative)
“The Bill will not work if at the top it is awkward, all thumbs, butter-fingered, lumbering and stiff. … We have a good Government, but they are a clumsy Government.” - Lord Rooker (Labour)
“The current delays and costs are intolerable. … In effect, we have created a ‘vetocracy’ in this country.” - Lord Lilley (Conservative)
“This Bill is something like that popular old spaghetti Western, ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’.” - Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
“Imagine an English village, if you still can—old houses around a village green… with not a child in sight, as if the Pied Piper had been to visit… Like so many problems in this country, housing lies at the centre.” - Peter Prinsley (Labour)
“Growth in the other 94% [of the economy] has been killed stone dead by the twin human wrecking balls who are the Chancellor [Rachel Reeves] and the Deputy Prime Minister [Angela Rayner].” - Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative)
“This Labour Government are on the side of the builders, not the blockers, and we are saying, ‘No more.’” - Angela Rayner (Labour)
“If the state chooses to use its powers to confiscate the property of a law-abiding person, stipulates how that land must be used, and then tells the landowner how much they are entitled to receive, that is wrong—in my view, it is an absolute theft of private property.” - Robbie Moore (Conservative)
“Let me say to the Liberal Democrats that their former leader made a video apologising for university fees, and they may want to consider one apologising for their record on social housing [during the coalition government].” - Andrew Lewin (Labour)
“I have often found that the right of a councillor to insist that a matter goes to the planning committee, rather than be determined by officers, actually leads to the application going through where pettifogging officers would have refused it.” - Sir Desmond Swayne (Conservative)
House of Commons Planning and Infrastructure Debate - March to June 2025
The debate on the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons was opened on Monday 24th March 2025 by the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner (Labour):
It is time to get Britain building again. It is what working people expect of this Government and it is what we will deliver. Our Planning and Infrastructure Bill is critical to achieving economic growth, higher living standards and a more secure future for our country. This is our plan for change in action: action to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament and a fast track of 150 major infrastructure projects—more than were decided over the 14 years of the previous Government. … The Bill is about building on those powers to ensure that we get Britain building. It was the Conservatives’ Government who did not build the houses and the infrastructure that we desperately need and who were too timid to face down the vested interests. This Labour Government are on the side of the builders, not the blockers, and we are saying, ‘No more.’
Leading the opposition’s response to the Second Reading was Kevin Hollinrake (Conservative):
We support some of the principles, aims and ambitions of the Bill, some of which build on the work we undertook while we were in office—a time that included a record period for house building in this country. We will also highlight our concerns in a number of areas… The Government must reflect on the fact that although the construction sector is an important part of the economy, it represents only around 6% of GDP. Growth in the other 94% has been killed stone dead by the twin human wrecking balls who are the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister.
Intervening during the debate on local planning powers and democratic accountability, Sir Desmond Swayne (Conservative) argued:
I have often found that the right of a councillor to insist that a matter goes to the planning committee, rather than be determined by officers, actually leads to the application going through where pettifogging officers would have refused it.
Critiquing the legacy of previous housing administrations and the Liberal Democrats’ record on social housing, Andrew Lewin (Labour) said:
I spent the last seven years of my career working in the social housing sector, so I should like to think that I have some understanding of the scale of the housing challenge, the mistakes made by previous Administrations, and why now is the time to be bold. … Let me say to the Liberal Democrats that their former leader made a video apologising for university fees, and they may want to consider one apologising for their record on social housing [during the coalition government].
Speaking on the decline of rural communities and the central role of housing in national regeneration, Peter Prinsley (Labour) described his vision of rural England:
Imagine an English village, if you still can—old houses around a village green, with a little school, a pub or two, a post office, a row of shops, and an ancient church with a creaking gate and some crooked headstones with fading bouquets shaded by ancient oaks. … That sort of village is disappearing. Anyone who visits now will find the pub shut for want of drinkers, the shops empty, and the vicar gone—only the fading bouquets remain. There is no doctor’s surgery and no bus route. It has isolated, elderly residents; not a child in sight, as if the Pied Piper had been to visit, and ageing parents with none of their family nearby to help. Like so many problems in this country, housing lies at the centre.
Several weeks later, during the 3rd Reading on 10th June 2025, the debate turned to the controversial expansion of compulsory purchase powers. Robbie Moore (Conservative) argued strongly against the measures:
Compulsory purchase is a highly emotive and highly controversial subject. … Property rights matter, because they are the foundation of our society. If the state chooses to use its powers to confiscate the property of a law-abiding person, stipulates how that land must be used, and then tells the landowner how much they are entitled to receive, that is wrong—in my view, it is an absolute theft of private property.
House of Lords Planning and Infrastructure Debate - June 25th 2025
The Bill then moved to the House of Lords. Speaking during the Second Reading debate on 25th June 2025, Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat) compared the legislation to a classic film:
My Lords, this Bill is something like that popular old spaghetti Western, ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly’. … Let us begin with the good. Chief among these aspects is the strong recognition that the status quo is no longer working. … But then we come to the bad. The Bill talks a good game about speeding up delivery but, first, we must not conflate delivery with planning permissions. … On the ugly, as we have observed in other Bills, and increasingly so, there is a tendency to present undeveloped legislation that lacks detailed policy and grants Ministers broad delegated powers to fill in the gaps later.
Addressing the need to bypass what he called a “vetocracy” and looking to international comparisons, Lord Lilley (Conservative) shared an anecdote:
I wholeheartedly support the Bill’s overall objectives of speeding up and streamlining the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. The current delays and costs are intolerable. … In effect, we have created a ‘vetocracy’ in this country. … I recall my old and much-lamented friend Nigel, the late Lord Lawson, telling me how, when he was Energy Secretary, he had asked his French counterpart how they were able to build nuclear power stations across France with so little objection. The French Minister, without realising the double entendre, replied, ‘When you are draining the swamp, you do not consult ze frogs’. But we do have to consult ze Brits in this country.
Arguing for a connection between housing quality, planning, and national health outcomes, Lord Crisp (Crossbench) urged peers to look at the wider picture:
Planning can do a great deal to create health, support the new localised NHS agenda that I believe we will be having, and help create sustained growth… In conclusion, I want to quote from my great friend Professor Omaswa, who used to run the Ugandan Health Service: ‘Health is made at home, hospitals are for repairs.’
Finally, urging the government to remove departmental silos to ensure the Bill is deliverable in practice, Lord Rooker (Labour) offered some blunt advice to his own party’s frontbench:
This is a Bill I strongly support, I want it to work, but I think it will be a waste of time. … But unless Ministers can remove the walls around departmental silos, the Bill will be waste of time. … The Bill will not work if at the top it is awkward, all thumbs, butter-fingered, lumbering and stiff. … We have a good Government, but they are a clumsy Government.