Commons Chamber

Monday 9th June 2025

(began 5 hours, 7 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:34
14:36
None Portrait Oral questions: Housing, Communities and Local Government
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marvellous. Rights, Marvellous. Rights, we Marvellous. Rights, we now Marvellous. Rights, we now come
14:36
None Portrait Q1. What steps her Department is taking to help prevent new unitary authorities from requiring exceptional financial support. (904467)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marvellous. Rights, we now come to questions to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Gregory Stafford.
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:38
None Portrait Q2. What steps she plans to take to reform the leasehold system. (904468)
-

Please look at the question and make sure the question is addressed correctly.
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:53
14:54
None Portrait Q5. What steps she is taking to ensure that new homes meet the minimum standard of EPC C rating. (904472)
-

Every High Street needs a Chorley market, that's the answer.
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
None Portrait Q7. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of UK Government regeneration funding on towns in Scotland. (904474)
-

Question number seven.
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
None Portrait Q12. What progress her Department has made on providing adequate funding for local authorities as part of the Fair Funding Review. (904479)
-

Question number 12.
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
-
-
This government is committed to the probity of the planning process at all levels, to ensure robust and evidence-based decisions, including the role of planning minister in on this. I hope the House will appreciate why I cannot comment in any detail on specific planning applications at the dispatch box. That said, it may be up to members were set up the process which these cases follow. The application referred to by the right honourable Member was considered to meet the published policy set out in the October 2012 written Ministerial Statement.

And so it will be determined by ministers. The application is not yet with the Department. All decisions that come from ministers are subject to examination by an independent Planning Inspectorate, usually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through a plaque public inquiry. Is answering the member behind.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is answering the member behind. Carry on. To acquire

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All decisions come before ministers subject to examination by an independent Planning Inspectorate usually through a public inquiry. usually through a public inquiry. The Planning Inspectorate provides evidence-based recommendation setting out reasons for the setting out reasons for the recommendation will stop inspectors report considers the allegation against published local, regional, against published local, regional, national plan policy that is likely to include a wide variety of material and planning matters which, material and planning matters which, in this case, are likely to include safety and national security.

A public inquiry was held earlier this year in respect of this case, year in respect of this case, between 11th and 28th of February, which interested parties were able to put forward evidence and recommendations. Any further recommendations. Any further representations made to raise material planning considerations before the decision is made, these will be taken into account. At all times the decision will be taken in line with the guidance on planning casework decisions. The right honourable member will be aware that the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary made a joint representation to the Planning Inspectorate header.

The inquiry. This will be taken into account alongside other relevant matters was once the planning inspector's report and recommendations received, it will be determined by a planning Lister who will come to a decision based on material planning considerations. considerations.
15:39
Iain Duncan Smith Portrait Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)
-
-
Mr Speaker, the US government, announced today the Dutch Parliament have expressed concerns about sensitive cables under the Royal Mint Court. Beijing has a recent history of cutting cables and confirmed infrastructure hacks including bedding malware capability. Minister Peter Kyle yesterday on television said surprisingly that this was in the planning process and could be managed. Will the Minister correct this record? The planning inquiry has concluded no changes can be made to the Chinese polling application at all.

I remind him, the application contains nothing about cabling. Deeds to the inquiry the Chinese are particularly two requests which he referred to made by the government in the letter from the Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary. Despite ministers regularly saying that this letter " Should give those concerned comfort. " Re-routing the cables of course would cost millions. If that is what the government may be thinking about. I asked the question, why did the government strongly denied the presence of the cables until the White House actually confirmed it rather than to this House? Chinese state media has also reported that UK has given assurances to the Chinese that UK would allow development no matter what.

Indeed the Guardian newspaper reported as much, that China would not apply again if they were given mental insurances. Can the Minister confirm or deny any of this? Was one of those sanctioned by China as others have, I see this as project kowtow. One denial of betrayal after One denial of betrayal after another. I was believing that this is becoming a walk of shame for the government.
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
Kevin Hollinrake Portrait Kevin Hollinrake MP (Thirsk and Malton, Conservative)
-
-
Can I thank my right honourable friend for securing this very important Urgent Question? Question after question, letter after letter, the government has consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. Stalling legitimate inquiries about national security, and warning security bodies. I get the fact he is compromised, and he has a quasi judicial responsibility, but his colleagues in the Home Office and the foreign office do not. They could answer these questions. As the government knows, their own cybersecurity experts, Innovate UK, have warned of the threat to the City of London from the embassy.

The Wapping telephone and internet exchanges surrounded on three sides by the embassy for there are also fibre cables carrying highly sensitive information running beneath the site. The technology secretary said yesterday that these matters can be dealt with as part of the planning process but the inquiry has ended so they cannot. If the UK is considering moving the cables, how many millions of pounds of public money will this cost? I recently sent yet another letter to the prime minister signed by 59 parliamentarians cross-party urging him to pause and reconsider.

Since then, US and Dutch governments have both sounded the alarm. Can I ask, have MI5 and CCHQ unable to submit their own warnings to the planning inspector? Does the inspector have access to unredacted plans of the embassy, with the Chinese government has refused to make public? Has the government assessed the potential sinister uses of the secret basement in the so-called cultural exchange building? What discussions have taken place with the Bank of England, even its role in cybersecurity regulation in the city? Why won't the government follow the example of the US, Australia, and Irish governments, vetoed similar embassies to protect their national security? The government is on the verge of making a decision that will lead to huge risk.

That will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:52
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:59
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:04
16:04
16:05
16:06
16:06
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:09
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. On 21st of May, the Prime Minister told this House that the government wants to extend eligibility for Winter Fuel Payments to a wider range of pensioners in England and Wales. Today we are setting out how this will happen for the coming winter and the years ahead. This will provide certainty for pensioners and ensure payments can be made swiftly and automatically, which is our priority. I hope this statement will also answer many of the questions honourable members have raised with me and others in recent weeks.

Let me set out for the House how this system will work. All pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will benefit from support, as will all those on Pension Credit and other income related benefits. Payment of £200 per household, or £300 per household where there is someone aged over 80 will be mate or pensioner households in England and Wales. Individual pensioners with taxable income above £35,000 will have any Winter Fuel Payment automatically recovered via HMRC without the need for them to take any action.

This will be via PAYE for the majority, or their self-assessment tax return for those that already completes one. No one will be brought into tax or self- assessment just to repay their Winter Fuel Payment. Those that prefer not to receive a payment can opt out of receiving it. As was previously the case before July 2024, where the household is not getting income related benefits and there is more than one pensioner in the household, shed payments, split across recipients, will be made.

This government has had to make tough decisions Deputy Speaker. It is right to means test the Winter Fuel Payment. I thought the party opposite supported means testing the benefit. We have had to take tough decisions because of the disaster left the party opposite. But it is right to means test the Winter Fuel Payment on grounds of fairness and fiscal sustainability. Most people accept that it makes no sense to pay hundreds of pounds to pensioners irrespective of their incomes.

Those on the highest incomes do not need it, and there are many other calls on public spending. The government has, however, listened to concerns about the level of the means test. We are acting to make sure all lower income pensioners receive support. The new individual £35,000 threshold is significantly above the income for pensioners in poverty, and broadly in line with average earnings. It will mean that the vast majority, over three quarters, or 9 million pensioners, will benefit from the Winter Fuel Payment.

This change ensures that the means testing of Winter Fuel Payments has no effect on pensioner poverty. Means testing the Winter Fuel Payment in England and Wales like this will save around £450 million a year. Subject to certification by the Office for Budget Responsibility, compared to the system of universal payments. It will cost around £1.25 million in England and Wales compared to the position last winter. Decisions about the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland remain for the devolved Administration is in the usual way.

As the Prime Minister has previously set out, these are changes that will be fully funded at the next fiscal event, the Autumn Budget. That will ensure final costings and funding decisions come alongside the latest forecast from the OBR. We will ensure that the government is nonnegotiable fiscal rules are met. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are setting out these changes before the summer to ensure more pensioners receive support this winter. Regulations will be laid in the coming months to ensure that payments are made.

And tax changes will be legislated for in the Finance Bill. I want to spell out today clearly, pensioners do not need to do anything. Winter Fuel Payments will be paid automatically this winter to all pensioners who receive the State Pension, Pension Credit, or anyone who has previously received a Winter Fuel Payment. Similarly payments will be recovered automatically through the tax system for those with an income of over £35,000. Pensioners will also continue to receive wider support for top Pension Credit take up campaign has seen an almost 60,000 awards made.

I want to thank Honourable members on both sides of this house, local authorities, and charities, for their work in that campaign. Over 12 million pensioners right across the UK are also benefiting from the triple lock. The full new State Pension is set to increase by up to £1900 a year over this Parliament as a result. I meant that support for pensioners and this statement to the house.
16:14
Helen Whately Portrait Helen Whately MP (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)
-
-
Shadow Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I feel for the honourable gentleman, feel for the honourable gentleman, sent here today by his bosses to complete what must be the most complete what must be the most humiliating climbdown a government has ever faced in its first year in has ever faced in its first year in office. For nearly a year, the Conservatives have campaigned Conservatives have campaigned against this cut. And for nearly a year, they have tried to hold out.

Just four weeks ago, I stood here and I asked him how long this tone deaf final stand could go on. deaf final stand could go on. Loyally he held the line, he defended the cuts one final time. He said the plan for pensioners was said the plan for pensioners was Today he has been sent to end the courageous last. And, unless it is coming next, he has been sent without the one thing that pensioners up and down this country deserve, an apology.

Let's be clear, the Government made a choice to cut the Winter Fuel Payment. It is outrageous to claim the economy has somehow improved from the day they made the cut. And they know it. In fact, I almost every metric, the opposite is true. Inflation was at the two % target, now it is 1.5 % higher. 150,000 more people are unemployed. Growth forecasts have been slashed in half OBR and in the meantime, they have gone to town with the country's credit card. Borrowing is up, debt is up.

Who is the Chancellor trying to fool when she says she can suddenly afford this when before she could not? Fact is, last winter she gave pensioners fuel money to the unions. Now she realises how unpopular that was. So she is pretending everything has changed. Perhaps the most surprising thing is she thinks anyone is taken in. 50,000 pensioners plunged into poverty this year, according to their own analysis. 100,000 extra pensioners ended up in A&E this winter. Their mistake has hurt people.

And it is cowardly not to own up to it. Just like the Government's reforms, there was no consultation, no assessments just as self-righteous assistance that what they are doing should not be questioned. Certainly no for those actually affect did -- thought those actually affected or concerned for the anxiety government by press release is causing. This is what happens when a government comes into office with no plan and no principles, no idea what they want to achieve and no idea how to achieve it.

They just are bumble from one mistake to another, breaking promise after promise. Do they think they can just try out new policies like you try a new mattress? And wrap it, see how it feels, sleep on it for a while but if it causes political backache, send it back. This raster reversal raises as many questions as it answers. It is clear that when the Prime Minister's stood up and made his big announcement in PMQs he had no plan and no idea how he was going to play for it might pay for it.

A totally unfunded spending commitment. Where is the 2.5 billion to pay for this U-turn coming from? I note that the Minister has kicked that can down the road until the Budget. They claim it will not permit the at to borrowing, so does this mean it will permit the at to taxation? And on the plan itself, is this really the best system of means testing they could come up with? Is he short they have thought it through or is this going to unravel too? What happens if a pensioner and is over £35,000 a year through non- taxable income? Are they going to have to register for self-assessment and start filling out a tax return in their 80s or 90s? But if not, why should someone earning taxed income be disadvantaged? Is it fair that a millionaire pensioner and their spouse might receive a payment but two people earning 36,000 will not? And what happens if someone dies in the period between receiving the payment and having to pay it back? Are they going to go after the deceased person's relatives? And two final questions.

After all this, the savings for the Treasury this coming year may be as little as £50 million. Does he think it is worth it and will he apologise?
16:19
Torsten Bell Portrait Torsten Bell MP, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Swansea West, Labour)
-
-
I will directed two of the questions raised because I think it is important to provide reassurance. The right honourable lady asks about the estate of someone who is deceased and I want to be really clear that HMRC will never pursue any estate for the Winter Fuel Payment. She also asked about the levels of saving. As I set up my statement, the savings will be £450 million of the year within England and Wales. That is very clear and it is a significant saving.

More broadly, the honourable lady talks about apology. She comes here as the party of Liz Truss and lectures anybody else about apology. She comes it is the party of flatlining wages, rising debts, 200,000 increasing pensioner poverty and asks anybody else to apologise. I have never heard such nonsense. But all the standard fury, she was on her most furious today but we have listened to pensioners, we have also listened to her just now. And I still cannot tell what their policy is.

It is 11 months on from all the rhetoric and the shouting, it sounds like she might support the means testing of Winter Fuel Payments after all, that was the policy of her leader. Before her leader also supported means testing the entire State Pension, in one of her bolder moment. The Honourable members opposite say this is not much comfort to pensioners Age UK say the exact opposite. Charity direct has said this announcement is the right thing to do. Martin Lewis has set out it is a big improvement.

We think... There is a lot of chuntering from the benches opposite, maybe the Back Benches can work out what the Front Benchers policy is by the time they get to their feet in a few minutes time. I have no idea what the Conservative party's policy is whatsoever. More widely, when it comes to pensioners, this government's priorities are to raise the state pension and to rescue the NHS. The triple lock will see the State Pension spending rise by £31 billion a year annually over this Parliament.

26 billion is being invested into the NHS because we inherited in England a disgraceful situation, where more than one in five pensioners aged over 75 were on waiting list. There is no excuse for that legacy of the party opposite. And neither of these progresses, raising the State Pension or investing in the NHS, would be possible without the difficult decisions we have had to make on tax. Difficult decisions every party opposite has opposed. It is only this Government that can provide that crucial support for pensioners because we will do what is necessary to turn that support from rhetoric into reality.
16:22
16:22
16:23
16:24
16:26
16:26
16:27
16:28
16:28
16:29
16:30
16:31
16:32
16:32
16:33
16:33
16:34
16:35
16:35
16:36
16:37
16:37
16:38
16:39
16:40
16:40
16:41
16:41
16:41
16:42
16:42
16:43
16:43
16:45
16:45
16:46
16:46
16:47
16:47
16:48
16:48
16:49
16:49
16:50
16:50
16:51
16:51
16:52
16:52
16:52
16:53
16:53
16:54
16:54
16:55
16:55
16:56
16:56
16:57
16:57
16:58
16:58
16:58
16:59
17:00
17:00
17:00
17:01
17:01
17:02
17:02
17:03
17:03
17:04
17:04
17:04
17:05
17:05
17:06
17:06
17:07
17:07
17:08
17:08
17:08
17:09
17:09
17:10
17:10
17:11
17:12
17:12
17:13
17:13
17:14
17:14
17:15
17:15
17:15
17:16
17:16
17:17
17:17
17:17
17:18
17:18
17:19
17:19
17:19
17:20
17:20
17:20
17:21
17:21
17:21
17:22
17:22
17:23
17:23
17:24
17:24
17:24
17:25
17:25
17:26
17:26
17:26
17:27
17:27
17:28
17:28
17:28
17:28
17:29
17:29
17:30
17:30
17:31
17:31
17:32
17:32
17:32
17:33
17:34
None Portrait Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Day One): Remaining Stages
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We We are We are now We are now on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are now on the We are now on the Planning We are now on the Planning and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are now on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. Planning and Infrastructure Bill to be considered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to be considered. We will begin with government new
17:34
Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will begin with government new clause 69 is listed on the paper for day one. I cover the Minister to move new clause 69. Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move new clause 69. Minister. Thank you. It is a real pleasure to bring this landmark bill to the house this afternoon for its report stage. Let me begin by thanking Honourable members on both sides of Honourable members on both sides of the chamber for the engagement with it over recent months. In particular, can I thank the particular, can I thank the honourable members as well as honourable members as well as honourable friends on these benches honourable friends on these benches Of the bill in Committee.

Over the past 11 months, the government has acted decisively to restore economic acted decisively to restore economic stability, increase investment and reform our economy to driver productivity, prosperity and living standards in every part of the country. To build the homes in critical infrastructure we need, we've already delivered the most significant update to our system in a decade. This includes the National planning framework. This will increase GDP with the equivalent of £6.9 billion at today's prices. We make further progress by kickstarting economic growth this week by progressing this critical legislation.

The planning infrastructure bill will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes in critical infrastructure come helping us to achieve milestones and making planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure project in this part as well as supporting our clean power target by ensuring that clean energy projects are built as quickly as possible. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to say that the Ulster Farmers Union have told me they are Farmers Union have told me they are concerned about losing premises. Can concerned about losing premises. Can we ensure that brownfield sites are we ensure that brownfield sites are used first? Farmers must retain their land. There must be balance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their land. There must be balance and what is put forward balanced to ensure that happens. I thank the honourable gentleman for that intervention. He knows I for that intervention. He knows I have great affection for him. He tempts me into a debate that doesn't directly relate to this bill. It is the government's position that we have Enfield first it comes to development -- brownfield first when development -- brownfield first when it comes to development. We have consulted on a brownfield passport to ensure that bringing forward brownfield land first comes as a default.

When it comes to agricultural income are very strong protections already exist. They remain in force in terms of what is the MPPF. I will give way briefly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When he says protections are strong, that is not a true, is that? strong, that is not a true, is that? strong, that is not a true, is that? In the new MPPF, this government removed the clause that protected

**** Possible New Speaker ****

land used in food production. I take issue with his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I take issue with his interpretation. We did make very targeted changes but the strong protections that apply to agricultural land exist. I spoken to agricultural land exist. I spoken to him before about the fact that in particular parts of the country, we are seeing high numbers of are seeing high numbers of applications for things like solar firms. As I've said to him before, even under the most optimistic even under the most optimistic scenarios, only less than 1% of agricultural land will be brought forward for solar farm applications, and those protections remain in place so we remain confident they are robust.

I'm going to take one that intervention because these are not matters relating to the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not only is it a direct -- does it relate directly to the bin but -- it relate directly to the bin but -- bill but there are dozens related to this single issue. The fact of the this single issue. The fact of the matter is under the proposals as they stand, we are going to lose a vast swathes of prime agricultural land because planning consent will effectively be driven straight through. They are simply not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

satisfactory. I don't know if he heard the point I just made. Even under 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. I turned over to solar farm use. I think some of the hyperbole that is associated with this issue over recent months is unwarranted. Can I just be... Can I just say very directly because I do want to move on and speak to the bill, these are matters that relate to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Are more than happy to sit down with him and talk about this outside of the context of this debate but I want to make some progress. We have made a number of improvements to the bill in committee to ensure it will operate as intended and that its expected benefits are fully realised. In many cases, the changes made were a direct result of constructive feedback from key stakeholders and parliamentarians. There is always a stronger and more impactful bill that is in front of varsity.

I want to provide an outline of the substantive changes made in committee. I will then turn to amendments tabled last week. I begin with improvements made to the consenting process for critical infrastructure. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to him. I thank him for the very open way he has approached this process so far. He approached this process so far. He is right that the government have made a number of changes and made a number of changes and concessions, many positive ones, concessions, many positive ones, over the course of the Committee Stage. He will also be aware that there are not many stakeholders who do remain -- there are many do remain -- there are many stakeholders who do remain concerned.

Can he tell us as we go forward through the passage of the bill whether he is minded to continue to listen to those continue to listen to those representations from those people who are absolutely behind him on the growth mission but also want to make sure that one of the most nature depleted nations on the planet doesn't see further loss of natural doesn't see further loss of natural I thank him for that intervention. He and I spoke just a few days ago.

We are more than happy to keep engaging and listen to the views brought forward to us from members across the house as well as organisations. If he will allow me to make a bit of progress, I will speak to the nature Restoration fund Over this Parliament, this change could result in a saving of over £1 billion across the pipeline of projects by speeding up delivery, reducing capacity, it will contribute to reducing household bills. We have decided to proceed with the change because of considerable evidence that the statutory requirements in place are driving perverse outcomes.

Rather than providing the means by which engagement provides better outcomes, statutory engagement procedures have become a tick box exercise that encourages risk aversion and plaything. The result is consultation for taken confusion for communities, longer more technical documentation, and an arrangement that actively this incentivises improvements to applications even if these are in a local community's interests -- disincentivises. The government is not downgrading the importance of high quality resubmission consultation and engagement. We still want the regime to function on the basis of a frontloaded approach.

We still expect high quality, early and meaningful and constructive engagement to take place with those affected as part of that process. Given that such engagement and consultation routinely takes place in Leeds to improve proposals and other planning regimes without such statutory requirements and because of the consent examination procedure, we are confident that developers will continue to be incentivised. To support the change, the government intend to publish statutory guidance setting out statutory guidance setting out strong guidance.

We will work with stakeholders to design this guidance, launching a public consultation in the coming months to encourage best practice without recreating the floors of the current system. We have also made a number of other changes relating to the project to ensure that promoters can gain access to land to make environmental impact assessments. I'm happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My inbox is full of residents of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My inbox is full of residents of Harlow who can't get a home. It takes too long to get houses built. takes too long to get houses built. Can we speed up this process and get people the homes they need?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The bill does streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. The changes I have just referred to relate to the regime for nationally significant regime for nationally significant infrastructure project, so big clean energy products, water reservoirs, energy products, water reservoirs, but other changes in the bill support more streamlined building of support more streamlined building of homes. I'm going to make some progress because I know that progress because I know that Honourable members want to get in but I've got lots of points I want to make before I can bring others in.

Turning to other important dangers. We have introduced a small set of amendments to ensure that the relevant clauses operate as intended and they supporters to move from a first come, first served, to a first first come, first served, to a first The new surcharge it will be able to be applied to planning application fees will be used to fund bodies, including statutory consultation fees that provide advice and support that enables the decision-making. Alongside the localisation of planning fees provided for by clause 47, the new surcharge will allow us to address capacity and resourcing issues in support of faster and better decision-making process.

Finally, we have made changes to the Nature Restoration Fund. Before I detail various improvements made, let me take this opportunity to remind the House why part three of the bill is so important. Put simply, when it be -- comes to development in nature, the status quo is not working. It's not working for development because constraints are stifling the building of new homes and infrastructure. And equally important, it is not working because -- for nature because the need to meet environmental obligations on the basis of site by site interventions all too often does little to drive the recovery and restoration of our protected sites and species.

I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is he not confirm -- concerned

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is he not confirm -- concerned that he has lost the audience as far as wildlife organisations are concerned? The wildlife trust are saying they are offended that saying they are offended that government ministers portray nature as a blocker to development rather than as something that enhances than as something that enhances life. They are now asking for the scrapping of part three of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. Let me come on to address that particular call I know is being particular call I know is being made. What I would say in general terms is that what this bill aims form what I've always focused on is form what I've always focused on is a win-win for development and the environment. We had extremely productive engagement with the NGOs productive engagement with the NGOs in the development of the bill and we continue to have fruitful conversations with them, aside from the campaigners -- and pains I know are out there in the country and in the national media.

-- Come pains -- campaigns. In full knowledge of the fact that it's frustrating the building of new homes and failing to drive the restoration of nature, this government is not. To those who believe this government might buckle and scrap part through the bill entirely, I simply say, you have underestimated the resolve of this government and this Minister. The case for moving to a more strategic approach that will allow us to use funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in terms of driving the recovery of protected sites and species is compelling.

That's why so many organisations indicated there in principle support for the purpose and intent of part three when the bill was first introduced. As the chief executive of RSP be put it at the time, and I quote, with bold leadership, collaboration and smart planning through initiatives like restoration fund, we can build a future where nature, climate, people in the economy thrive together. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I welcome the enhanced environmental protections and the Nature Restoration Fund. My Nature Restoration Fund. My constituency has some really unique habitats. Many which are protected, habitats. Many which are protected, the whole deep value to the local community. Can the Minister reassure me these unique habitats will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

me these unique habitats will be protected as well under this bill? I think we have to make a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think we have to make a distinction, I think honourable members know this, between irreplaceable habitats where this model does not remove the strong model does not remove the strong protections that exist for them, such as woodland and the national such as woodland and the national policy framework. And habitats were Natural England will be allowed to Natural England will be allowed to take a view as to whether conservation measures that apply to them meet the overall improvement them meet the overall improvement test in the bill.

And any intervention in those circumstances will be driven by what is in the environmental best interest of the relevant feature. So there are protections in place that I think address her concerns. In recent weeks there has been a not inconsiderable amount of experience commentary attempting -- spurious commentary, attempting to convey a false impression of what the Nature Restoration Fund does. I will give way in due course if she will let me develop my arguments a little. Then I am more than happy to give way to her.

I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. Some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of environment, the government is developing a licence for developers to pay to pollute. In reality, the Nature Restoration Fund will do the precise opposite. I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not and need not come at the expense of the environment. It is nonsense to suggest the Nature Restoration Fund would allow developers to simply pay government and then wantonly harm nature.

Instead, it takes payments from developers on hands on to Natural England. A public body with regulatory duties to conserve and enhance our natural environment, to develop environment delivery plan setting out how various conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to demonstrate how they will improve the conservation status of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the environmental feature. I thank him for giving way. He is making a strong case for the legislation he has worked hard on. legislation he has worked hard on. Will he accept that a vast area within the bill committee that we within the bill committee that we both served on actually spoke to many people's concerns about the ability of Natural England to ability of Natural England to undertake the duties he is asking. He was unable to give us an answer He was unable to give us an answer on extra funding that may be needed for that to happen.

Can he elaborate on that today?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on that today? I think his memory is somewhat different to mine because I did provide those assurances. We have provide those assurances. We have already allocated 14 million in the budget to support the delivery of a Nature Restoration Fund and we will Nature Restoration Fund and we will move through the bill to a system of full cost recovery so Natural full cost recovery so Natural England has the resources it needs to carry out these functions. I'm going to make some progress. I will come in one second and she will let me finish the argument I'm trying to develop in terms of taking on those misconceptions.

We have been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable, which is why the bill gives Natural England the ability to announce

**** Possible New Speaker ****

planning.... I'm more than happy to give way. I thank him for giving way. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. The Minister dismissed spurious criticism of the problems with part three of this bill. Would he use that phrase to dismiss the very that phrase to dismiss the very expert criticism of the office for environmental protection, which in complete contrast to the claim of complete contrast to the claim of the Secretary of State who said that this bill does not reduce environmental protections, the OEP itself and its independent expert advice says that it does.

This bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

environmental protection. The simple answer is no, I would not categorise that is spurious. But I am characterising some of the I am characterising some of the arguments that have been made over recent days and weeks as spurious arguments. The OEP are not saying that what we have is a cash to trash model, but some people out there in the public discourse are making that claim. I am not going to give way again. I think it is an argument that we do have to make to take on the critics of this bill.

Who are intentionally trying to malign the objectives. I am not going to give way, I've just been very clear. I want to make progress. She is more than happy to have a second go at intervention in due course. It is the government's view that the bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation. As she knows, we had extensive debates in this committee as to how we might strengthen the bill in various areas.

Another claim put forward is that the bill strips protections from our protected sites and species allowing for development across the country. This amounts to nothing else than wanton misrepresentation. Important site set out in the national planning a CR untouched by this legislation and it is only when an EDP is in place following consultation and approval by the Secretary of State the developers can avail themselves of it to discharge the relevant obligation. Just in the same way that a developer can only build once they have met existing requirements, development supported by the Nature Restoration Fund will only be able to come forward when there's a credible and robust E -- EDP in place that will deliver outcomes.

The Member for Chesterfield has rightly flagged the importance of these plans relying on robust scientific evidence, which is why there will only ever be put in place where they can be shown to deliver better environmental outcomes. Finally, there's been a suggestion by some that the new approach provided for by the bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or a recoverable harm. This is not -- this is false. Not only do they remain in place, but the overall improvement test simply could not be met if an EDP propose to allow your recoverable harm.

Natural England would not propose such measures on the Secretary of State could not sign them off if she did. If any Secretary of State signed them off, they would be open to judicial review on the basis of that decision. In short, the Nature Restoration Fund will do exactly as its name suggests, it will restore not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform design to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country. By shifting to a strategic approach, leveraging economies of scale in reducing the need for costly assessments, it will deliver a win-win for development and the environment.

While the government has no time for spurious and misleading attacks on the Nature Restoration Fund, I acutely conscious of the views expressed both within and beyond this House from those who are supportive of the purpose and intent of part three and who are not calling for it to be scrapped, but who are not yet convinced the safeguards within it are sufficiently robust or that there is the required certainty that it will deliver good practise the benefits. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. I find it quite remarkable that he find it quite remarkable that he repeatedly accused the over 30 leading environmental groups, leading environmental groups, including the RS PB, who have described this as a cash to trash model, is making spurious remarks, given that he quoted the chief given that he quoted the chief executive of the RS PB to try and executive of the RS PB to try and ensure up -- and shore up his argument.

When in fact the quote he took was from an earlier debate and took was from an earlier debate and she is more recently said the evidence clearly shows nature isn't a blocker to growth, the government a blocker to growth, the government has identified the wrong obstacle to what it's trying to overcome with no possibility to improving slightly through amendments the complete through amendments the complete removal of part three of the bill is the only responsible option left.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for that intervention. It's for the chief executive of the RS PB to justify why she has changed her view on the bill. When the bill hasn't change, if anything is I will come on to explain, quite a lot of amendments the government made is that I need to address it by opening if that's possible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is an extensive speaking list. So I hope the Minister is coming to an conclusion shortly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

an conclusion shortly. I wasn't, because I feel I need to get through some important changes the government has made in the government moments we have done, the government moments we have done, but on that basis, I won't take any more interventions. The bill hasn't changed if anything it strengthened changed if anything it strengthened and committee for reasons I will come onto. In seeking to assuage what are entirely reasonable questions to an approach which is novel, we've already made targeted improvements to part three at improvements to part three at Committee stage, these include Committee stage, these include requiring how conservation measures will be maintained.

Strengthening the overall improvement test by clarifying the secretary of state clarifying the secretary of state must be satisfied it will be passed by the end date of the environmental delivery plan. Clarifying that the negative affect the Secretary of State must consider relates to the maximum amount of development covered by the delivery plan for stopping ensuring Natural England has sufficient powers of entry used only where absolutely necessary to survey or investigate land alongside appropriate constraints including notice requirements and introducing further protections in respect of Natural England use of compulsory purchase powers.

The changes strengthen the Nature Restoration Fund and I hope will be welcomed across the House, however, as I was at pains to make clear and committee and will more than happily restate once again today, I continue to reflect on the reasonable points made by honourable member's and the advice of the office for environmental protection with a view to liberating on what might be done so everybody is confident that this part of the bill will be positive. For the purposes of clarity, this includes giving serious consideration to ways in which we might instil further confidence in respect of the rigour of the overall improvement test, provide for greater certainty in respect of the delivery of EDPs and ensure there is more clarity by the evidential basis in environmental rationale for strategic network level conservation measures.

I want to put on record my thanks for all those who continue to engage constructively with the government with a view to providing reassurance of the Nature Restoration Fund will operate as intended. I will listen carefully to the contributions made by honourable member's in respect of part three and I look forward to a constructive debate on these clauses. At Committee stage, we discussed the need to do more to increase the coverage of swift bricks across the country as an important means of arresting a long-term decline of breeding swift populations.

I intend to cover some of the way forward in responding to the debate. Before I responding to the debate. Before I close, I do feel I must turn to a number of substantive amendments the government is proposing to the bill today. Starting with a further change to the regime. We've already included an ambitious package of reforms that will deliver a faster and work practise. As part of our mission to speed up overall, it's critical they are focused, efficient and examining authorities continued to report within the time frames.

In the review of recent examinations we are making this a minute with a view to reinforcing best practise already to reinforcing best practise already These detail a key matter specific to an application. Although the application currently requires these to be made at the start of an examination, there is nothing to influence the subsequent examination process. We are working hard to set the foundations for effective examinations. That is why we are examinations. That is why we are amending the bill to ensure it is a meaningful step that insurers more focused examinations can occur.

Through this amendment, examining authorities will now be required to make procedural decisions about how they intend to examine an application. This will ensure examinations are focused with time prioritised on issues which are most critical to the project, as set out. This will give certainty to all those involved so they know what to expect during the examination process. Turning next to a change proposed in relation to transport infrastructure. The bill contains important reforms which will streamline the efficiency of road infrastructure schemes and ensure that processes in the Highways Bill are fit for purpose.

It builds connectivity and tackles congestion and overcrowding. Following engagement with the Department of Transport, we are making a small number of technical amendments. These deal with marine consents. This demonstrates our commitment to devolution and working with all parties to constructively achieve mutually beneficial outcomes. Finally, we are proposing to further technical changes to the nature Restoration fund -- Nature Restoration Fund. Given the different regulatory requirements of protected sites at sea, were making amendments to ensure the effective operation of the Nature Restoration Fund in marine environments.

This Fund in marine environments. This will move activities beyond 12 nautical miles to support the development of new harbours and ports. In line with provisions for terrestrial EDP's, any such plan will need to take into account the marina plan, and the UK Marina strategy as appropriate. This will make sure that EDP's support government policies. Provisions will work effectively to support work effectively to support infrastructure. These will ensure the strategic benefits of environmental delivery plans can also help with the delivery of transport projects and better support nature recovery in those areas.

We will continue to consider whether elements of the new Nature Restoration Fund model could be strengthened to give greater confidence that positive environmental outcomes will be achieved. I look forward to engaging with stakeholders and parliamentarians on this important issue. I commend the proposed government amendments to the House. I thank the honourable members for their feedback. I look forward to listening.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

New clause NC69.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause 60 9B now read a second time. -- 69

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be read a second time. I'll resist the temptation to say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll resist the temptation to say a few things. Thank you. Can I a few things. Thank you. Can I firstly thank the Minister for his hard work on leaning the Planning Bill Committee. I'd like to thank Bill Committee. I'd like to thank all members who served on the committee over the last few days. committee over the last few days. The Minister spent a long time and that committee saying he would reflect on a number of important points that Honourable friends across the political divide make on this bill but he did no such thing.

He has said that he has reflected and he said he will reflect after today and tomorrow's events but he has made no substantive changes this legislation based on real and anyone environmental concerns that many people across this house have. I don't intend to detain house for too long at this stage because I know I have a windup. What I will say is that we are worried. Were worried about the centralising zeal of this government when it comes to planning. I said that at second reading.

Were worried about the erosion of powers of locally elected politicians and democratic politicians to make decisions on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their local areas, serving their local people. I will give way. I thank him. I agree with him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him. I agree with him that local committees have so much more control of what happens over
18:06
Paul Holmes Portrait Paul Holmes MP (Hamble Valley, Conservative)
-
-
more control of what happens over what happens to housing stock in their areas. Would he agree that there should be a different category for short-term lets and second homes, given that communities like mine are ravaged by so many homes...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What I would say is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What I would say is that this party has always believed in locally elected councillors to make decisions for people who they served. We have said that consistently through the passage of this bill. His Honourable friend has tabled an amendment one, clause 1 to tabled an amendment one, clause 1 to ensure that planning committees have powers under the proposals of this government. What the Minister is saying this afternoon and tomorrow saying this afternoon and tomorrow is that he does not trust any planning committee or any Labour- controlled councils to make controlled councils to make decisions based on the wishes of their constituency and their local areas, and we think that is a disgrace.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

disgrace. Does he agree with me that what our constituents expect is to have their voice heard on the local their voice heard on the local planning committee. The system that we have is working, actually, quite well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well. The gentleman opposite says, is it, but I agree it is. There are a few applications that are refused by planning committees and their a few that do not go through because of the actions of planning committees. We have been to trust our locally elected councillors and leaders to make decisions for our constituents. It is clear that people on that side of the house do not by investing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more power into the Secretary of State and into the Minister was McCance. I thank him for giving way. He

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. He obviously as part of a party that was in power for the last 14 years. The result of that 14 year period is The result of that 14 year period is that we were both in a housing crisis with huge numbers of people in either inadequate accommodation in either inadequate accommodation or no accommodation at all. And most nature depleted nation on earth. nature depleted nation on earth. Clearly, the system is not working. Does he have any real sense that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he have any real sense that there needs to be any change or does he just say we carry on with the system used to have? If actually, anything his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If actually, anything his government would have the intentions he outlined. Does this morning, samples indicated that there target samples indicated that there target would not be met -- Savils. That is would not be met -- Savils. That is a while the new what this proposed legislation would do. When it comes to the environment protection is that the Minister has outlined, it is quite clear that many of the concerns by members across this house should be listened to and that the environmental decisions or the proposals of this Minister is making will have a detrimental impact on local areas by shipping the problem elsewhere.

That is what... He says to me do I have any proposals. The most -- my government built the most houses in history. The Honourable gentleman needs to realise that taking power away from locally elected councillors is a disgrace. elected councillors is a disgrace. That Minister saying to him and his councillors that they should not be trusted to make decisions on behalf of the local communities. I'm sure he won't be happy with that when he gets to his AGM to be re-elected as the parliamentary candidate.

As we said, the government has consistently said they want to build 1.5 million homes. The Independent Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that the government will fail to deliver its manifesto and fall short of that figure. That including today the estimate by Savills who said they will build just half of the houses they promised. The government proposal to reduce legal challenges available to opponents two major infrastructure developments from three to two and in some cases just want should alarm anyone who believes in checks and balances.

Legal scrutiny is not an inconvenience, it is the back bone of a democratic -- our democratic system. By can caning rubber curtailing legal recourse, we are not removing 'we are removing the public's right to hold the Labour Labour councillors Labour councillors with Labour councillors with their gerrymandering housing algorithm. We are told this bill will speed up housing decisions. At what cost? Local Planning Authorities are indeed struggling, underresearched and overburdened. But granting them for 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. Takes key decisions out of the hands of public representatives. It is increasingly directed by central policy. Let's not forget that the strategic failure of recent years has not been due to too much local input but too little coordination. Requirement for National spatial strategies was scrap this government's predecessors. The pendulum swings once again with local authorities being told to draw regional plans.

Local authorities are being starved of funding. We risk repeating history, only this time with fewer safety nets and a weaker capacity to challenge flood strategies. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. Communities are concerned that there 6.3 million currently at risk there 6.3 million currently at risk of flooding, which is predicted to rise to 8 million. The bill does not rise to 8 million. The bill does not address climate change or any kind of flood resilience. Would he join

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of flood resilience. Would he join me in -- urging the Minister to consider this. I thank the honourable lady for her intervention. We discussed this her intervention. We discussed this topic at great length at committee stage of the legislation. Many good stage of the legislation. Many good amendments were made in this regard but the Minister on reflecting consistently has not, as I consistently has not, as I understand, made any strength to the understand, made any strength to the environmental protections to housing that will be built in the future.

I would argue they have been we can. I hope the Minister will go away and look again. On environmental protections, we would say they are under threat. This new centralised model is wishy-washy. It turns environmental assessments into a cheque-book exercise. -- tick-box Exercise. I do say to the Minister once again, on Natural England, there is a huge evidence session put before the bill committee, the committee stage of this bill. He consistently said he had confidence in Natural England's ability to undertake the responsibilities he has set upon them.

I would argue he has offered them a meagre sum of money without giving the commitment that when you are asking an organisation to make those decisions and improve environmental protections for people across this country, he still has not outlined what funding model will go forward and the chief executive themselves of Natural England have stated in very generic terms that she also was not entirely confident or not entirely sure that she or her organisation will be able to undertake those operations going forward.

The Minister should listen to vast concerns across this house that natural England is not the right organisation to undertake those responsibilities going forward. It is local councils, it is local mayors and they should be the ones who represent their constituents, who speak for local people and can make the changes need on environmental protections. There are two amendments in our name that I hope, rather I suspect, fruitfully, that the Minister will fruitfully, that the Minister will I would hope he would look very seriously a new clause 39 and 43 tabled in the name of my honourable friend the Member for rice slip.

The Member for new clause 29 -- 39... New clause 39 is a vital safeguard for the future British farming and national Food security. At a time when global food supply chains are increasingly fragile, it is essential that we protect our most productive agricultural land from irreversible development. This ensures that the best farmland is preserved for growing food. The thing is intended to do in the first place, not covered in solar panels. It calls for smarter, more balanced approach that directs solar projects to rooftops and lower grade land areas that do not undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.

Very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

briefly. Would he recognise that up to only one% of agricultural land could only one% of agricultural land could actually be dedicated to solar panels? Does he also recognise the words reform in US president said solar is helping -- helpful for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

farmers generating income. I would say only one%, but will we have to accept is this country in we have to accept is this country in the international situation wherein should be producing our own food and that land should be protected. What that land should be protected. What I would say is he may need to catch up because I understand the NFU wants to build to go further by having a complete ban on solar panels on this grade of land. I panels on this grade of land.

I suggest he goes and speaks to them again and maybe comes back to this House and back this amendment. I House and back this amendment. I would say also to the honourable gentleman that the NFU speak up for our farmers and if they are not happy with what is currently being listed in this bill, instead of saying to me a quote from a former NFU employee, I would listen to the current leadership of the NFU and come back to the House and change the comments he makes.

I will briefly give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him. Does the honourable member believe that farmers are able

**** Possible New Speaker ****

member believe that farmers are able to make the choice about how best to use their land? Of course I believe farmers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course I believe farmers should know how best to make use of their land. What this government is their land. What this government is doing is taking the power away from farmers, whether it's reducing -- farmers, whether it's reducing -- increasing CPO powers on land they want to use to produce food, whether it's reducing the amount of money it's reducing the amount of money they will get through CPOs that his government is advocating and seeing more more agricultural land being more more agricultural land being taken out of use.

I suggest he reads the bill of the measures this Minister is bringing forward which Minister is bringing forward which undermine our farmers and stop them being able to do the job they want to do. I will move on to another to do. I will move on to another clause because I no Madam Deputy Speaker will want me to sit down very soon. On new clause 43, I knew I would get universal claim eventually, on new clause 43 tabled by my honourable friend, we really believe that villages across our country need to be protected.

This build is simply not do that. Local plans are being eradicated and eroded in their relevance under this proposed bill and the decisions of local people to protect the strategic gaps of our villages are being eroded by the spill. I hope the Minister will look favourably on new clause 43 which would provide existing villages with protections equivalent to that currently provided by towns under the end PPF. We believe it is vital to protect the heritage of English villages.

For too long... this class seeks to correct this imbalance with updated by -- guidance that grants this already protected under the framework. That means safeguarding villages from being swallowed up by neighbouring developments, preserving green buffers from neighbouring settlements and protecting the historic fabric of rural character that defined these communities. I would like to thank my right honourable friend for her work on bringing about this amendment following a truly baffling planning appeal decision on Green Belt in her constituency which would see the merger of two settlements with completely different characters and identities simply because one was classed as a village and one is a town.

Many across his house will have had problems with that, I think the Minister needs to look at the protection of villages and Green Belt within this bill because frankly that is not being delivered by this legislation. Very briefly, there are a number of other amendments that are being tabled that this side of the House thanks would be fruitful to be able to make the bill better. New clause 82 tabled by the honourable gentleman for Bournemouth East in terms of play areas, we know many developers are not delivered with play areas and they should be brought forward.

Also amendment 69 tabled under the honourable gentleman which would require environmental delivery plans to set out a timetable for and thereafter report on conservation measures and require improvement of the conservation status of pacified -- specified features before developing takes place. I would say to the Minister that we on this side of the House believe there needs to be changes to planning policy. What he has done is squander a chance here. He has not listened to members across this House who genuinely wanted to strengthen the provisions of this bill, make planning policy faster, but protect our environment and enhance the role or locally elected councillors.

By refusing to do that he has made many members on the side of the House not be able to strengthen the bill in a way where we could work together. This is a wasted opportunity. You will not deliver housing numbers, he will take powers away from local communities and stifle the planning process going forward. We on this side of the House will always stand up for locally elected councillors, it's a shame this government simply has not done that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have over 55 Back Benchers hoping to contribute. Colleagues hoping to contribute. Colleagues will know what time this debate has to end. It is very unlikely everyone will get in, so colleagues may want to reconsider and submit speaking tomorrow instead of today. I called
18:23
Florence Eshalomi Portrait Florence Eshalomi MP (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

the chair of the Select Committee. Will try to keep my remarks short

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will try to keep my remarks short on this. I rise to speak to the amendments in my name. As we begin amendments in my name. As we begin the report stage I would like to briefly touch on why this bill is really important. And so vital. I think it's fair to say, as constituency MPs, we all have our frustrations with the planning system. Ultimately we must remember why this matters. We are in the middle of a housing crisis. With a generation of young people who are spending more and more of their income on unaffordable private rents.

While the dream of homeownership phase even further. We have 1.3 million households on local authority waiting lists for social housing. And over 165 children growing up in temporary accommodation. A figure that has risen by 15% in the last year alone. As the chair of the housing communities and the governments Select Committee, our first report looked at some of the lives of those children in temporary accommodation and what we found was truly shameful. We found families are living in damp and cold and mice infested homes.

We found babies are not able to crawl or learn to walk because of lack of force place -- floor's place -- floor space. We found it's been a contribute infected to the deaths of 74

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children in the past years. I thank her for giving way. I recognise everything she is recognise everything she is described. Is she surprised like I was to hear from the shadow Minister was to hear from the shadow Minister that in their view, the existing planning system is fine and should not change?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for making the intervention and like I outlined in my opening comments, the current my opening comments, the current planning system does not work, it is broken the same way we have a housing market and the housing housing market and the housing crisis that is broken. Of the 74 children who died in the past five years, 58 of those were children years, 58 of those were children years, 58 of those were children under the age of one.

Now as members of Parliament representing different parts of the country, we might disagree with aspects of development that come forward within our respective constituencies and we mustn't let developers off the hook. When they often fail to deliver

**** Possible New Speaker ****

quality and new housing. I thank her. She is making a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her. She is making a powerful speech. She touches on developers and I have a new clause 57 which focuses on developers obligations to when they commit at obligations to when they commit at the planning application stage to deliver a certain level of affordable homes, that they must affordable homes, that they must stick to that and not be given scope and use issues around viability and profitability to reduce the numbers profitability to reduce the numbers of affordable homes that they are going to be able to deliver on developmental stop does she agree with me that that should not be an option open to developers if they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want to build homes? I thank her for that important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for that important point. We have to be honest that the market for developers is challenging. Their cost has increased. We see more and more people face in acute shortage so it's important when developers commit, consult and go to planning committees with those developments, they stick to what they have committed to. And with the infrastructure our communities need, we need to ensure those buildings being built are of the highest safety standards, but we must be in no doubt it is unacceptable that we have failed to build homes we need for decades.

If we want to give young people the homes they need, if we want to stop families facing the scourge of homelessness in truly ensure that every child has the best start in life, we must say yes to building more homes. In particular we have not had enough new social homes being built. That is why I have tabled new clause 50. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I completely agree with the honourable member that not enough social homes are being built. Does social homes are being built. Does she think we should have a target for social homes in the bill?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the honourable member for that point. I'm coming to similar points on looking at targets. points on looking at targets. Essentially that is why I tabled new clause 50, which I'm grateful to support from colleagues across the support from colleagues across the House. Social rent as we know is the most affordable housing tenure. As the rent is calculated on a national formula. Usually this means the rent formula. Usually this means the rent is set at around 50% of local market rates.

This is exactly the kind of housing we need if we want to make progress towards ending homelessness during this Parliament. The Minister during this Parliament. The Minister told the Select Committee that the government wants to prioritise the building of new social rented homes as part of its social housing ambitions. My new clause 50 would require the government to set a national target for the number of social rent homes that it wants to deliver per year. This target would not be binding on the government or the sector, but it would demonstrate the scale of the government's ambition.

Targets are an important part of how our planning system works in England. Local and national housing targets make sure our planners, developers and housing associations know how the government -- how many homes the government intends to deliver and how they allow communities to plan effectively. The government has been clear on its overall national housing targets. But the Select Committee believes the government has sent out how the government intends to hit that 1.5 million target. And making sure they achieve it by tenure.

Without a specific housing target, the number of new social rent homes has plummeted from hundreds of thousands in the 1970s to consistently below 10,000 in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

past decade. Thank you for giving way. She is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for giving way. She is making a very powerful point and something we discussed in the Select Committee. Does she agree with me Committee. Does she agree with me that in order to reach that 90,000 a year, that social homes target, we year, that social homes target, we must be setting clear targets now in order to achieve that, otherwise we order to achieve that, otherwise we won't be able to get a grip of the housing crisis when it comes to delivering socially rented homes.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

delivering socially rented homes. I thank her for making that point. As the shadow Minister outlined, the number of key areas in sectors have called claims and are sectors have called claims and are worried about the targets that the government has set. We think it's government has set. We think it's ambitious and we want the government to hit that, but without the urgent action, it may be difficult for the action, it may be difficult for the government. Without that target, it means far fewer families are getting off the waiting list and getting out of homelessness.

And into secure and safe affordable home. The new Select Committee has not endorsed a specific target on the number of social rented homes, so my new clause does not hold the government to a target. Rather we want the government to consider what is needed and most important, what is possible within the financial constraints and the sectors constraints and the sectors In recent years, several organisations have caused record the social rent targets at different levels. The most common figure is 90,000 social rent homes per year.

Which has been endorsed by Shelter, Crisis, the National Housing Federation, the Affordable Housing Commission and my predecessor

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee in the last Parliament. I thank the honourable member for giving way, she made excellent giving way, she made excellent points about the new boss to set a target for social homes. I believe the destruction of council has the destruction of council has stopped is one of the most regressive things this country has ever done, we need to replenish it ever done, we need to replenish it urgently. 90,000 a year I'm afraid is not enough, we need to go higher, we need to aim for 150,000 a year, would she agree with me?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would she agree with me? I thank the Member for that really important point in terms of really important point in terms of looking at the target, what we are looking at the target, what we are asking the Government, with this amendment and what many members across the House are asking the Government is that within that 1.5 million tenure, there should be a million tenure, there should be a clear ambition on what and how many will be social housing. So, we need will be social housing.

So, we need a step first before we start increasing on that target but I do agree with him in that 90,000 will be a drop in the ocean when we look at the figures of how many people are on the social housing waiting list across the country. When he was in office, the former Secretary of State, now Lord Coco Gauff, said he would like to see at least 30,000 social homes a year, which he called a stretch but achievable target. -- Lord Coco Gauff.

My amendment would give it six months after the Bill passed to set their own target. By that time, we expect they would have published the new affordable homes program and the long-term housing secretary -- strategy. The Minister has told the Select Committee that the long-term housing strategy will set out how they will meet the 1.5 million target and we hope that will include a breakdown and a figure by tenure and the target for social rent housing. I would like to speak briefly to my amendments 129 and 130 in my name.

Which are technical amendments to the Bill is planning fees ring fence. We know that local planning authorities are badly under resourced. According to the Royal planning Institute, one quarter of planners have left the public sector since 2013 and 2020. Therefore, the sector has welcomed the bill's plan to ring fence the revenues from planning fees, so local authorities must invest those revenues in planning departments. However, in our evidence committee, in our evidence session committee, planning representatives told the committee that the current ring fence in the Bill is too restrictive.

As it would not allow planning departments to spend the money on developing their local plans. The Minister is up-to- date with local plans and as he knows, the local planning coverage is vital if the Government's planning reforms are to succeed. But the fact is that only one third of local authorities have an up-to-date local plan in place. It is therefore, it seems a missed opportunity that the ring fence, as it is currently drafted, would not allow local authorities to invest and plan making using revenues from fees.

The Government wishes to see universal coverage of local plans, so I hope the Minister might consider making this modest change. In the other place, to extend the planning fees ring fence. With these local plans in place and with the Government's wider planning reforms, hopefully we will see real progress towards building the homes we desperately need. But even then we have to face the reality that planning reforms alone will not be enough to build the 1.5 million homes during this Parliament. The private sector would need to take time to adjust to the new regime.

Developers will need years to bring forward these applications. The private sector will only build the homes at a rate which they are selling, without needing to reduce prices. Whereas with social housing, a family can receive the keys to their secure home as soon as it is built. We must remember that the last time England was to build 300,000 homes a year, over 100,000 of those were social housing. The government has promised to deliver the biggest wave of social housing and affordable housing for a generation.

That is going to require the biggest boost in social housing investment for a generation. In truth, the Spending Review is going to make or break the 1.5 million target. It is now time that the Government to be bold and to deliver on its housing ambition. If it does so, it will find councils up and down the country ready to match their ambitions. I particularly welcome some councils work and the work of the outgoing leader who spearheaded the securing of council housing campaign.

In just under a year, Southwark Council has joined with 112 councils across England to send a clear message that it is there to get more homes delivered and fix the broken housing system. I urge the government to match this goal and to be -- back up their stated ambition and set the social housing target following the Spending Review. We must ensure that social rent homes, the most affordable tenure, forms a substantial part of the new housing that comes forward as a result of this Bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I call the Frontbench spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, can I remind members that we are pushed for time in this we are pushed for time in this debate, I will be imposing an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

immediate five minute time limit. Thank you. Can I start by thanking all the members of the Bill thanking all the members of the Bill Committee, the clerks and the
18:37
Gideon Amos Portrait Gideon Amos MP (Taunton and Wellington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Committee, the clerks and the officials whose joy at receiving our 78 amendments in committee I can only imagine was unbounded. The House will be pleased to know that today I will only be focusing on those we prioritised for this debate. At second reading though, Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru were the only parties to vote against this deal. All the others were content to vote for it, lender MPs and Green Party MPs all nodded through, conservatives who abstained... I hope they will all consider their position more seriously this time and reconsider supporting some other measures in this Bill.

-- Labour MPs. If today Liberal Democrats are again the only party to vote against this Bill in party to vote against this Bill in the lobby opposing it, tomorrow indeed, as the gentleman says from a sedentary position reminds me it is tomorrow, if tomorrow the Liberal Democrats are the only party to vote against this Bill because of the harms it does to communities, local people, nature, since those three things, the rights of people, communities, fairness and the interest of nature are cornerstones of what liberals believe and we will bear that standard and we shall do so again.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for being me. I tabled new clause 64 and the Bill, which would have required housing development applications to housing development applications to include provision for green space include provision for green space within 15 minutes of new homes, supporting nature and helping people live happier, healthier lives. With my honourable friend agree my honourable friend agree government has missed an opportunity with this Bill that would require new housing developments to be new housing developments to be designed in a way that is not only good for nature and the environment but good for the health and well-

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being of residents too? I agree with my honourable friend for South Devon who is a great champion of green spaces in development. And in our contribution we are showing how the protections we are showing how the protections of nature could be strengthened in this Bill without deleting entire chunks of it. I will come onto that later. On the right of individuals, real freedom, of course, as the chair of the Select Committee said, it often begins with a decent home that can be afforded and to bring up your family.

When homes are genuinely affordable for local people, they will also command real community consent and support in the planning process. So unless we give a commitment to massively increase the number of social and council rent homes, then we will not be answering those people's needs. And then we will not answering those people's needs and we will fail to meet head on the criticism that housing developments today are more about profit than they are about people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I like to thank my colleague for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I like to thank my colleague for giving way. In my own constituency is... Constituency of Torbay, we have less than that national average have less than that national average of social rented housing, at 7%. Would my right honourable friend Would my right honourable friend agree with me that it is shocking how the new Government have been asleep at the wheel and lacked the asleep at the wheel and lacked the ambition to drive the desperate need for more social rented housing in the first 11 months of being in power?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend from Torbay who is championing the need for social and council rent homes, which is exactly what the Liberal Democrats are doing. We welcome the 2 billion per commitment that the government has made to social government has made to social housing. -- £2 billion. And I listen carefully to what they are saying about the Spending Review. But there is at yet no new target for social homes in this Bill or any of the relevant government policy, that is an absence that needs to be put right.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable team for giving way and there are many amendments his party has put forward that we on this side agree with. Can I just asking, he outlines about the target within the amendment he is describing, can I ask him how would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

describing, can I ask him how would he afford that and where would the money come from? $$CAPITALISE.Honourable gentlemen leads me onto the next part of my leads me onto the next part of my speech, which is to explain that in speech, which is to explain that in our amendment 15, which would support the delivery of 150,000 new social homes per year, that would be funded by our taxation proposals set funded by our taxation proposals set out in our Kostin section of our manifesto, an extra £6 billion per year on top of the existing affordable housing program and on affordable housing program and on top of existing 106 contributions, which according to CEBR would be enough to enable us to reach out delivery of 150,000 homes, social delivery of 150,000 homes, social homes per year, the end of the Parliament.

On the rights of communities, more people engage with their local councils with democracy, on planning, then on almost any other area. But far too often that engagement becomes a dawning recognition that all the key powers and levers on planning been taken away from local areas by successive governments. Leaving local communities and elected councillors to represent them increasingly powerless over the development that takes place around them. Housing numbers are set by a formula made in Whitehall and dictated not by population by demand and supply ratios, even though studies show that has never yet reduced the price of a single house.

Because private builders were quite reasonably at to sustain the price of their products and adding numbers of consent in this context will only lightly unleash developments in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

inappropriate areas. My only lightly. I thank my honourable friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend. Does he agree with me that we saw in the recent Westminster Hall debates the recent Westminster Hall debates that the standard method does not that the standard method does not only reduce prices in terms of the numbers of standard method for calculating the number of homes does not reduce prices, it actually inevitably ratchets them up and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

increases them? My honourable friend the Newton

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend the Newton Abbot is very deceptive and hard working on this issue but very working on this issue but very perceptive and hard-working and has raised a very significant problem in the standard method and I pay the standard method and I pay tribute to him. It is not just the standard method dictated from Whitehall, Wilson second home in short-term lets are also set by Whitehall, so communities cannot stem the loss of local family homes for local people, something our new clause 20 would put right in this Bill.

On transport and highway capacity are set by Whitehall to, so locals like my own parish council cannot question them. In the battle between underfunded local authorities and developers with big profits to me, Whitehall rules also make commitments that the delivery of affordable housing and infrastructure can all to often be evaded on grounds of viability. -- Big profits to make. Something only clause 12 attacker by requiring a minimum of 20% social housing development. -- Clause 12 would tackle. No wonder trust in local politics is at a low.

Also made worse by the chaos of the previous Conservative government, where with one rule for them and another rule for everyone else, basic fairness went out of the window. The UK may rightly be ranked on the top 20 countries in the world... But nothing undermines fairness more than foul play or the appearance of foul play. Even if it is, as we know, very rare. So I'm new clause 11 would ensure that never again can the Minister favour a planning application from a donor without that the exposed to the public record.

It cannot ever be right that the planning decision is taken by those who would benefit financially from it. And locally trust in the fairness of local democracy is so often shaped by how much trust people have in the local planning processes. So our amendment one would remove from this Bill that powers it gives vital to control the very running of councils and the rights of councillors to make decisions on planning applications. Powers in this Bill would meet for the first time that even a unanimous decision of every single counsellor would not be enough to enable them to change the decision of their officers or their planning consultants made on their behalf.

Setting up employees and consultants in power over the heads of representative elected to employ them is a dangerous there, I would suggest, and know Parliament should endorse it. It is not just elected councillors who should would leave their boats on planning -- who would leave their boats on planning... We set the rules for the most largest national infrastructure project, Hinkley C to the tidal lagoon, to the world's biggest offshore and onshore solar farms. I remember 128, whilst allowing Government to change National Policy Statement to reflect changes in the law would present this helps the right to decide whether national policy for these massive projects should be changed.

People are not the problem, ordinary people are not blockers, ordinary people are not ones who should be swept out of the way. As I said, they and we want to see new homes and development. These particular changes would so damage right and trust in a damage system and will not deliver anything of significance in terms of growth and amendment. Because council planning committees already approved over 90% of planning applications that come before them. My local Lib Dem Somerset Council has consented thousand of new homes and is building hundreds of new council houses, including parts of the county for the first time in a generation, and they want to build more.

Just as people and communities should have rights so too do we need to stand up for the rights of nature. People want to see our rivers and waterways cleaned up and our environment protected, rivers like in Taunton, where communities by achieving new designations have uncovered poor water quality and a desperate need for investment. Our precious chalks across the country, which had no protection at all, which is why our amendment 60 would give them the protection they require. People want to see

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for giving way. I agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for giving way. I agree with some of the things he is saying. However, we all want to build faster, and in Stroud for build faster, and in Stroud for example, which is under the local district plan, we have been waiting district plan, we have been waiting four years for our housing plan. And this bill will free us up from the quagmire which is our current quagmire which is our current planning system. Last Friday I met a Gloucestershire wildlife trust, and they have serious concerns about they have serious concerns about this.

All I would ask is we have a this. All I would ask is we have a short pause in part three and keep some of it. Would you agree?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for the intervention. I certainly agree that part three requires amendments. And our requires amendments. And our amendment seeks to do that which I will come to shortly. People want to see development that treads lightly on the land that reduces harmful emissions. Which is why a new clause two and enforce a zero carbon standard for all new homes, that Liberal Democrat and Labour ministers worked so hard on for the Conservatives cancelled the zero carbon program in 2015.

Our new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 25... Net zero standards obviously cut

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Net zero standards obviously cut bills as well as carbon emissions. Does the honourable Friend share my Does the honourable Friend share my view that the government that has been forced to U-turn Winter Fuel Payments, is refusing to back new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Payments, is refusing to back new clause two which would cut bills of people of all ages? I'm grateful to my honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my honourable friend for her intervention. It is right that we should be moving to zero carbon homes. One study showed zero carbon homes. One study showed that had that been brought in 2015, new homeowners would have saved £9 billion on all New Homes Bill since 2015. Our new clause 25, by the 2015. Our new clause 25, by the member for Chichester, would give key national landscape partnerships key national landscape partnerships like the Blackdown Hills in my constituency.

As we see, species becoming extinct before our eyes, people want to see new homes and nature thrive together. Which is why our new clause 1, coming onto the point of the honourable gentleman crucially would put back the pre- eminent principle in all of this, wherever possible, we must First Do No Harm to the environment on the sites that are being impacted. Of course there are circumstances, like phosphate mitigation, where off-site measures can work to deal with the problem. But to completely remove from EDPs hierarchy mitigating impacts, first and foremost on site, Bill provides what the National trust has called a licence to kill nature.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would he agree with me that the problem with this bill is perhaps a misdiagnosis? The problem isn't misdiagnosis? The problem isn't nature holding up housebuilding, it isn't local authorities starved of isn't local authorities starved of cash for the last 15 years that is holding up housing. The problem is unfortunately is that we have developers who are sitting on 1.4 million homes that have planning given to them because they are land banking, because they are banking, because they are profiteering.

This is the problem that the bill is not getting to. We don't have to destroy nature we do don't have to destroy nature we do not have to undermine the future of our environmental protections.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our environmental protections. Your gentleman is actually right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Your gentleman is actually right to draw attention to the thousands of homes that have planning permission and not built. Killing in Somerset we have 11,000, a masterwork what the government has said about moving those forward, a real use it or lose it power is missing from this bill. Liberal Democrats are put forward an amendment where, unless those homes are built, the local authority would have powers to take over that land and to build the houses, to make sure there was a real use it or lose it penalty for those that don't build out with permissions they have.

Pitting communities and nature as the enemies of progress and of element would be a massive mistake. Taking power away from councillors, taking power away from local people, taking power away from members of Parliament is taking it away from the hands of the people who elect us to this place. Both the centralisation, Whitehall knows best, thinking, counts for less. There is another way to build the hundreds of thousands of homes we need. Invest in the 150,000 social homes per year to pump up our industry, give communities the funding for the jobs, transport, green space, energy infrastructure and constituents want to see full stop build the new GP and health facilities before building the houses and homes our communities will need.

And build them in ways

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which will support rather than harm those communities. I am grateful to the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for giving way to clearly it sounds as if he's coming to a significant region. I wanted given significant region. I wanted given the best chance to talk about new clause 115. My constituency is made up of small villages divided by Green Belt land and Ministry of Green Belt land and Ministry of Defence property. Without the protections afforded by new clause protections afforded by new clause 115, I fear those villages and the distinctiveness of them and their distinctiveness of them and their central place will be lost.

Can he possibly make some comments about clause 115 and the weight seeks to clause 115 and the weight seeks to maintain the distinctiveness place?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my honourable friend for the points you make. It is vitally important to protect the is vitally important to protect the character of places and communities that are so valued. Which is why we would want to see a more local improvement plan under assessment, and local planning. Finally, if we build GP surgeries, healthcare, and other infrastructure before the homes, that way we will be putting the interests of our communities and not against them. That is the kind of community led development Liberal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Democrats want to see, which our amendment helps to be about and I hope we urge members to support it. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to set out the case for rise to set out the case for amendments 136, 150, and new clause 62 in my name. I will also be very 62 in my name. I will also be very pleased to hear the Minister has said so far. The bill in front of us said so far. The bill in front of us seeks to tackle the long-standing
18:53
Toby Perkins Portrait Mr Toby Perkins MP (Chesterfield, Labour)
-
-
seeks to tackle the long-standing conundrum of how to deal the ambitious house budding targets the government is rightly committed to, was protecting the environment and enhancing not reducing protections for nature. Before I turn solely to my amendments, I want to speak briefly about the extent to which the bill achieves those aims. I have simply share the government's commitment to freeing up of the planning system and ensuring that fewer people are able to get onto the housing ladder. A few children grow up in unsuitable overcrowded temporary accommodation.

I see the impact of this country's failure to build the homes it needs in my surgeries every week. So I support the government aims to speed up that process. I also agree that planning has often been a barrier to those ambitions. That the government is right to attempt to remove this block. Freeing up unnecessary restrictions, however, must not be allowing further nature destruction and/or will it. The governed to said the ambitions will be achieved alongside nature recovery. Wildlife populations England have fallen to around 67% of their 1970 level.

Britain is now, as I said a few months ago, 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 was soil, and biodiversity upon which our society depends.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. Like me it sounds like there is a deep passion therefore ensuring that we maintain nature. I was wondering if he agrees with me that a simple he agrees with me that a simple measure of extending clause 30 which extends permitting development right which would provide vital freshwater which would provide vital freshwater habitats for up to two thirds of all freshwater species exactly like he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

freshwater species exactly like he has been speaking about? Thank you for that intervention.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for that intervention. I look forward to hearing her contribution in support of that new contribution in support of that new clause as we pass through. I do think that it has merit, something it is worth been considered and I it is worth been considered and I look forward to hearing her make her case in more detail as we go case in more detail as we go forward. The Environmental Audit Committee which I chair initiated an inquiry into environmental sustainability, to scrutinise government proposals in national planning policy.

Achieving growth and delivering for people, climates, 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 for his detailed engagement on this bill. I was grateful that he made time to meet recently to discuss the amendments I had proposed in this bill. Overall, I support the government's intention in part three of this bill. I think those parties who wish to simply scrap the approach entirely are wrong.

I think it is right to introduce a more strategic approach to satisfying developers environmental obligations. If done well, environmental delivery plans, the naturist levy proposed in part three, could simplify and accelerate the process of meeting existing environmental requirements, where developments impacts protected sites or protected species. Importantly, I also see the merits 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 officer in protection published advice for the government stating that existing provisions in the bill would amount to regression in the environmental law. So it is welcome that the Minister continues to be open-minded to making further amendments to his bill. I look forward to hearing about the engagement in another place when I am certain there will be further amendments brought forward. The Environmental Audit Committee has also had evidence of the must be stronger safeguards in place 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 three. And to strengthen it so it delivers for nature and development at the same time. I turned first to amendment 136. I very much welcome what the Minister had to say about scientific safeguards and look forward to if he comes forward with on that. This amendment will ensure that environmental delivery plans are only used when scientific elements are there. There must be robust elements that are particularly negative effect on protected site or protected species can be mitigated or compensated for at a strategic level.

Rather than on a site by site basis. Whilst strategic approach that will be delivered can be working well for some habitats and species, such as nutrients or newts, they don't always work for others. This amendment would safeguard against the EDP approach, being applied to inappropriate species or habitats. The government has recognised this principle is committed to a modular approach to expanding EDP's with new plans applying feature by feature, and existing protections remaining in place for those not yet covered. I support this approach, encourage the government to enshrine this principle in legislation to give certainty that this scientific safeguards committed to by this government cannot be altered by any future government without revisiting this legislation.

On amendment 150...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the pressure on time I will limit my remarks only to amendments 141 in my name. This bill as we have heard seeks to do many
19:00
Jeremy Wright Portrait Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP (Kenilworth and Southam, Conservative)
-
-
as we have heard seeks to do many things, but one of them is to accelerate the rollout of electric vehicle chargepoints around the country. In order to facilitate the move to electric vehicles. Drivers with disabilities, and there are 1.35 million of them, will also be expected to move to electric vehicles. The public charging points are often unsuitable for them to use. This amendment is designed to There is a standard that sets out minimum standards by which charge point operators can ensure that electric vehicle drivers with accessibility needs are able to use public charging infrastructure both reliably and safely.

It was developed in conjunction with the motor ability foundation and the Government and was published in October with the motor ability foundation and the Government and was published in October 2022. It addresses common accessibility concerns like placement of a charge point, minimum base size and the height and weight of the charging cable. The problem is that that standard is not mandatory and thus far nobody can find a single public charging point that meets that standard. That is a fundamental question of equality.

And becomes more acute as the charging network becomes more extensive, even without the additional impetus that this Bill is intended to provide, new charger is currently being installed every 29 minutes. Ensuring those charges are accessible to people with disabilities is therefore both urgent and sensible, not least because retrofitting accessibility onto an already installed network will be much more expensive. So this amendment would ensure that if voluntary compliance with PAS 89 does not improve, the Government has does not improve, the Government has powers to progressively enforce compliance.

It would also allow local authorities to monitor that compliance and oblige charging point operators to collect and report data on the compatibility of individual charge points with key accessibility benchmarks. It does that by adding to the regulation making powers in the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, which currently seeks to ensure that the charging network operates to the benefit of consumers with regard to acceptable methods of payment, maintenance and compatibility with different types of electric vehicle. It surely is logical to add accessibility for people with disabilities to that list.

And to do so now, while we have a relatively rare legislative opportunity. I want to take the opportunity to thank EBA England, the motor ability foundation and other organisations for their work on these proposals and their support for them. And I hope that the Government and the Minister will favourably on these relatively modest changes. Which could, I would argue, have a big impact on the ability of drivers with disabilities to use the charging network that we are asking all motorists to use.

And which can therefore ensure we all make the journey to electric

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motoring together. I rise to speak in support of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of amendment in my name, amendment one 37 and 138. And I should declare an 37 and 138. And I should declare an interest as the co-chair of the local nature recovery All Party local nature recovery All Party Parliamentary Group and proud species champion for the hen Harriers. -- 137. I'm deeply committed to the protection restriction of our natural world and table these amendment to ensure there is natural my adequate amendments for natural species.

I recognise the need to take the housing crisis extremely seriously. I have also supported amendments on I have also supported amendments on social homes, including MC 32, table by my honourable friend, the MP for North East Hertfordshire. Which North East Hertfordshire. Which would mandate national and local housing plans incorporate and justify specific targets for both affordable and social housing. It is clear that we need to build more housing. But we must ensure that this includes enough social homes because a just society must care for both people and planet.

In defence of nature we must remember nature is
19:05
Olivia Blake Portrait Olivia Blake MP (Sheffield Hallam, Labour)
-
-
not a luxury, it is essential. It sustains our health, our economy, sustains our health, our economy, our climate and the rich web of wildlife that makes our planet thrive. From the air we breathe to the food we eat to the water we the food we eat to the water we drink, nature underpins every aspect of our survival. Yet we are living in one the most nature depleted countries, as has been said. In the world. And the consequences of world. And the consequences of becoming impossible to ignore.

Our peatlands, woodlands, wetlands and peatlands, woodlands, wetlands and sees the once vibrant with life are deteriorating. These ecosystems are not just carbon stores, they are vital habitats for countless vital habitats for countless species, as they degrade they not species, as they degrade they not only release more carbon than they absorb but they also drive wildlife into decline. Iconic species are vanishing, pollinators are disappearing and once common birds and mammals are becoming rarer, pushing many species closer to extinction. Without urgent action to restore these ecosystems, we cannot hope to meet our climate goals or halt the alarming loss of my biodiversity.

Every species lost weakens the resilience of nature and our ability to adapt to climate change. Protecting nature is not just an environmental imperative, it is an economic, social and moral one. The loss of pollinators threatens our food supply, the destruction of our coastal habitats increases our vulnerability to storms and flooding and the collapse of our ecosystems puts both human and animal lives at risk. My amendments would require that a protected species are identified as an environmental feature, the environmental delivery plan must include a clear strategy for conservation measures to address the impact of the development of that species within local recovery strategy areas.

If Natural England determines it is not possible or there is overriding public interest not to do that, then they must aim to conserve the same species at a different site. Recognising the realistic risk of local extinctions realistic risk of local extinctions and threats facing specific species. This approach reflects a fundamental truth, protecting nature is not optional, it is essential. How ecosystems are interconnected and the loss of even a single species can have cascading effects on biodiversity, climate resilience and human well-being.

By embedding strong enforceable protections for species into development and planning, we are not only safeguarding wildlife but also reinforcing the natural systems that sustain our economy, our health and importantly, our future. importantly, our future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, I'm grateful to the honourable member for giving way. Given the really important point she is making about the environment and how it is so strongly connected to our economy and public health, does our economy and public health, does she agree with me, and I appreciate this is a slight tangent but she will see where it is going, it is illogical and inconsistent that illogical and inconsistent that planning rules for big digital billboards, which themselves can emit 11 homes worth of energy, not to mention the light pollution which seriously affects nature and human seriously affects nature and human health, that the rules say that those planning applications can only be considered on highway safety and amenity grounds and not on environmental impact or on the environmental impact or on the impact on human health and would it not be better if local authorities could make those decisions on those grounds as well?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grounds as well? I think she makes an interesting point and I'm sure the Minister is listening. But in a time of ecological crisis, every action must contribute to halting and reversing nature loss. Because nature is not just part of the solution it is the solution and I hope the Minister will sit down with me on these very points to discuss this further as it enters the other house.
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page