Vikki Slade
MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“As the school summer holidays start, most children will be excited about six weeks of lazy days and endless play, but for young carers summer can be more like groundhog day, as children as young as five have to support their family.”
“In Manchester, London and now Wales, side road zebra crossings without Belisha beacons are allowed, yet in the rest of England they are not currently available. The Secretary of State mentioned the new cycling and walking strategy.”
“I wish to present a petition on behalf of residents in Wimborne about road safety in the Walford Mill area. This location is on the route of three local schools, is close to a nursery, GP surgery and local shop and sits alongside elderly residents’ flats.”
“This would not only enhance safety but offer reassurance to families and the wider community, reducing the likelihood of accidents, encouraging more people to walk to school and improve traffic flow. While work is finally expected to take place to introduce pedestrian crossings elsewhere, this does not present a solution.”
“And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole, Declares that Wimborne Road is a bustling thoroughfare used by a mix of vehicles and a significant number of pedestrians each day; further declares that despite its heavy use, there is…”
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the installation of one pedestrian crossing and one pedestrian refuge near Knobcrook Bridge and the BP garage on Wimborne Road. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003224]”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Vikki Slade, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 13.
“Can the Secretary of State update the House with a bit more detail on the progress of airspace modernisation in relation to noise? Residents in my constituency who are on the flightpath for Bournemouth airport have no night-time restrictions and are seeing massive increases. In places such as Dorset, people are being disturbed in their homes and in their sleep. If regional airports will not be included, can the Secretary of State explain when we can get something further on them?”
“Last Monday in the Chamber—I believe you were present, Sir John—two Conservative Members raised cases from their own constituencies. A previous Minister said that a series of households had been badly hit. It is clear that the CIL regulations are not intended to operate in this way. We do not believe our new clause would create a significant new burden on the Secretary of State; it is there to assist, and we would be grateful for a commitment that its provisions will be rolled into the legislation.”
“We know that CIL is supposed to be charged on additional dwellings for commercial use, not on self-builds or extensions, but that has happened in a number of councils around the country. There are a couple of councils in Surrey—Waverley in particular has a huge problem. The new Liberal Democrat council in West Berkshire had to pay back £300,000 in total to 18 different constituents who had all been incorrectly charged. In my own county of Dorset, there are cases where people have been incorrectly charged. In some instances, people have been building their own home and suddenly had a notice put on the path outside. Some have been chased down for huge amounts of money, and some for tiny amounts of money, and have had court charges applied to them. It is a problem that needs solving.”
“That is one of the reasons why we have tabled new clause 1, although the Minister may say we do not need part of it. The first part of the new clause states that the Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of the Act, prepare and publish guidance on the implementation and administration of community infrastructure levy charges—tt may be that that is going to happen anyway. More importantly, there is the issue of error and incorrect charging. I have been speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), who has been involved with the CIL Injustice Group, where there have been miscalculated charges, with councils charging up to £100,000 for the community infrastructure levy completely incorrectly.”
“It is a pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Sir John. I welcome the introduction of MCIL. We have spoken before about how these authorities will be funded, and this is another tool in the toolbox. I am slightly concerned about how it will sit alongside strategic CIL and neighbourhood CIL. I would be really concerned if this took away the portion of money that is available for local neighbourhoods through neighbourhood forums or town and county councils to spend on hyper-local infrastructure, which can otherwise never be funded. I am also interested in the pieces of infrastructure that currently are funded through strategic CIL by an upper-tier authority. Will those responsibilities pass in full across to the mayor, so that we do not end up with a situation where the mayor gets the CIL, but the council gets the responsibility?”
“Will the hon. Member comment on the fact that, according to the CIL Injustice Group, £1.65 million has been incorrectly charged. The Minister for Housing and Planning said: “It is very clear to us that the CIL regulations in question are not intended to operate in this way. We are giving very serious consideration to amending them to ensure that no one else is affected in this manner.” Will the hon. Member join me in asking why the Minister would not take the opportunity to put that provision in the Bill, when it has a clause specifically about community infrastructure levy?”
“It is absolutely right that there should be expertise, strategic people, and perhaps people from other sectors with skills, talents and experience from other places or sectors, but the organisation needs to be locally led. That is why my amendment 60 simply states that a majority of members of an MDC should be “elected members of relevant councils”. We think that that is a minor amendment that would benefit and broaden trust, and lock it in to local decision making.”
“It is important that people trust the organisations that are doing such large-scale development, which can potentially make enormous changes to the landscapes around them, whether on credible brownfield sites or, as others have said, through new towns or greenfield development, about which people are far more sensitive. The Bill states that a mayoral development corporation must have at least one member from each constituent authority and that there must be no fewer than six members, but it does not give a maximum number. There is a real risk that if there is simply one member from each authority—some of these authorities are fairly large to start with—the majority of a corporation may be made up of people who are not connected to the community.”
“I beg to move amendment 60, in schedule 17, page 195, line 23, leave out from “that” to end of line 24 and insert “the majority of members of an MDC are elected members of relevant councils”. This amendment would require that the make-up of Mayoral Development Corporation boards must have a majority of members from constituent councils. We welcome the introduction of the mayoral development corporations across the country. Some good successes have been achieved in London; not many miles from here, the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park continues to grow and expand, and it has some incredible facilities, including a new arts hub. The one small thing that we would like the Minister to consider is the make-up of the corporations.”
“I beg to move amendment 54, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17, at end insert— “(d) comply with any Land Use Framework issued by the Secretary of State, and (e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority. (2A) The Secretary of State must take steps to support a mayoral combined authority in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.” This amendment requires mayoral combined authorities to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies.”
“––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 94.] Fundamentally, there is a real risk of a failure to think about the needs of rural economies such as Cornwall’s, which are reliant on the way that we use our land. Those may not be traditional uses of the land—they may be ancient industrial ones—but those need to be considered.”
“The amendments would ensure that the local growth plans schedule makes reference to, and considers in some reasonable depth, the needs of nature. I have gone back through the schedule, and I cannot see any reference to nature, nature recovery, or anything that suggests that the Government understand the rural economy. It feels very much like a schedule that is written with towns in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for housing and planning, spoke in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee—I am sure some colleagues in here were also on that Committee—about the importance of bolting in the land use framework to the planning system. I think he described it as otherwise being “an expensive waste of time”.”
“I recognise that the Minister has not yet accepted any of our amendments, so I recognise that getting this one through may be a real struggle, but it is so important, particularly given how, as the shadow Minister has already explained, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill has really squeezed out nature. I say to the Minister, “Please put nature back in and recognise that the land use frameworks and nature recovery strategies matter.” In many places they already exist and already have local buy-in, and we would not want to see mayoral authorities ride roughshod over what is already there.”
“We underestimate the power of that at our peril. We have huge areas of countryside where farming is becoming a marginal activity. Rather than being the driver, it is almost becoming something that people are doing because they love it—but they are losing money hand over fist. If we do not bake in that land use framework, which already pre-exists the local growth plan, it will be much easier for farmers to “get rich quick” by moving land out of its existing use and into what the economic development plan sees as the latest, greatest new thing—losing that land forever—rather than complying with a land use framework that explains why it is so important to keep that land in use, and helps to retain the value of that land for farming, or ancient industry, into the future.”
“The National Trust is also buying land that is no longer commercially viable and restoring it for rewilding, ensuring that it is there for generations to come. Failing to think about that as part of the local economic strategy is a missed opportunity, and it risks subverting development that is already there. Economic development is not independent of our lives. People move to places because they have nature around them. Those places may have great shops, town centres and theatres, but people will also move there because of the great quality of life. A lot of people will say that being in nature is a part of making their lives better and happier. If times are tough and people do not have a lot of money in their pocket, being close to nature is something that they can still enjoy and that restores their mental health.”
“The shadow Minister is exactly right; that is why so many people are so worried about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. My inbox has been filled with people asking how they can block it, because of the damage it will do to so much of our nature. The piece missing from this measure is that economic growth in rural areas is fundamentally entwined with nature recovery. In my area in Dorset, Purbeck Heaths is a new national nature park, and nature tourism is actually one of our growth industries. We have incredible charitable businesses, such as Birds of Poole Harbour, that have brought back species to Dorset—species that have been missing for generations and are now thriving—and we now have a whole industry growing around that.”
“Local nature recovery strategies matter not only in rural areas. If someone lives in the most urban part of the country, the local nature strategy is critical to those tiny pockets, so I would argue that it is as relevant in cities as it is in rural areas.”
“I recall a similar argument being made last week to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, and a reference to “nascent” organisations. My hon. Friend pointed out that by the time the Bill comes into play some of the land use frameworks will be up and running, so they predate the legislation that will form the local growth plans. It feels completely pointless and a waste of money for local authorities to spend all that time putting in place the land use frameworks only for this legislation to come along and say, “Well, they haven’t really been tested.””
“I beg to move amendment 364, in schedule 19, page 200, line 17 at end insert— “(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by— (i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021, (ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and (iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.” This amendment would require combined authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans.”
“Interestingly, schedule 19 provides that the local plan must include all the economic factors and list their impact. Adding environmental factors would be a minor change. We will press the two amendments to a vote.”
“If a local authority is going to drive economic growth by, for example, creating a large industrial estate that will damage air quality or create incredible congestion, it is not paying attention to the environmental factors. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that all those things form part of a decision on a planning application. However, if this Government are genuinely committed to their international and national obligations on climate change, and if they are committed to reducing health inequalities, in which we know air quality is a major factor, it seems a small thing to make these amendments, which would assure that mayors—who may not have the same commitment as the Government to protecting air quality and our environment—must identify the contributions.”
“I am a little confused, Dame Siobhan, because amendments 352 and 353 are in the same grouping. I am assuming that you will return to 353. I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion who has also signed amendment 364, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). Amendments 364 and 365 are a simple pair of amendments; they are identical in wording, but one applies to a county combined authority and one to a combined authority. It really is quite straightforward: economic growth should not be off the back of public health and environmental damage.”
“There is a big difference between what has been done by mayors who have gone before and creating mayors across the whole country. The new mayors will have very different backgrounds and landscapes, both geographical and political, to deal with. The word “hope” has done a lot of heavy lifting today, and although I also hope that all these mayors are as great as some of the mayors who have gone before, the Minister has more confidence in them than I do. Legislation is there to ensure that we are not reliant on the good will of hard-working people in political posts, and to protect us from people who may achieve political office and then seek to create something that we will have to undo, at great cost to our economy and health.”
“I am minded to press the amendment to a Division, so that our commitment to this is on record. I hope that the Minister will take onboard that this is done in good faith. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral combined authorities in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the— (a) strategic importance, and (b) complexity of any such plans.” This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral combined authorities with regard to local growth plans.”
“I beg to move amendment 52, in schedule 19, page 201, line 6, at end insert— “107MA Funding and support relating for Local Growth plans (1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral combined authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the— (a) preparation, (b) publication, and (c) delivery of local growth plans.”
“These amendments are really about probing to ask whether these growth plans will be coming with the money attached to them so that local areas, wherever they are in the country, have a fighting chance of producing a really good growth plan that benefits every resident within their area. That is why I have tabled these amendments: to try to draw a bit more out of the Minister.”
“These amendments are designed to make that point, to probe the Minister and to ask for further consideration about how the Secretary of State can assure local communities, who will be paying for these authorities, that there will be sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge the functions involved in the preparation, publication and delivery of the local growth plans. There is no point in having a fantastic plan if it cannot be delivered, or if the organisations beneath the strategic authority have just gone bust. I have said it before: the money is coming either from levies, from precepts, or potentially from grant funding through central Government.”
“Amendments 52 and 53 are about funding strategic authorities for the local growth plans. I apologise to Committee members—they are going to get bored of hearing me say the same thing—but the point I am trying to make with these amendments is that we are pushing huge amounts of responsibility, cost and activity into a space that does not yet have clarity about how that will be paid for. As we all know, our local authorities are at breaking point, with many of them expecting to make section 114 declarations within the next 12 months. I am deeply concerned that additional responsibilities to help to fund a strategic authority above them—they will have to pay in through a levy but they will have only minimal involvement in the decision making coming back down—will put them under more pressure.”
“For clarity, at the point of the spending review when Departments are given their spending powers, are we to expect the strategic authorities to be separately and directly given a settlement each year, or will that be over a three-year period in the way that local authorities are given that settlement? I just want clarity that it is a separate pot of money from local authority funding, because I would not want to see them have to fight like rats in a sack with the mayoral authorities above them.”
“I did not table an amendment on this, but might there be a drafting error in not allowing the strategic authority to pay a grant to an organisation associated with a constituent council? There is an opportunity there to use our town and parish councils in this way.”
“I welcome this provision. It is hugely important that money can flow in both directions, but there is one glaring omission, and the Committee will know what it is. The clause gives the strategic authority the power to pay a grant to a constituent council, but not to a town or parish council. It may be that a town or parish council is fulfilling one of the areas of competence for the strategic authority. For example, under clause 2(g), public safety, a town council might be running CCTV or paying for community safety accreditation team officers. Under clause 2(e), environment and climate change, that parish or town council might be delivering solar insulation or be rewilding.”
“I thank the Minister for that assurance. I simply want the opportunity not to be denied. Town and parish councils often say, “Well, we are not allowed to access that,” but there may be an opportunity here, and to exclude them would be a shame. Perhaps use of “may” would give that opportunity for grant funding. I would welcome a tiny amendment at some point in the future. It is something to reflect on. Question put and agreed to. Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 40 Encouragement of visitors and promotion of visitors”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now quite common for a town council to run the tourist information centre? The only two places in my constituency that have a tourist information centre are Wareham and Wimborne. Often, the tourist information centre might be in a museum that is run independently, but it is not the local authority that runs it any more; it is the town council.”
“On that point, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council did attempt to introduce an accommodation levy. Unfortunately it failed on a technicality, but it may well come back. The amendment asks for a review into a visitor levy, but what is important is that, if one is implemented, it does not end up going back to the Treasury. There would be no benefit to a local community whatsoever if money collected from a visitor paying £2 a night to stay in a hotel ends up going back to Government, when it is the local economy that is damaged and the local economy that can benefit—”
“A couple of amendments have been tabled on that issue. I think they were supported as a coalition by the Opposition, but not by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth.”
“I wonder whether the hon. Member has a situation in Hampshire similar to ours in Dorset, where we have the DAPTC—the Dorset Association of Parish and Town Councils. Nothing in the amendment states that the strategic authority would have to engage with each and every town and parish council; it just says, “with town and parish councils”. That could be through their associations and through clusters of town and parish councils, such as the DAPTC.”
“I fear I am about to be told off by the Chair, but— [ Interruption. ] The shadow Minister has just taken an interest. I welcome the Minister’s comment that the impact of visitors will be taken into account in the fair funding review. It is really important to add that that affects the fair funding review for our police authorities, as well as our local authorities.”
“I beg to move amendment 247, in clause 43, page 44, line 14, at end insert— “(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a combined authority has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support the duties in subsections (1) and (2). (2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a combined authority insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of combined authorities with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas.”
“I trust—I need some assurance—that that will include sufficient funds to take account of the health inequalities in our regions. If that happens, I will be happy not to press the amendments.”
“Amendments 247 and 248 are similar to those that we tabled on other issues. They seek the assurance that combined authorities will have “sufficient financial resources” and “adequate administrative support” to fulfil their duties on health and health inequalities. I will not repeat myself, because we have a lot to get through this afternoon, but I will add that there is a real risk that more and more responsibility is going to the strategic authorities from other Departments. The Department of Health and Social Care is under huge financial pressure, but it would be remiss if this responsibility were moved across to a strategic authority without sufficient funding. I am assured by the Minister of sufficient capacity-building funding and an integrated settlement for these organisations in future.”
“I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 44, page 46, line 2, at beginning insert— “The Secretary of State may by regulations require that”. This amendment would ensure the powers for mayors to exercise Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) functions across 2 or more areas must be approved by Parliament.”
“We believe that to do that through the proposed process will produce a rushed system. I commend the Minister for her decisiveness, but sometimes it is better to pause and take a slower approach to bringing together those organisations, rather than rush the process. We are already seeing huge changes to our integrated care boards, with many being abolished. Rather than alignment, we see some coming together for financial reasons or for convenience. There is a real risk that trying to do all of that in harmony ends up not with the right outcomes but ones that suit the creation of a very simplistic jigsaw. Most of the mayors will be taking on roles that they have never performed before. We feel that it is time to pause, slow the pace and ensure that this has more parliamentary oversight.”
“Amendments 21 to 23 relate to the integration of police and crime commissioners into the strategic mayoral system. They are quite straightforward, requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations and thereby ensure more parliamentary oversight of the inclusion of the police and crime commissioners, given that this is such a fundamental change in so many areas. I am upset that established authorities in several areas have already taken on those roles, but many of the strategic mayoral authorities are brand-new organisations that will potentially be taking on functions way beyond their scope. They will also potentially be taking on police and crime functions that run across completely different policing and crime areas with different strategies and ways of working in terms of police and crime panels and their scrutiny.”
“Where we disagree is that we do not believe that a police and crime commissioner should be an appointment of the mayor. We think that they should be held accountable to boards of councillors within councils, as was formerly the policy of the Labour party. Quite straightforwardly, the amendment would remove the provision allowing the mayor to appoint a person to manage policing and crime. We do not actually believe that this should be a mayoral appointment; it should be down to the elected persons of the area. Question put and agreed to. Clause 44, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 45 PCCs and police areas Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“The Lib Dems have long wanted to see the end of police and crime commissioners, and we know that that has also been Labour policy for at least 12 years. [ Interruption. ] Do I hear a “Hear, hear!” from the Government Benches? I believe we are in violent agreement on that, which is great. Where we differ is in the how. I spent a lot of time as a councillor trying to get through the police and crime commissioners, who really take no accountability for what goes on. If I ask the police and crime commissioner about a particular incident, the answer always comes back, “That’s an operational matter. That is not for me.” It is always the local councillors who end up dealing with issues, and they are always the ones held accountable by the residents.”
“There is a fairly well established position in which those people who wish to see something abolished have to work within the current system. I believe that our dearly beloved Lord Paddy Ashdown desperately wanted to see the abolition of the House of Lords and yet was able to take up a seat. It is quite common for people to go into a role knowing that their job is to try to reform or remove that role.”
“I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 46, page 53, line 15, at end insert— “(7) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.” This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State regarding the functions of fire and rescue authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny.”
“Adding the clause in at this stage is complicated, and sticking it in as two and a half pages of a Bill feels inadequate. Therefore, we ask that regulations made under the clause are subject to the affirmative procedure and receive suitable parliamentary scrutiny.”
“The proportion of energy that is used in dealing with fires that are usually human-caused and flooding, which is also related to climate resilience, has gone through the roof. To add fire and rescue services in as a couple of pages in a large Bill feels inadequate, which is why we are looking to ensure that regulations made under clause 46 are subject to the affirmative procedure, and why we are seeking more parliamentary scrutiny and energy around bringing in the fire and rescue services, particularly where they do not align. My area is likely to be Wessex, if we get into the next round, and it will probably cover three different fire authorities. As well as having to get two or three different police authorities together, we will now have to get two or three different fire authorities from the police authorities.”