Commons Chamber

Monday 9th June 2025

(began 4 months, 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
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.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to new clause 59, which is in my name. And it considers the impact of our planning considers the impact of our planning system on our creative and cultural industries and infrastructure. The spaces are the foundation of our spaces are the foundation of our world beating creative industries
19:08
Caroline Dinenage Portrait Dame Caroline Dinenage MP (Gosport, Conservative)
-
-
world beating creative industries and also very important for our local communities. They are the engine of an industry which is growing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy and they are the R&D labs, if you like, of a sector that is bigger than our automotive, aerospace and life sciences industries combined. But these industries are under threat, including from our disruptive planning system and our onerous licensing regime. My committee, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, has had that live music venues will be back to shutting at the rate of two a week by the end of the year, that is in addition to electronic music venues and clubs which have been shutting at the rate of three a week.

So this amendment seeks to help prevent those closures by putting a duty on planning decision-makers to apply the agent of change principles. These are what existed since the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and they require developers to make sure their developments do not disrupt existing businesses in the future, as well as places of worship, schools, transport infrastructure and so on. It is good for venues, of 86 grassroots music venues that closed in 2024, one import shut for operational reasons, including noise orders, neighbour disputes and interventions by local councils.

In the last Parliament, the committee I chaired held a roundtable in Manchester at an iconic venue, the night and a cafe. We were there to meet with live music venues from across the North and the operators could not attend their own roundtable because they were instead attending a court hearing with Manchester City Council to settle a three year noise abatement dispute, a costly and pointless legal dispute at that which started due to a single complaint by a tenant who had moved out long before the issue was resolved.

Secondly, this amendment would be good for developers and new neighbours. Consistent application of the agent of change principles will de-risk and speed up planning and development, it will make sure the needs of an existing cultural venue are considered from the start. And it will save developers from late stage objections and lengthy expensive legal disputes down the line. It will require developers decision-makers to think about the presence of existing venues and will also benefit future tenants and homeowners who should be less impacted overall.

And finally it will also help local authorities. It is councils that are the ones with duties to detect statutory nuisance and investigate noise complaints, it is councils who serve noise abatement orders and it is councils who get dragged into expensive and often pointless bum fights with their local venues, such as the night and a cafe example. So encouraging councils to consider how developers and councils can find any equilibrium can only help save them time and money and surely that is more efficient than settling matters in court.

This amendment has widespread support, it takes forward a recommendation of the DCMS Select Committee in the last Parliament. It is supported by the whole live music sector, from the operators of our smaller clubs, pubs and venues much of the biggest arenas and stadiums. It will then fit the breadth of our cultural infrastructure from our historic theatres to our pulsating nightclubs. It is built on evidence given I live UK music creative UK and the music venue trust, night- time economy association and the National arenas Association.

It is about venues like it is not about venues versus developers, it is making sure we have a balance right between building enough good homes are making sure the places we are building keep the things that make life worth living. In Westminster and Al Constituencies, everyone agrees our high streets have been in decline, so it is vitally important that we protect the places that are special to us, our constituents and our communities. The places that provide platform for our creators and our world beating creative industries, where we can make memories, celebrate and have fun.

I hope the government will support the amendment and if not today, then commit to make this law as soon as possible. Live music is in crisis, the government needs to be listening.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 87

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 87 in my name and the name of most of the Select Committee chairs, sadly
19:13
19:14
19:14
Meg Hillier Portrait Dame Meg Hillier MP (Hackney South and Shoreditch, Labour )
-
-
community's local government and housing community Select Committee and the chair of the Transport Committee. This relates to the government's new approach to the government's new approach to the consultation around National Policy Statement and in particular the parliamentary scrutiny of those. Currently there is a process by Currently there is a process by which select committees join forces to examine these statements and provide recommendations to the government. The government is proposing to introduce what they proposing to introduce what they call a new reflective memo procedure, where an amendment to a planning policy reflects new legislation, changes to government legislation, changes to government policy or a relevant court decision since that policy guidance was put in place.

-- Amendment procedure. We in place. -- Amendment procedure. We know the name of the government is to speed up the planning process but we need to be clear that reducing parliamentary scrutiny can have long-term consequences. I'm seeking reassurance from the Minister about how this will be managed. Because in removing that requirement, this proposal will remove the requirement to respond to either a resolution of either House of Parliament about the proposed changes or recommendations from the committee of either House of Parliament around the proposed changes.

And instead the Government would write to the appropriate Select Committee at the start of the public consultation period, which is typically six to 12 weeks, the committee would then have the option of inviting Ministers to discuss the proposed changes during that time. So I am concerned and as are my fellow chairs that reducing the influence of select committees and enshrining in law that the government does not need to respond to scrutiny or recommendation of the Select Committee. I give way to the honourable gentlemen who has tabled a similar amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the honourable lady and the chairs of the committee to take up an issue I took up in to take up an issue I took up in committee and across the House there was concern. Would she consider that the Government may wish to change NPSs for reason of legal judgement NPSs for reason of legal judgement but to change them for policy and in particular where they affect such massive projects like Hinkley C,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

massive projects like Hinkley C, Sizewell, should continue to come to this House? If I move on to what will happen, I think the honourable gentlemen I think the honourable gentlemen will be a bit reassure by think there's a bigger point here that there is part of a trend I do not have time to elaborate on in this session, government not appreciating the role of thoughtful Darren scrutiny outside the Whitehall scrutiny outside the Whitehall bundle. A disease of governments of all parties. Scrutiny of MPs with detailed knowledge of subject matter, the honourable gentlemen has a strong track record in this himself, outside of this place before he came a member of this House.

And the system, those who scrutinise through select committees often understand the system and how a change in policy or indeed... Can have a different effect inside the policy guidance because of the interactions it will have. The worst case here is that there is not time for a committee to examine the proposal or that if it does, the Government ignores the recommendation. I'm very grateful to the Minister and his officials for the time they spent engaging with me, the clerk of the Liaison Committee, on behalf of the select committees.

To make sure we are trying to mitigate any of these worst-case risks. Because in theory these changes could sound quite reasonable but in practice, there is a risk that the Government could lose a useful voice which also reflects the views of other bodies and also select committees get the chance to question Ministers in public, that is very important for transparency and accountability. And also select committees can again in public very often give orally give Ulster their views and expertise are bodies with knowledge of the technical changes that could be introduced and wrapped into the new introduced and wrapped into the new It is easy, we have all been there when the Minister promises that the Dispatch Box something for other ministers, that the Minister will attend the committee and to be questions, but with as little as six weeks to go, have all been in the place where a minister's diary is so busy that it would not be good enough.

I hope this will give some reassurance that he will, through the normal channels in Whitehall, ensure that every department is aware of the requirements of the relevant minister to attend within the period of time necessary for a committee to produce a report, or response to the government. That does not mean the end of a six-week consultation period or 12 week consultation period. I hope the Minister can give me some of these reassurances. I would like to be clear on the record. I acknowledge the efforts being made in committee to talk about this and the pledges made then, I think it is important that we make sure that these changes, the ministers views and pledges are made clear in this House.

In committee, the Minister said that ministers would be available to is beak the committee insofar as it is practical, and that not all select committees will respond in the relevant period, therefore elongating the process. I can clarify to the Minister and reassure that it is the intention of the Select Committee corridor to make sure that these things are dealt with in proper and timely fashion. I hope you will agree that both that he can make sure ministers attended a timely fashion, and that there is a proper approach to making sure that committees get advanced notice that the new planning policy statement or revised statement is going forward so they have time to plan and make sure they get their ducks lined up in order to enhance the work of government by giving them if necessary critical friendly comments but scrutiny, and whatever form is vital.

So I hope the Minister will put that on the records today, in which case I will not be trying to push my amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to a vote. It is vital we make sure parliamentary scrutiny is as protected as possible. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I think it is clear today that we are debating methodologies rather than values. Certainly the Ministers values. Certainly the Ministers values I don't dispute at all, and certainly we all want to see growth
19:19
Andrew George Portrait Andrew George MP (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
certainly we all want to see growth and the environment protected. It is a question of debating the methodology, the best methodologies by which we achieve those outcomes. I have submitted a number of amendments level cover three areas and rattle through them quickly. They all support the things which the member for Taunton has advanced in his opening remarks today. Indeed he has been pursuing in committee stages of the bill today. Amendment 148 is in respect of housing targets, what is proposed here is that allowing local authorities to adopt targets which reduce housing need rather than simply sets them on the basis of building homes.

Housebuilding targets are often in many areas part of the problem rather than the solution to addressing the housing needs in areas. Take for example Cornwall, since the 1960s, the housing stock has almost trebled and yet the housing problems of local people have got significantly worse over that time. Simply setting housebuilding targets results in massive value, and it makes it more difficult, having worked as a chief executive of the charity that tries to build affordable home, it makes it more difficult to address the housing needs of local people by actually establishing housebuilding targets.

And therefore having targets which are about reducing needs would actually change the dynamics and the way in which the planning system works in places which face these kinds of problems. Unfortunately, the house was on target Roach has been adopted on a bipartisan basis and it is built on a delusion that somehow climate developers will collude with government to drive down the price of their finished product. That is the delusion we can no longer go on following. We cannot and should not be pursuing counter-productive methodologies.

Amendment 149 and new clause 108 are consequential on that fundamental change, as proposed. A second area of policy is one which my honourable friend is already advancing in relation to introducing a new class order to address the prevalence in some areas of the non- permanent occupancy. Whereas the previous government were looking at bringing in a new class order for holiday lets, it should be extended to second homes and non-permanent occupancy. What is particularly proposed here is to bring in under proposed here is to bring in under new clause 92, so new clause 91, and new clause 92 should introduce a Sunset clause for the permission to ensure that there isn't a perverse incentive for people to apply for planning permission to change use, in order to enhance the value of their property as they go to sell.

This is not the politics of envy. This is about the politics of social justice. I think those people who represent areas of large numbers of second homes, they properly understand the way in which these things operate. The other final area in which I submitted a number of clauses, new clause 89 in relation to affordable development and new clause 90. This would prohibit cross subsidy, or at least open market development on rural exception sites. Of course the should not be called that.

It should be the methodology by which we should be delivering affordable homes in rural areas. It actually should be driven by affordable home, in such

**** Possible New Speaker ****

locations. He is making an excellent case.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He is making an excellent case. North Norfolk, people want to see housebuilding that generally meet housebuilding that generally meet local needs and helps to address the housing crisis that is affecting everyone in my constituency. On affordability disagree that to do that you need to empower local authorities to define what affordable actually means in areas?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

affordable actually means in areas? He's right about that. Of course it is defined in terms of rental accommodation, and housing allowance accommodation, and housing allowance whatever is lowest. Of course it is not sufficiently in relation to the intermediate market, where we are intermediate market, where we are talking about shared ownership. But talking about shared ownership. But there are ways in which that can be done and should be done and should be done within the local planning. We should be talking about giving local authorities the power by which they can define for the purposes of their own communities what is and is not affordable.

And indeed strengthening the roles of neighbourhood development plans in that respect as well. New clause 90 would attach a limit, a cap on developers profit as far as the relevant is concerned. What a lot of people don't understand is the way in which authorities have to make assessments on the viability assessment with regards to developments being put forward. And there is an assumption of the developers profit of 20%. Whenever developers come forward, asking for amendments to the way in which their planning applications are viewed, they often come with an undertaking of two valuations, and that they present to the planning authority, and one that they keep their back pocket.

One where they come with a sob story of the violins playing saying how they will be losing out on this development and do it only for local committee, the other one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which is the reality, we know they are making a killing out of other people's property. Olivia Bailey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Olivia Bailey. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased to support this I'm pleased to support this important bill, which will deliver
19:25
Olivia Bailey Portrait Olivia Bailey MP (Reading West and Mid Berkshire, Labour)
-
-
the housing, the infra structure, and something that my constituents need. I would like to welcome the government enhancements to the proposed livery plans, and provide greater clarity, legal safeguards and flexibility to ensure these plans restore and enhance our precious natural habitats. The current piecemeal approach offsetting environmental harm is not working, and the government's sensible approach maintains existing protections for nature, and adds to those of the ability to fund high- impact strategic recovery projects. I am lucky that there are several significant data recovery projects in my constituency, such as the wood meadows which I had the pleasure of visiting last week.

This project is maximising biodiversity on 130 ha on marginal land and planting 24,000 trees, 4 km of new hetero and a new walnut orchard. We need more big projects like this. And turning to amendments tabled by colleagues, I want to use my time to highlight the opportunity this bill presents to our country to chalk streams. I'm proud to present constituency which boast any wonderful water weight including the entire length of a river. It is a beautiful winding chalk stream which is the point of local pride said to be the inspiration for that Window the Willows.

Loved by dog walkers and anglers alike. But it is in crisis. The water quality has plummeted to Paul. Citizens, scientists and anglers testing the water consistently report samples with completely unacceptable levels of phosphate and E. Coli. And the phosphate pollution from Thames Water sewage works is so bad, luminous green from the resultant algae can be seen in satellite images. I would like to be able to take the opportunity to thank all of the campaigners, citizens, scientists, and volunteers.

I've been working with them throughout my campaign to restore it. The Rivers Trust, the Angling trust, the flood forum and others. As well as all the members of the flagship chalk stream partnership which supports a range of initiative to restore it. They're all dedicated advocates whose restoration efforts are making a real difference. Chalk streams are rare and valuable habitats. They are mineral rich stable and home to a platter of species was the given that 85% of the world chalk streams

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are in England... ... Rainforest in the UK. In my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... Rainforest in the UK. In my seat we have one which has over 4000 seat we have one which has over 4000 hours of non-stop sewage. It sounds like the river in a constituency has been a victim of that. That is why been a victim of that. That is why amendment 16 is so important to protect our chalk streams. Local people have said as development

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people have said as development comes, this is important. Would you support it? Let me come on to talk about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me come on to talk about the legislation. As I said, given that 85% of the world chalk streams are 85% of the world chalk streams are in England, it is right that we now know chalk streams as England's know chalk streams as England's rainforest. We have a duty as their custodians to protect them from future generation. While some chalk future generation. While some chalk streams have protections, many lack even that. This bill, alongside our landmark water legislation, is an opportunity to expand the protections for chalk streams.

I'm grateful for the conversations I have had with the Minister about this issue. I know how committed he is to our chalk streams. I will ask him if he will commit today to looking at strengthening the protections of our chalk streams as this bill progresses. This bill is an opportunity to build homes and infrastructure this country needs, boost our economy, and protect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

precious habitats. I look forward to continuing to support it. Alberto Costa.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alberto Costa. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak to a new clause 74 rise to speak to a new clause 74 tabled in my name. Firstly, I would like to thank all the members of the like to thank all the members of the House cross-party who signed my new House cross-party who signed my new clause. I would also like to thank the many others particularly from the Labour government benches, who the Labour government benches, who have privately informed me of their strong support.

I would also like to strong support. I would also like to thank the speaker and his team for the novel offer that he made this
19:30
Alberto Costa Portrait Alberto Costa MP (South Leicestershire, Conservative)
-
-
the novel offer that he made this morning, and how he might have dealt with new clause 74. New clause 74 is a very simple clause. And it seeks to ensure that promises made to all of us as MPs by prospective developers, when considering applications for large-scale housing applications for large-scale housing I have lost count of the number of developers who have made promises about so-called flagship housing developments, gaining the MPs support, gaining the support of other local community stakeholders, applying for outline planning permission, being granted outline planning permission on the basis of a good mixture of homes, and in one case, the case of Lutterworth East, where a pledge was made by a developer to build a minimum of 40% affordable homes.

They give the pledge, they obtain the support, they gain outline planning permission and then a few months or a year or two later, they seek to completely renege on the pledges given. Lutterworth East is such an example that it should be informative for all Members of this House. It is a cautionary tale. It is a tale which members ought to have at the forefront of their mines when developers come to them making pledges. -- Their mines.

Because Lutterworth East was the development where 40% minimal was to be affordable housing. But what has that developer done? A mere two years after being given planning permission that developer, without having to seek new planning permission, scenically applied -- simply applied to amend the section 106 legal agreement. Putting a gun to the head of the local planning authority, who had no other choice than to accept it for fear of losing housing targets, they applied to reduce 40% affordable housing, not down to 30, not down to 20, but they were originally seeking zero, not down to 20, but they were originally seeking 0% affordable housing.

A disgraceful breach of trust. But what happened is the local planning authority, whose own local plan requires 40% minimal affordable homes, allowed a significant decrease, they settled on 10%. That means that in the case of Lutterworth East, over 800 families will be denied an affordable house. I say to the Minister, the Minister is currently absent, not in his place, but I say this, the Bill wholly lacks any suggested power to deal with this. So I would ask the Government to take on board the case of Lutterworth East, to examine right Lutterworth East has allowed the developer to renege wholly on its commitments in a way that totally excluded the local community.

There was no public consultation because it was not an application for planning permission, it was merely to change...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am really moved by what the honourable gentlemen is talking about and I think many of us will about and I think many of us will about and I think many of us will have had a similar experience. And would he agree with me that actually, we have been hearing so much today about the importance of local decision-making and I can't help but thinking if the skills in the planning team that made this decision had had the necessary investment, if they had had that investment, if they had had that determination, if they had had that planning committee behind them, which by all accounts would have which by all accounts would have been able to say to those officers you need to bring it back in, does he not agree with me that we need to be investing in local planning be investing in local planning teams, so they can resist those kind of totally inappropriate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

applications from developers? I welcomed the honourable lady suggestion and yes, of course, some would welcome more resources into local planning teams. But what we have here is a problem which she may very well encounter in her own constituency. Be very careful when developers tell you that they are going to promise XYZ affordable social accessible homes. Be very careful indeed. Because even with section 106 legally binding agreement, these agreements can be changed at whim. When a local planning authority is put under pressure.

pressure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does he agree with us that given his demonstrated unreliability of section 106 agreements with developers living up to them at that developers living up to them at that in fact the best way to get affordable homes for his constituents and mine is through an increased number of social housing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

increased number of social housing delivered by the local council? Yes, I would welcome that. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I would welcome that. I think the government needs to take into account Lutterworth East. And needs to ask itself why a Labour parliamentarian and a conservative parliamentarian have had to go parliamentarian have had to go begging to the Government to look into this matter. The government purports that it wants to see more social housing, more affordable housing and more accessible housing. housing and more accessible housing. But with Lutterworth East it has had the opportunity to look into this the opportunity to look into this matter.

And it has chosen not to rectify this issue. So in concluding, and I'm aware others wish to speak, I would simply ask Government if it is willing to have a meeting with me and the Labour parliamentarian in question, to discuss what it could do in this matter? Given that the developer incredulously in this case is none other than a County Counsel. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

County Counsel. Can we start by acknowledging

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can we start by acknowledging something which I still don't think has been acknowledged enough in this debate and that is that the current planning system is broken. Nowhere
19:37
Chris Curtis Portrait Chris Curtis MP (Milton Keynes North, Labour)
-
-
planning system is broken. Nowhere is that clearer then our environmental and Habitats Regulations and that is something that part three of this Bill is hoping to fix and many of the amendments put forward, politically Amendment 69, will make significantly worse. Let's start with a couple of clear examples of this. Firstly the lower tax crossing. £250 million spent on a planning application spanning over 350,000 pages. More than 250 times the length of war and peace and at a cost of more Norway paid to build the low like the world's longest the low like the world's longest road tunnel.

Second, we are currently building the most expensive nuclear power station in the history of the human race at Hinkley Point. Why? Not least because at the last eight years, EDF has been stuck in regulatory wrangling over a, I kid you not, a fish disco stop Anna Kook this system like an acoustic system to guide fish away... And my personal favourite, the infamous back tunnel. £120 million of taxpayers money wasted on a tunnel that might save a handful of bats from a nearby forest, though many experts argue it will more likely put them in harms way.

This is not planning, it is parody. And while we argue about that tunnel is, what is really happening in Britain is 150,000 children or more growing up in temporary accommodation with all of the consequences mentioned by my honourable friend from Vauxhall and Campbell Green earlier on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My honourable friend has talked about how we have not confronted the fact that the planning system is broken and would he agree with me, broken and would he agree with me, as he is about to talk about, what we have not heard enough about is the many children who are going homeless this evening and into the months ahead because were not months ahead because were not grappling with the housing crisis we face and we can't grapple with the housing crisis we face until we address the infrastructure crisis we...



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tonight hundreds of thousands of children are going to grow up... Are going to be waking up tomorrow morning in temporary accommodation because of these consequences and millions of families are going to continue paying the highest energy bills in the Western world because when Russian tanks rolled into when Russian tanks rolled into Europe we were dangerously reliant Europe we were dangerously reliant on foreign gas because our planning system consistently block the clean, homegrown energy generation we so deftly need. I see some Liberal Democrats laughing on the opposition bench, I point that some of their own councils block that energy infrastructure from being built.

In one of the wettest countries in Europe we can pay summer water shortages because we have not built a single major reservoir in over 30 is. Here's a real kick in the teeth. We have paid all of those prices for rules that have failed even on their own terms. Because we created the endless hoops to jump through and poured public money into because our mitigation schemes while Britain has become one of the most nature depleted countries in earth. We have lost over half our nature...

One in six species at risk of extinction, fewer birds, fewer butterflies, fewer mammals and more Hale-Bopp -- more paperwork than ever before. If these rules are not helping people and they are not helping nature, who on earth are they for? We throw money at gutter gun mitigation, fish discos, back tunnel, while failing to invest in strategic landscapes that they'll restoration it really works. We force every projector fix every issue on site, even when that is more expensive, less effective and totally irrational.

That means tens of thousands of individuals side-by-side protections, bureaucratic, inconsistent and scientifically out of date. This is despite the fact that modern ecological science is clear, nature recovery depends on scale and collectivity, not isolated micro- projects.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. When I was building a second runway at building a second runway at Manchester airport I had similar... Manchester airport I had similar... I came to hate... Who are getting in the way of building the second runway. But surely there has to be a solution with balance in this? It does not cost one quarter of £1 does not cost one quarter of £1 billion for looking at the lamb round the lower Thames crossing but allows governments and local government to put things like swift government to put things like swift bricks into housing, that has to be balance.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will start by appreciating the description of around and I will keep ranting on this point until I do not have to speak to my constituents waking up in temporary accommodation because of the failure of this country to build. There is a middle ground. Even better than a middle ground because this Bill and the changes we are putting forward we can improve the situation for nature and we can improve the situation for building, including incentivising through the Biodiversity Net Gain process in order to incentivise developers to put swift bricks in place.

What we have currently got is not a conservation system, it is a cargo cult. Mimicking the rules and protection while the reality on the ground gets worse. Contrast that with what protecting nature actually looks like. From this Government, strategic Land Use Framework that supports farmers to deliver climate and nature benefits across 1.6 million ha of land, over half the size of Wales. This government banning bee killing pesticides, backing a transition to regenerative farming and planting forests double the amount of land to build the 1.5 million homes.

And now a bill that will finally move us towards environmental delivery plans that take a far more strategic approach to nature and increasing the building of what this country so desperately needs. I want these changes to go further. I think we also need to look at the culture within our regulators, especially Natural England, which has become too much of a blocker to building. But this step... This Bill is a step forward and the amendment as proposed would be a step backwards. I'm going to end with this, especially to members on my own benches who seem to find themselves depending this broken status quo.

-- Find themselves defending. Before you vote tonight speak to the people who will still be there when you go home, speak to the people who will be cleaning your office and ask them what it is like when read swallows up over half your salary because we have failed to build a way out of this higher than crisis. Speak to the person who culture lunch in the kitchen and asked them what it is like to raise your kids in a country with skyhigh energy bills because we failed to build homegrown energy generation and ask yourself who you are here to serve, broken spreadsheets or the people who sent us here? Because if you keep putting more and more barriers into our planning system, it is hard-working families across this country who will pay the price.

Let's fix our planning system and get Britain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

building again. I would like to thank the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank the Minister and the members of the Bill Committee for their hard work on this legislation. I do regret that this legislation. I do regret that the Minister has been so resistant to amendments from my honourable friend the Member for Taunton and
19:44
19:45
19:45
Calum Miller Portrait Calum Miller MP (Bicester and Woodstock, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
investment and infrastructure must come before housing development and that does not create a false distinction between development and distinction between development and protecting nature. Lynda and Gary protecting nature. Lynda and Gary live in my constituency. Gary has complex needs and Lynda is his carer. Their property is not suitable, Gary cannot shower or get suitable, Gary cannot shower or get out to the garden by himself. Lynda out to the garden by himself. Lynda and Gary have been bidding to West Oxfordshire District Council for a suitable property to meet Gary's suitable property to meet Gary's needs for over a year but have been continually unsuccessful.

As many members have stated, we have a crisis of social housing in this crisis of social housing in this country. That is why Liberal Democrats want to see an additional Democrats want to see an additional 150,000 social homes every year through Amendment 15. And it is why new clause 112 is so important, so that developers cannot dunk the delivery of social homes. We also need developers to develop the buildings that they have been consented to. In my constituency, over 8,000 homes have been consented yet not built.

This has led to a crisis whereby villages are at the mercy of opportunist developers who... New clause 3 will put an end to this land banking of consented sites, forcing developers to use them or lose them. At second reading I highlighted to the Secretary of State that there are three nationally significant infrastructure projects proposed in my constituency. These mega schemes relate to energy and transport. They may bring local benefit my constituents are deeply concerned by the way decisions are taken out of the hands of local representatives.

They are especially concerned that these NSIP sit outside local plans, so there are cumulatively impact is not considered when other decisions are taken. New clause 128 would ensure oversight of National Policy Statement to align members of this has to scrutinise the government's approach to national projects. Local infrastructure is also critical. In my constituency, a number of villages anticipate rapid housing growth in the coming years. Yet our physical and social infrastructure is already struggling to cope. My constituents want assurance that housing growth will be proceeded by sufficient investment in GP surgeries, dentistry, school and college places, water infrastructure, energy capacity and transport networks.

New clause 46 would require local infrastructure is completed, while new clauses 4 and 23 would ensure water drainage infrastructure is sufficient for Minister acknowledged that many organisations and leaders devoted to protecting nature, are deeply concerned by the way in which ministers have characterised measures to address the nature emergency as blockers to development. The Minister disputed this. So it is disappointing that the government does not accept new clause 9 which would have had the modest goal of encouraging the swift breaks and other modest measures for wildlife in new development.

I hope the Minister will also consider new clause 1 will set out the government's principled commitment to take all reasonable steps to avoid environmental effects. I urge the government to accept new clause 17 which will ensure their levels of community benefit from new energy and if projects. At the same time, this bill misses an opportunity to raise environmental standards. I welcome the ministers commitment at the weekend that new homes will have solar panels by default. The tribute that he paid to the member for Cheltenham for campaigning for this.

As I regret that the government has not accepted new clause two, which would have set a zero carbon limit for new homes will stop the Minister I have equally discussed the written ministerial statement of December 2033 under the previous administration, that undermines the efforts of West Oxfordshire District Council to set a low carbon standard for the relevant of salt crust. I appreciate you may not accept new clause two but made the Minister least agreed today to withdraw the ministerial statement to release the developers of high quality homes that would be good for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

environment and good for the new residence? Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill because it will build high quality because it will build high quality housing was not it will reform grid connections and deliver critical connections and deliver critical energy infrastructure. I also rise to speak in favour of new clause 82 tabled in my name, backed by 71 MPs, tabled in my name, backed by 71 MPs, with cross-party support to achieve with cross-party support to achieve happy healthy childhood.

We should report a statutory duty in England, as was one in Scotland and Wales, to
19:49
Tom Hayes Portrait Tom Hayes MP (Bournemouth East, Labour)
-
-
as was one in Scotland and Wales, to ensure inclusive and sufficient play opportunities. When I look back to the first and only play strategy to be published by a Labour government, in 2008, forward says this, " Time and space to play safely is integral to our ambition to make England the best country in the world for children and to grow up. " That ambition remains. That ambition was scrapped as a few years after its publication, the children £35 million budget, the coalition government drew a red line through everything.

We need to be prioritising play in this Parliament. And why? Because in the intervening years, hundreds of playgrounds in our constituencies have been boarded up and allowed to rust. This has been especially true in disadvantaged communities. Our poorest communities have been the greatest casualties of austerity. And we know the consequences, screen time dominates, we have a rise in social media, but politicians are good at telling children to get off screens without providing alternative play opportunities. With more play and less screen time, can have that mental health outcomes for children.

We can have more safety on our streets, we can have better social developers opportunities. Play is prevention, when we improve life quality of life chances, we save the public purse significant sums in the long run because we reduce demand on the NHS, reduce demand on our councils, and reduce

**** Possible New Speaker ****

demand on our social services. Thank you Madame Deputy Speaker. Bulbul friend is making an excellent Bulbul friend is making an excellent speech and clearly speaking about something with great experience. I wondered if he wanted to dwell on some aspects of this is in many ways play also benefits children's social development and their ability to development and their ability to work and concentrate on learning in school. Does he agree with me there are many other benefits to play?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are many other benefits to play? Would you like to praise local authorities which actively promoted? I thank noble Friend for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank noble Friend for the intervention. He will know well I spent a lot of time in Reading to know his constituency and the area know his constituency and the area around it. I do indeed praise the people he was talking about. I agree that, with time and space for play, that, with time and space for play, children will have the very best start in life. It is not just about children, it's also about their families. We are in an ongoing cost-of-living crisis.

With play and outdoor play in particular, we have free opportunities for parents and guardians to take the children so that they can have the support and social development and leisure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunities that they need. I thank my honourable friend for giving way to stop he is making a giving way to stop he is making a powerful suite. The playing field to my constituency have long served the my constituency have long served the communities vital green space. But that space is under threat as the council is seeking to remove council is seeking to remove protections. Does my honourable protections. Does my honourable friend agree with me that this is why this amendment is so necessary as it would ensure the council as it would ensure the council either keeps the fields or provide equivalent provision of land for children to play on?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her honourable Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her honourable Friend intervention. I do indeed agree, and she rather anticipates the points I she rather anticipates the points I went on to. This is so important because it provides key things that children need. It will require developers to deliver and fund adequate play. It will ensure no less loss without equivalent provision as a consequence of development this is not about requiring every developer and to have a blanket requirement. It is not holding every developer to hostage.

We note of element is important for growth in communities. It is about ensuring counters are well equipped, planning authorities are supported, to take a view in the round in a given area. Use contributions from developers to fund adequate and excellent play

**** Possible New Speaker ****

provision. I thank my honourable Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable Friend for giving way. I know that he is passionate about this issue as am I. passionate about this issue as am I. In my constituency, I have been working with a group of local parents on a joint campaign for safe inclusive parks for neurodiverse inclusive parks for neurodiverse children. This is not just neurodiverse children who benefit from these spaces, but parents who from these spaces, but parents who need to go somewhere safe, and in recognition of the cost-of-living recognition of the cost-of-living crisis.

Would my noble friend agree with me that these spaces should be provision for all children or just provision for all children or just those who are neurotypical, but should be space for their parents as well?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well? She may have talked many times about importance of inclusive play, and I commend her as a fantastic champion for children with special educational needs and disabilities to access those play opportunities. I agree with her entirely. One of the things that my amendment would do is provide tanning authorities with the requirements to assess play sufficiently, particularly inclusive play sufficiently. That is such a critically important point. In a nutshell, we need to have national policy frameworks and national planning actions which will ensure the voice of children and their families around them are being properly listened to.

But there is consultation of their needs and planning authorities are required and supported to introduce the outdoor play equipment areas that can so enhance their life chances. And in so doing, we would be building on the work of the last Labour government that I spoke about. You ever want to enjoy a beautiful photograph that sums up all of what the last Labour government was doing, have a look at Ed balls and Andy Burnham on a swing announcing that 2008 national play strategy.

It is a fantastic site. Genuinely in their faces and can see the joy that comes from play. And about extending play opportunity. You can see they are ministers who are fantastically enjoying their jobs, that is because they are delivering for children. That 2008 strategy was an absolute critical development in the work of play. The play sector responded so positively to it. There was £285 million investment to provide up new playgrounds. And I still get contacted by people have seen those playgrounds and we should have more of that.

In conclusion, this bill is critical for children's development. It is a progrowth amendment because we have in our play sector small family businesses who contribute to our economy to the tune of £250 million. They are powering employment and powering economic opportunity in our communities. I will close with this, our country feels like needs a lick of paint sometimes. We potholes filling, needless to collecting, new playgrounds repairing, and we can bring hope to our communities. In doing that, we can help people to feel positive about the potential

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for politics to make change. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the It is a pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman. I thought that was a very important speech. I concur entirely with his priority. concur entirely with his priority. It is very important that we invest in the social infrastructure of in the social infrastructure of play. For the benefit of children and not necessarily for the benefit of Ed balls and Andy Burnham. An of Ed balls and Andy Burnham.

An appalling image was captured by the old gentleman. But I want to speak in support of the amendment in my in support of the amendment in my name, new clause 87, which will require the government to designate require the government to designate more protected sites, or chalk streams and protected site within streams and protected site within six months of the ill passing. 85% of the world's chalk streams are in of the world's chalk streams are in this country. Only 220 of them, so they are rare and very special habitats.

Most of these chalk streams are in southern England. I'm glad to say most of the important ones are in Wiltshire. And on the edge of my constituency, hydrological dividing line where a
19:58
Danny Kruger Portrait Danny Kruger MP (East Wiltshire, Conservative)
-
-
hydrological dividing line where a drop of rain can end up with the river and flowing into the North Sea, it can go out of the Hampshire Haven into the English Channel or Haven into the English Channel or out West to the Bristol Avon and end up in the Atlantic. So very significant place, we water the whole of England from Wiltshire. 60 whole of England from Wiltshire. 60 million years old the streams are. And they have flowed clear and clean And they have flowed clear and clean all that time until very very all that time until very very recently.

They are over abstracted, too much water is being taken out because of over development and bad because of over development and bad housebuilding. They are contaminated with agricultural run-off, and of course from sewage spills. I want to course from sewage spills. I want to pay tribute and get my very sincere congratulations to all the congratulations to all the campaigners in my constituency. We will all have similar organisations locally, doing such great work to support the river. Anglers, schools, and farmers in our area, and I paid particular tribute to the Southern Streams Initiative which will restore the health of the soil and the water in our area.

The last government introduced some very important new measures to restore and preserve the health of our chalk streams. The water restoration fund which ensured that fines levied on water companies. It spills went to restore nature in the area that have been harmed. Introduced Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan, schemes that address the question of agricultural run-off, and the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, ensure that chalk streams were considered as part of the environmental assessment for new developments. We introduced the chalk stream recovery plan which was sadly halted by Labour when they came to power last year.

They kept some of the legacy I'm pleased to say. They paused the Sustainable Farming Incentive, and I am sorry to say expect to see cuts in the spending review this week. Crucially, they scrapped the water restoration fund itself. Thames Water was fined over £100 million last month because of sewage spills in our area. That money should have gone to supporting nature restoration in the Thames Valley areas including Wiltshire. It has been taken by the Treasury, we don't know where the money will go.

They also scrap the chalk stream recovery plan. The concern for this bill, and why have tabled this amendment, it would put additional pressure on our chalk streams. So yes to new building, absolute the priorities right, that is what we need. And yes to building in our backyard. But the backyard of Wiltshire is Swindon we need to be seeing more intensive element in the urban areas with a real demand for housing is, to be great but induced Swindon and Wiltshire. The new clause in my name would protect more chalk streams, as protected site.

I'm glad to say that we need to see more streams designated in that way. It is not only is enough to have 11/220 chalk streams in this country so protected. The more we can get the better. It will create genuine momentum by the preservation of chalk streams, and when developing to be considered, we can ensure these vital national natural assets are properly protected for the are properly protected for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Bill before the House today has the potential to be one of the most progrowth pieces of legislation passed through this place for decades. And the potential to decades. And the potential to transform our country for the better. But the amendments proposed will blunt this impact and make us will blunt this impact and make us all worse off. We should reject them for the prosperity of our constituents and for the future of our country. Every day in this place has to be about our constituents and has to be about our constituents and the lives they lead.

Within Chipping Barnet, I see the impact of our failure to build homes time and again. Take Maryam, a victim of domestic violence. And mother of a seven-year-old, working on a zero seven-year-old, working on a zero hours contract. She found herself with nowhere suitable to live to the with nowhere suitable to live to the point she was living in a car. Or Hayley, wheelchair user living in a property that is not accessible for property that is not accessible for her. She is often housebound because she Sibley cannot leave home without support.

Due to a lack of available housing appropriate for her. The stories are the stories of Britain today. But it does not need to be like this. This Bill gives us a once in a generation opportunity to fix many of the things that are holding our country back. Because for too long, we have not built enough in this country and we are paying a huge price for this. Under investment in our homes and in our infrastructure has made us all worse off. Financially but also socially, living in homes that skewer the prospect of a good life.

That is why and do not support opposition amendments put forward today. I also sadly do not support Amendment 69 opposed by my honourable friend, the member for North East Hertfordshire, which I think sadly does Mr Mark. His party was elected on a manifesto that sought to prioritise growth and making people better off and this Bill demonstrates how that is possible alongside improved protections for nature. The Nature Restoration Fund is a genuine win- win. But it's successful and timely implementation is put at risk, I believe, by this amendment.

Let us take the example of neutral neutrality. -- Nutrient neutrality. It is estimated that no fewer than 1,000 homes have been blocked by Natural England on this basis. And this is because on-site mitigation on a site by site basis is often virtually impossible, so these homes remain stalled. But the environmental delivery plans that environmental delivery plans that Natural England will produce will mean that rather than homes being held up by these rules, the various issues causing the nutrient neutrality challenges can be addressed in a strategic way, better for building, for nature and for people.

EDP's take the challenge of neutral neutrality seriously and be builders can get on and get stored sites built out, providing much- needed new homes. -- Nutrient

**** Possible New Speaker ****

neutrality. ... I think you slightly confuse the point of Amendment 69, which is merely to address the concerns raised by the Office for Environmental Protection and ensure Environmental Protection and ensure the Nature Restoration Fund works to deliver exactly the points he is describing with the right nature

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protection. I thank my honourable friend that intervention and I will come to the intervention and I will come to the point he raises in a second. My view is that if this amendment were adopted, the home stabbing block today will continue to be blocked. -- That have been blocked. And face unacceptable delays or never be built. What would happen under this amendment, I think, as we can amendment, I think, as we can interpret it, we would have to wait for the EDP to be drafted, for the funding to be secure, distributed to the relevant farmers or others who can help with the mitigation, works would have to take place, the impact of the mitigation would have to be monitored, the monitoring would have to conclude it had been a success for any new homes in an area could be built where nutrient neutrality

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is a concern. I thank him for giving way. Just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. Just on that point, does he agree with me that what he has just described their would lead to more delays in the system, that would mean there the system, that would mean there are more planning permissions held up, which members opposite complain up, which members opposite complain about but it would also add a lot more expense onto the system? Which would mean more viability problems and fewer Social Housing Bill if this amendment was passed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this amendment was passed. I do agree with those points made. If we think of the manifesto we were elected, it would also make it I think virtually impossible to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it I think virtually impossible to meet our commitment of building 1.5 million homes that we need over this Parliament. I'm very grateful to the
20:06
Dan Tomlinson Portrait Dan Tomlinson MP (Chipping Barnet, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the honourable gentleman, he knows I'm a big fan of his. He is making a speech about our amendment and other speech about our amendment and other amendments blocking the delivery of homes. Will he criticise, therefore, his Government, that has reduced the number of homes required in his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

constituency through reducing the number of houses being built in London under his Mayor? I would expect that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would expect that the honourable member would know that the reason why the housing targets are reduced in London is because of the additional premium that was put the additional premium that was put on by the previous government, just to make life more difficult for the Mayor of London, which is something we all know conservatives love to we all know conservatives love to do. We are trying to be reasonable and proportionate in the location of the new homes we are bringing forward. As I was saying, I think it forward.

As I was saying, I think it is very important for us to do all we can to make sure that we can hit our target of 1.5 million new homes. our target of 1.5 million new homes. And as much as I respect honourable member, his work in this space, I do hope his amendment will not command the support of those in the House today. And I know that he and many others on this side and on all sides others on this side and on all sides of the House are strong supporters of social housing.

But without the changes that are in this Bill coming forward unamended, we will not get the social homes that we need to be built. People have spoken today movingly about those living in temporary accommodation. I spent four years also was a child living in emergency and temporary accommodation, I was homeless for a number of years. Back then, 15, 20 years ago, there were not that many young children homeless and in temporary accommodation. There are now 160,000 children, one in 21 in London, one in every single class who are in temporary accommodation.

So we cannot allow a system that fails both nature and those children to persist. To any colleagues thinking of voting for the amendment, I implore you to think of those children and the homes that could be built and could be built quickly and outpace if we did not delay the vital building that we need. I think I should make progress, so others can speak, but we will have to talk later. This Bill and this Government is all about economic growth that ultimately is the route to more jobs, more opportunities and higher living standards.

A better life, for all of us, in every part of the country. That is the potential of this Bill and we must match the scale of the problem with the scale of our ambition. For Britain's economic decline has gone on far too long. Families are suffering with a crippling cost-of-living crisis driven by high housing costs in many parts of the country and high energy bills everywhere. We just do not invest as a country, we do not build. And year after year we find ourselves surprised that we are worse off.

But we are stuck in a doom loop that no politicians in recent decades, if we are honest, have had the guts to pull us out of. Finally we have a Government elected on a promise to rest us out of this decline and legislation that take steps in the right direction to do just that. Of course there is more to do, much more, but this is a strong legislative start and for the prosperity and future of all our constituents, I hope that this Bill passes unamended Today.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 43, 44, 52, 53 and 81, if I have time. Mid Bedfordshire is a fast-growing area and has accommodated more than its fair share of new homes in the past decade. Since 2012, two districts in my constituency covers has delivered
20:09
Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson MP (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
-
-
my constituency covers has delivered over 35,000 new homes, including the new town. Yet this Government would have you believe that those people in my constituency who have seen housing growth outpace services, who are still waiting for the long promised GP surgery and train stations and other infrastructure, who fear that the character of their historic villages is being lost, the government would have you believe that all these people are blockers. Because they are concerned about what more badly planned development with me for the overstretch amenities and services in our area.

This Bill is an opportunity to lead, an opportunity not to pitch blockers against builders but to deliver a system that turns blockers into builders. Regrettably, this bill as it stands, I fear, will fail, but it does not have to do. New clause 52 in my name will create a fairer way of managing new towns, reforming a new towns program that seems expressly designed to make local communities resent the towns... Replacing it with a model of new towns that does not involve the double whammy of housebuilding where communities who want to do the right thing and build the Houses people need find that every patch of countryside must be hoovered up just because the government has added the new towns on top of developer ball areas in our district.

New clause 53 in my name would close the loophole that allows planning authorities to grant development on floodplains. A perfectly sensible private attic position. -- Pragmatic position. In my constituency people know all too well how bad development compels the risk of flooding. They are honest, hard-working people who want to enjoy a warm, dry home that their hard work has paid for. But the Government are backing big box developers and not those hard- working people. This clause would prevent developers from getting away high and dry with their profits whilst our constituents pay the price in flooded homes.

New clause 44 in the name of the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner does the same. It ensures that where development does happen, developers must deliver sustainable urban drainage infrastructure. And they must keep it maintained. Current guidance is too vague and the current rules too lax to ensure that our residents are protected. Mid Bedfordshire is a constituency with lots of beautiful villages. But they are under threat from the creeping spread of urban sprawl that threatens to merge them into a conglomerate mass of development.

Flying in the face of the historically gentle natural evolution of our beautiful estate villages, I therefore endorse new clause 43 in its efforts to stop our beautiful villages being lost for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future generations. In a similar way, does he agree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In a similar way, does he agree with me the sense of urban sprawl is not just about greenbelt between a not just about greenbelt between a specific villages but between communities? We see it in my constituency, on the edge of constituency, on the edge of Birmingham,... Does he agree with me that if the Government adopted a that if the Government adopted a truly brown filled first approach, developing 1.2 million homes which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

developing 1.2 million homes which it is estimated are available on brownfield sites, this could really help tackle this problem? I agree with my honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with my honourable friend. These green spaces on the friend. These green spaces on the edge of towns are at risk. It is not the fields at risk but people do not then have access to the green space. then have access to the green space. And these Greenfields between villages and between towns are vital

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for mental health and well-being. I thank my honourable friend forgiving way, in relation to his support for new clause 44, when he support for new clause 44, when he agree with me that it is a very easy amendment to accept from the amendment to accept from the government? Because it actually enables and encompasses bits of legislation that already exist that legislation that already exist that could make a vast difference to many of the developments that are being proposed and can he outline why you think the Minister will not accept it?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it? I think the shadow minister next the case for me, I don't think I really need to add to that, I do absolutely support the new clause. Finally, so we can move onto another speaker, I'm proud to support new clause 81 in the name of the Member clause 81 in the name of the Member for Mid Leicestershire. Too often communities like summer mining Mid Bedfordshire find that their housing Bedfordshire find that their housing fair... Find that the housing first fair...

Find that the housing first infrastructure second approach that our planning system currently preferred means that they get all of the housing but none of the infrastructure. That is just not right. It is not right that nearly 2 decades from the first shovel going decades from the first shovel going in the ground it is still not clear when an error of my constituency will get its GP surgery. Yet more and more houses and incline all around. We must end the cycle and initial infrastructure as promised, infrastructure is delivered.

That is what this clause will do. We have a once in a generation opportunity to build a planning system that turns blockers into builders, we must do better than this Bill, which I fear will only build more blockers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to give members some notice, after the Speaker I will be going down to our four minute time minutes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minutes. I rise to speak in favour of the amendment in mining, particularly amendment 69, which has 53 supporters across the House. Every supporters across the House. Every family stuck on housing waiting list and every child suffering the and every child suffering the insecurity of temporary accommodation as a moral stain on our country. So I welcome the urgency of Ministers in seeking to address these corrosive failures which for millions, underpinned that lingering sense that our country is deeply broken.

I fear the Government has misdiagnosed the root cause of the housing crisis. Which the housing crisis. Which fundamentally is the private capital will never deliver the public good will never deliver the public good that we need. The evidence is clear, the processes which uphold democracy
20:16
Chris Hinchliff Portrait Chris Hinchliff MP (North East Hertfordshire, Labour)
-
-
and nature are not the problem, profit maximisation is. The planning system consistently approves more homes in the private sector delivers. And when homes do get built, they are too often unaffordable for those at the sharp unaffordable for those at the sharp end of the housing crisis. Last year less than 2% of homes delivery less than 2% of homes delivery section 106 worth of social rent. After 20 years of deregulation, hoping just one more wave will finally make the market deliver is simply not credible and certainly does not justify stripping away the few protections we have left for our natural environment, especially when the Government's own assessment provide no concrete evidence that provide no concrete evidence that We are already one of the most We are already one of the most nature depleted nations in the world and we can only spend what remains of our national inheritance ones.

If the government presses ahead with proposals in the current form, the national accounts was in the NT. There is the kernel of a good idea in the Nature Restoration Fund. But the weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming. Nature organisations, academics, ecologists, and the officer in running a protection or raise serious concerns. I welcome the tone of earlier Frontbench commitments, Amendment 69 gives ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature.

It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so dangerous species are not pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are extinguished. It outlines the conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, replacing irreplaceable habitats and chalk streams. Our natural capital which underpins all prosperity in this country declined by one third from 1990 until 2014. This is a chance to reverse that. If Letchworth garden city in my constituency could spring into life without felling a single mature tree, we can build the homes we desperately need to clear our housing waiting lists now in harmony with nature.

To conclude, for decades, the primary value that our politics has sought to appeal to has been self-serving ambition. But as the party of change, and the party of the people, I believe it is our duty on this side of the House to serve a higher cause. Hope, hope for a future in which our nation no longer imagines housing is an ever appreciating financial asset, and instead builds homes to provide the secure and healthy environment essential for our physical and mental well-being, which allow everyone to put down the roots necessary to grow and fulfil their truest potential.

Hope for a future in which our connected communities of friendship and ordination, the greater miserable utilitarianism of commuter dormitories. Hope for a future in which we take every possible opportunity to restore the glories of British nature, and so future generation can say we found that nature-rich that we found it. Hope in which we choose a future in which we choose by design to surround every man woman and child in these islands with constant proof that life is beautiful.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to declare my interest as the co-chair of the all-party apology group for Local Nature Recovery strategies. When the government first introduced this bill, they branded it as a win-win, that we could build the homes and infrastructure this country desperately needs and protect and desperately needs and protect and restore nature. We have seen in my constituency of South Cambridgeshire one of the fastest-growing areas in one of the fastest-growing areas in the country, with a Liberal Democrat run local planning authority that it is indeed possible to demand from
20:20
Pippa Heylings Portrait Pippa Heylings MP (South Cambridgeshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
is indeed possible to demand from developers both ambitious housebuilding and high environmental standards. Restoring nature. We Liberal Democrats believe that a healthy childhood for all children includes energy efficient warm homes, not cold and damp. It includes access to green space for mental and physical space health. And it includes infrastructure, public transport, GPs and schools. When done well, nature is help to the homes in the green energy we need. But in this bill the government risks a wrecking ball to good quality development.

Nature is not a blocker to development. We are pointing the finger at the wrong culprit here, and this is cheap, false rhetoric. Nature is not to blame. The government's own watchdog, the office for environmental protection, has warned that this bill, far from meeting our binding climate and nature pledges, would be a regression in the currently existing environmental. Removing vital safeguards and putting protected sites and species at risk. Over 30 leading environmental organisations including the RSPB, the wildlife trust and the National trust have raised the alarm about part three of the bill in its current form.

With a worrying plan to move to a cash to trash model with the Nature Restoration Fund. I know the Minister has rejected that characterisation in the Environmental Audit Committee, heard robust evidence from expert witnesses, and perhaps we could call it a fund that is paid later at some amount for something somewhere.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to have a giving way. Does she share my dismay that way. Does she share my dismay that the government is not receptive to amendments? It would put back the mitigation hierarchy, it would put back the protection of species, put back protections for ancient

**** Possible New Speaker ****

woodland? I completely concur with my honourable friend. And I do honourable friend. And I do appreciate the work done by the bill and by himself in the Bill Committee. Putting the numerous amendments here to help the government make this better. Why do government make this better. Why do we need more stringent regulations and demands of the developers rather than less? Why do we need to have the evidence and mitigations prior the evidence and mitigations prior to development rather than the pay later as it is now? It is because we have the evidence to show what happens without the much-needed investment and enforcement capacity in local councils.

In the environmental audit committee, we had conclusions from that loss nature report of nearly 6000 homes, and only half of the right middle pledges were kept. Missing in action, a staggering 83% of hedgehog highways, 75% of that and bird boxes. That is why I speak to the following targeted amendments that my honourable friend is mentioned, to make sure we can have this win- win. First new clause 1 by the member for Taunton and Wellington, it would reinstate the mitigation hierarchy is a legal duty.

That is simply put first, avoid harm. And only compensate and offset as a last resort. This principle has underpinned environmental planning for decades. Second, amendments six to 10, new clause 26 and 29 aim to address environmental protection concerns and strengthen the overall improvement test for the environmental delivery test. I support new clause 21 requires local plans to have due consideration to the Local Nature Recovery strategies. Currently silent in the planning system. Finally amendments 16 and 17 would give specific protection to England's globally rare chalk streams.

Our rainforests and our water. We host 85% of the world chalk streams, any of them in Liberal Democrat constituencies. Yet they remain unprotected. Finally, I do hope that the government will consider amendments to this bill because we face a choice. Passing this bill as it stands, a nature wrecking bill, or fixing it. Adopt amendments, text chalk streams, restore wildlife and create a system that works with nature not against

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. I know what the Democrats will be voting. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise today to speak as a member of rise today to speak as a member of the housing select committee and in support of new clause 15. For too support of new clause 15. For too long, affordable housing has become a catch all term that means anything but. Shared ownership, discounted but. Shared ownership, discounted market schemes may work for some, but for many, they offer no real options when it comes to housing security.

What they need is not the option to get a foot on the property ladder in the distant future, they need a roof over their heads now. They need security, stability, and homes that are truly affordable. homes that are truly affordable. That means social rent. We are That means social rent. We are serious about tackling the housing emergency, with clear national targets and delivery of social rented homes is essential. Which is why I support new clause to bring forward accountability in the direction we need, to get building and delivery for those who have been let down.

As the housing charity Shelter identifies, building homes is the only lasting solution to the housing emergency. These homes are genuinely affordable because they have rents linked to local income, secure tenancies, and any rental issues are predictable. My constituency, and no colleagues across the house will recognise this, families are trapped in substandard housing and temporary accommodation for years on end. Many of us have become desensitised stories, families with no kitchen to cook in, no white space for children to learn and know piece with which to rest.

This is the daily reality for far too many families in the UK. It is a national scandal, and let's be honest, it did not appear overnight. For over a decade, the
20:27
Naushabah Khan Portrait Naushabah Khan MP (Gillingham and Rainham, Labour)
-
-
previous governor failed to build the homes this country justly needed. They slashed local authority needed. They slashed local authority budgets and left the private rented sector uncheck. It is those sector uncheck. It is those failures, and this government with the inheritance of a hollowed out system, and the response to homelessness after the fact that preventing it at route. I welcome preventing it at route. I welcome that this government is changing its reality for families in my constituency, drew significant policy changes would have come through, and also by the allocation of £800 million into the Affordable Homes Programme.

I'm proud of a Homes Programme. I'm proud of a significant proportion of this will be social rent. I do think we need to go further. Publishing or to go further. Publishing or updating planning guidance for what national decision-makers can contribute to the delivery of social rented homes can make a considerable difference. We align planning, investment, and delivery around a shared goal. Right now, we note the scale of the challenge. As many have noted already in this chamber, we need to build approximately 90,000 socially rented homes each year, not just the range of this Parliament but for the next decade to meet both current demand and the backlog we currently have.

We must equip councils and delivery partners with the resources, planning and clarity they need. New clause 50 supports that clarity, the key to every local and regional planning decision is going the same direction. I agree with the Minister about the need for strategic planning potential for spatial developing strategies to unlock large-scale regional housing solutions, and the power of land value uplift to fund homes. These all-important tools. They can be better supported by clear targets. Let me be clear, by setting national targets for social rented homes, it is not about dictating numbers from above, it is about saying we are serious about tackling this.

This country needs builders not blockers. But central to this sentiment, we must have a clear strategy around social housing, knowing not just that we must build and how much we must build, and holding ourselves

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accountable for delivering homes. Damian Hinds. Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I know many colleagues are still know many colleagues are still waiting to speak spiral be brief and speak only to new clause 40 which is speak only to new clause 40 which is a view of the standard method for assessing local housing. Some colleagues have already mentioned
20:28
Damian Hinds Portrait Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP (East Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-
colleagues have already mentioned it. For three reasons, firstly puts too much housing to element requirements in rural areas rather than in cities. Particularly in areas like mine with our physical constraints, for example National Parks, and thirdly, it specified in the new clause that the system needs to take account of the types of housing and affordability of different types of housing. The new formula means too much housing being put in rural areas and away from places in London, and targets to be reduced in areas like mine, and a 50% uplift in houses in my constituency, and these are repeated in rural areas right throughout the country including the far north-west and the far north-east.

It does not correct what some people think is a historic imbalance where all the developers has been in the towns. Actually over the last couple of decades, disproportionately developing has been in predominantly rural areas rather than urban areas. It is also bad for the government's growth agenda because, as Resolution Foundation others have said, it skews development towards cities and towns which is better for connectivity. The second thing is about physical constraints. And in a constituency like mine were over half of the land areas inside the National Park, creates particular issues in the area outside.

I know the Minister and officials have been helpful on this and I hope they will continue to give it full consideration. Third, this is the big thing, the text of this new clause, it is about the mix in- house. The new clause says that it should review the standard method for assessing local housing need, and with different types of property. Looking at the price per square metre rather than the price square metre rather than the price We want more affordable houses to be built but that's just not the formula delivers because quite often for developers, the most attractive things about is your larger, five bedroom, and not exclusively but disproportionately.

And of course when you combine that with the fact that overall new builds trade at a premium to the existing housing stock, the effect is that it actually makes the unaffordability of an area get worse, not better as a result of the formula and then the formula reacts upon itself to say you are now in a more affordable area, give us more of these executive homes and so on. I don't think that's what ministers want. So think this new clause actually is a helpful proposal from the opposition, which I do think they will give serious consideration to make sure the housing community does create incentives for quality a lower price housing.

The new clause does not prejudge exactly how that should be done. It just calls upon the government to look again at the system. I know the Minister is a reflective minister and I hope you will do just that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Today I rise to speak to amendment 134 in my name that works amendment 134 in my name that works towards addressing a long-standing and deeply entrenched failure in our and deeply entrenched failure in our planning system, the chronic undersupply of gypsy and traveller undersupply of gypsy and traveller sites across England. And my men -- amendment seeks to introduce fairness appropriate accommodation further traveller and gypsy communities. For too long their communities. For too long their knees have been overlooked by the planning system.

Research by friends, families and Travellers and friends, families and Travellers and Doctor Simon Ruston looked at 100 local planning authorities and found that site provision has barely that site provision has barely changed -- site provision has barely changed since the legal duty to provide them in 1994. And of the 140 public sites in those areas, 119 were built before 1994, meaning that just 30 have been developed in the last 30 years. That's only 13 new sites across all 100 local authorities in three decades.

Now decisions on gypsy and traveller sites have frequently been underpinned by prejudice. Whether overt or institutional. Too often proposed developments are blocked or delayed by local opposition that is not met with political will or leadership. Site delivery also suffers from a lack of inclusion at the strategic planning level. Where gypsy and traveller site provision can be absent from local plans and excluded from land allocations. And this absence is in an accident. The result of years of structural marginalisation that this bill must now correct.

I do want to acknowledge positive steps which the government took in 2024 which work towards addressing some of these failures. We must go further if we intend to support provision and address inequality in the planning system. We've seen an increase in private sites which is welcome, but we often hear of the long drawnout difficult and expensive processes that individual families go through to achieving planning permission. And it's also crucially important to acknowledge that just with other communities, home and land ownership is not within reach of many, and social provision is much needed.

And we are still seeing a troubling trend, the number of socially rented pitches is declining, according to the traveller caravan count live tables, the number of socially included in strategic planning. This means embedding the site provision within the spatial development strategies under clause 12. D of the bill, and these new strategies will
20:36
20:36
Ann Davies Portrait Ann Davies MP (Caerfyrddin, Plaid Cymru)
-
-
specifically the plans put forward by Green Gem Camry. The proposer 90 km power line, much of which is suspended on pylons across the breathtaking Valley and in addition another 65 km across the equally beautiful valley. And just as any landscape, this is the heart of rural Wales. It's not just a valley, two valleys across rural Wales, treasured by communities who have lived and worked there for generations. And from the beginning, residents and farmers made one thing clear.

We support green energy but it doesn't have to come at the cost of our countryside. We have called persistently for cables to be placed underground so we can embrace a sustainable future while preserving Wales as national beauty and agricultural land. But of washing our voices have gone unheard. Surveys have come onto the land without proper respect, disregarding the rights of landowners and in some cases people have felt intimidated and pressured into signing away land that has been in their families for centuries.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the member's contributions as she speaks to contributions as she speaks to amendment new clause 61. It is a huge issue in Suffolk Coastal we have National Grid and ScottishPower have National Grid and ScottishPower renewables making landfill and zero experience from my farmers constituency. Perhaps after this we constituency. Perhaps after this we can also request a meeting with the Minister and share these examples in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

person as well. I would love to have the opportunity, and I thank you for putting this new clause forward. putting this new clause forward. It's a pleasure to sign it. This is It's a pleasure to sign it. This is not the behaviour we should expect from those who claim to be building a greener future and let's be a greener future and let's be honest, if green chin Camry had chosen to underground the cables from the start, as this amendment from the start, as this amendment proposes, they would have saved themselves significant trouble.

They argue it's too expensive, but what about the cost of delay and the legal cost actually of taking landowners to court, which is what has been happening. And there's another cost. The cost of resilience. And just look over the last 20 what's happened during storm Darren and Storm Eowyn. Overhead lines failed, power lost in my area for up to seven days. Compensation from the National Grid had to be paid. And if those cables had been placed underground, the impact would have been minimal.

Long-term thinking is not just the right thing to do. It's the practical thing to do. And let me remind this chamber, Wales has the well-being of future generations act. This is a commitment to development that is truly sustainable, that doesn't compromise the ability for our children and grandchildren to thrive, just cut the costs today. Let's ensure that the transition to clean energy serves the needs of both the present and the generations yet to come. Let's ensure that it's not something done to our communities but it's done with our communities.

Let's deliver a future that is both green and grounded.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

(SPEAKING IN WELSH) I rise to speak to amendment 91 on allotments and community gardens on allotments and community gardens and new clause 60 on landfill sites in my name. The UK currently has a shortage of allotments with nearly shortage of allotments with nearly 160,000 people on English local 160,000 people on English local authorities waiting lists. We need more space to grow. The 8 million more space to grow. The 8 million people in the UK, they have no garden at home.

Shared community gardens are a vital lifeline to gardens are a vital lifeline to nature. I'm proud my management is
20:40
Sarah Champion Portrait Sarah Champion MP (Rotherham, Labour)
-
-
nature. I'm proud my management is supported by the Royal Horticultural Society, the horticultural trade Association, members of the national community garden network and the national allotment society plus members across the House. Without being overly prescriptive, my amendment aims to tackle the erratic provision of allotments and community gardens across the country, making them an essential part of all spatial development strategies. In her correspondence to me, the Parliamentary and housing said that because there was nothing preventing local authorities from including these green spaces in their strategies, amendments like mine were not needed.

All I would like to review that, and this is precisely the problem. A person space to grow should not be dependent on their postcode or the whims of the council. Especially when 60% of the loss in allotment land in the last 75 years has been eight times greater in deprived communities like mine. In his 2024 annual report, Sir Chris Whitty said, " Making access to green spaces easier and more equitable would go a very long way towards removing barriers to improving physical activity levels and could significantly improve the health of England's increasingly urban population." The small but mighty green spaces are about more than just vegetables.

They are essential to supporting health, nature recovery, and food security. They also supercharge biodiversity, the quality of soil on allotments creates a unique environment in which life can thrive. In the midst of a new nature crisis, they are our secret weapon and create space for education and social projects, with so many on waiting lists or blocked from turning a patch of land into a kindergarten come along so desperately for nature recovery, my campaign represents a win-win to the government.

I now turn to my new clause 60, which comes in direct response to a gross injustice in my own constituents. Dropping votive in Rotherham was closed in the 1990s following a determined campaign by local residents. It was subsequent And return to a natural state stop two decades later in 2016, variation was granted by the environment agency to allow landfill operations to resume without any notice to residents. Whilst the environment agency had the power to conduct a public undertaking, it chose not to do so.

Their argument was as planning permission was granted in the 1950s, no further scrutiny was required. Vital issues such as traffic, noise, pollution and impact on neighbouring properties were given no consideration whatsoever. It cannot be right that landfill operators can so easily evade public scrutiny simply by reopening long dormant sites. And it can be right that my constituents views have been totally ignored. My new clause while two Labour Rotherham will prevent the rights of other communities from being trampled by ensuring the planning permission for landfill sites automatically lapses after 10 years of dormancy.

Any proposals to resume landfill operations will be required to be subjected to full scrutiny through the planning system. My amendments can make a real difference, and I hope the Frontbench will support them.
20:43
Greg Smith Portrait Greg Smith MP (Mid Buckinghamshire, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you. I have always been very clear that my top priority is the protection of the Bucks countryside, and all of our farmland for the production of food and not for development. So through that lens that I rise to speak on a number of amendments that I think will make this horror show of a bill that tiny bit better. Festival, new clause 34 and 53, 44 and sustainable change and 53 on stopping developed on floodplains was that I could give some examples in my constituency were developed and has either happen directly in the floodplain has caused horrendous flooding concerns in communities.

In a fit where the developer, the experts said the flooding would be a once in a hundred years eventualities in an area that flooded six times in six months. Roasted with water lapping at the top of my wellies before that development was built to try and make a point, now those homes are built, guess what wormhole wrote in a vote, the houses that were there before regularly flood. Like was the impact, HS2 construction has had on flooding in Kava Green. It simply didn't flood before HS2 poured the concrete into the field next door, and now guess what it does.

Likewise I support new clause 45 to stop planning permission in cases where illegal development took place. I can examples my own constituency in the village of basket between Ascot and long work where illegal development took place, yet the Planning Inspectorate has perversely now reported that bad behaviour by giving them planning permission. But behaviour should not be rewarded, and that new clause would stop it. Likewise chalk streams as others have spoken about our incredibly important in Buckinghamshire and I think Nicholls 87 to designate chalk streams is protected sites is incredibly important.

But the really big clauses that I really want to spend a couple of minutes focusing on, new clause 43 around the on, new clause 43 around the Mid Buckinghamshire is made up of many villages some of which can no longer really be recognised as villages any more. One has grown exponentially now sees the threat of another 700 homes on top of the village that is struggling for infrastructure and isn't really village any more ./Mandeville, 650 more homes proposed that would see more homes proposed that would see it essentially emerge with Wendover.

This is unsustainable and challenging the rural identity of Buckinghamshire and I strongly believe those new protections should be put in place. The big amendments that I have put down my own name, the new clause 51 which would stop all development -- solar development and battery storage develop and on any agricultural land, this is an efficient technology that is not going to solve the blooms we face as a country. The World Bank themselves have said there is only one country anywhere in the world that is less suited to the solar than the larger kingdom which is Ireland.

It is simply not an efficient technology to solve our energy crisis. Small modular reactors, nuclear power is the answer, not trashing our countryside with solar and battery storage. Finally new clause 55. This is an appeal on the basis of fairness. My constituency has already suffered at the hands of big infrastructure, predominately HS2 but other projects as well. I think it is that matter of fairness, that where communities against their will Some of the other housing targets that have been come along that should let off some of that further unwanted element because they have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

already taken enough. There have been many references to the housing crisis and is quite to the housing crisis and is quite impassioned speeches that have
20:48
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Independent)
-
-
impassioned speeches that have welcomed. Like every other security in London we got a housing crisis on A-level with not seen before and it's largely been caused because of council houses being sold off and not been replaced. What has happened in my area is our infrastructure develop and, crossrail has gone through, land value prices have gone through the roof. So I have now in central Hayes over four and half thousand properties being built. We have no lack of planning permissions, we got planning permissions coming out of our ears at the moment but they are being built, most local people can't even think of affording them.

Many of them have tried to become leaseholders and now they are being hit by huge increases in the service charges and some can't even sell on their properties now as a result of that. That's why new clause 49 which no one has mentioned so far asking the government to look at how we can capture land value in the future, I think actually there is a discussion as to be had about land value tax again. I think it's time is coming. Many of the properties in that for half thousand described as affordable.

No they're not, not affordable to local people, that's why new clause 67 is so important because we don't want affordable properties we want social rent properties. I'd like to ask our local authorities get the building again so people can have building a decent standard at rent people can afford. Can I say 45 years ago I was on the GLC's planning committee as chair of finances, we should have some confidence in local government to undertake infrastructure project was if it wasn't for the GLC, me as well actually most of you will be swimming at the moment because we built the Thames Barrier that shows you what local government can do and sometimes we decry it too often.

I've dealt with developers all the way through and I have to say I've dealt with some good developers but I've also dealt with some atrocious ones. Often they don't deliver and often they do let us down. That's why new clause 69 are so important, because all it is asking for is to ensure that during that tanning process, the measures are put in place before development is properly allowed to go ahead so that the mitigation is there, because so often we have had deals done in our constituency, 106 deals or whatever, that haven't really stood up and the developer walks away leaving us to clear up the mess as others have said.

That's why new clause 70, the honourable gentleman is not his place at the moment, it's a classic example of that betrayal by developers, they come along develop the site take the profits, walk away. Literally our local council hasn't even the financial resources to legally challenge them in many instances as well. That's why am attracted to new clause 43 as well what that does is if developers let you down in that way, don't give them any more planning permissions. Give the authority responsibility, say no more you're not going to do that to us ever again.

The final point for me, in our area we going to have to build a Compulsory Purchase Act we are serious. That's Purchase Act we are serious. That's why amendment 68 is taken home value out of those compulsory calculations I think is significant, too much in the past we've seen compulsory purchases fail because the developers then put some home value escalating the cost and prevented us from getting that property.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm writing to speak to new clauses 46, 47 and 48 in my name. This book concentrates entirely on removing perceived barriers to development. Unfortunately in the
20:52
John Milne Portrait John Milne MP (Horsham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
development. Unfortunately in the government's view that turns out to mean nature and the general public. To that end this bill brings a huge reduction in the ability of local residents and councillors to make their voices heard or have any meaningful influence over outcomes. That is such a pity because gaining consent is not an impossibility. Neighbourhood plans were introduced under the coalition, done well they represent the best possible version of local knowledge and local wishes. Yet there is not so much as a single mention of plans in this entire bill.

Nothing is more revealing of how far the government's focus is Residents are to be treated as hostile to he must on no account be allowed to have their say. For that reason I moved new clause 48 which would require neighbourhood plans to be taken into account in decision- making, or else I'm not sure why they exist at all. I've also moved new clauses 48 -- 46, 47 directed that the need for local infrastructure for top new housing months, to keep promises for top one that it will bring affordable homes for local people.

Two that the extra funds will mean more civic manatees. Both of these promises are routinely broken -- amenities. The last decade the pace of housebuilding has been rapid in Horsham. Residents been asked to support large-scale development because we were told it would bring new skills and clinics along with it. In reality they've taken -- see new houses built but not those services. Why does that keep happening? People usually blame greedy developers for the real fault usually lies with the government.

Incredibly, although it may be in good faith written into Local Plan and signed and sealed, this guarantees nothing. When the time comes to actually build the school, the Department of education will often withdraw their support. No DfE support, that means no school. Similarly and apparently solid commitment to build a new GP surgery is just so many empty words, if the ICB later decides it doesn't want to start it. As budget price pressures increase year-on-year government bodies will decide it's cheaper to cram more children into existing schools, more patients into existing clinics than it is to add new ones.

Unfortunately this bill does little to fix these problems, every time the government support infrastructure means they mean big national and full stop yes it is also important but it doesn't solve local problems. The government is looking at this problem through urbanised. Urban centres usually already have sufficient infrastructure in place, but in rural areas such as Horsham settlements are deeply -- literally doubling in size yet with the same level of services. As a former local council I've experienced first-hand how hard it is to shape development and meet local needs when planning authorities lack control over so many of the essential factors.

No wonder residents at objective new housing when all they see is more strain on services which are already at breaking point. I hope the Minister will support my amendments, they are intended to improve this bill not to sabotage it. Local participation isn't something to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

embraced. I was pleased to be a member of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was pleased to be a member of the public, of the Bill Committee for this to and I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of today as well as speaking specifically to clauses 4 and 46 and specifically to clauses 4 and 46 and amendments 55 and number 12 amendments that I worry will further frustrate the planning process, the opposite of what this bill is trying opposite of what this bill is trying to achieve. As a member of Parliament for parking I see and hear first-hand, as others have also hear first-hand, as others have also said, in their own constituencies the impact of the housing crisis.

Every week I meet constituency share with me their personal stories about temporary accommodation, their temporary accommodation, their desperate housing story of over overcrowding, years spent in temporary accommodation, poor quality housing, skyhigh rents. Let me see say this about hope. Hope is demonstrated with the actions of a government that is committed to delivering 1.5 million homes that will tackle a housing crisis and a challenge that has been ignored for
20:57
Nesil Caliskan Portrait Nesil Caliskan MP (Barking, Labour)
-
-
decades after decade. Supply is one of the fundamental reasons why of the fundamental reasons why communities like mine facing a housing crisis, our planning system housing crisis, our planning system is hindered, supply and housing market is already experiencing huge demand. It's a planning system that demand. It's a planning system that is too often blocking or delaying necessary infrastructure that would support new homes being built. Particularly as overall business cases for housebuilding is intrinsically linked to intrinsically linked to infrastructure delivery.

During the second reading of the bill I spoke about the pre-application about the pre-application consultation requirements for NSIPs. consultation requirements for NSIPs. I've highlighted previously as others have as well, for example the Lower Thames so I won't rehearse as an example but I think it's really important that members keep in mind the amount of money that is wasted through such processes. That's why I'm pleased my right honourable friend the member minister considered representations made by me and others in respect of reforming the pre-application procedure specifically, I welcome clause for in this bill alongside covenant amendments 58 covenant amendments 5860 and 67, new clause 44 and 45 to remove the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for applications.

The changes will mean delays are reduced and essential infrastructure consented faster. It will save up to 12 months from pre- application stage and millions if not billions of pounds saved. It could be the difference whether an infrastructure proposal is viable or not. It could make the difference in whether homes in an area are built or not. To be clear, this does not mean that applicants will avoid a duty to consult. As the Minister outlined in his statement on the House on 21st of April local communities and local authorities will still be able to object applications, provide evidence of any adverse impacts and have their say as part of post submission process.

As an existing vice president of the LGA and someone who was a council leader I understand how important it is that local people have their voice, but I also understand that a national housing crisis, these are lack national solutions and this bill presents an important step in trying to achieve that. Really it's the heart of the debate that the housing crisis cannot be solved by individual local politicians seeking to gain political favour by campaigning against new homes in the area.

I know how difficult it is for local authorities to develop and agree local plans, but we cannot have a situation where even though 90% of planning decisions are currently made by the planning officers that key projects are held up that would see infrastructure delivered in this country and the thousands if not millions of homes that we need delivered. I absolutely support this important bill...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak on a number of amendments to this bill before, I amendments to this bill before, I spent a lot of time with colleagues
20:59
Lewis Cocking Portrait Lewis Cocking MP (Broxbourne, Conservative)
-
-
spent a lot of time with colleagues in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill itself and some very good amendments and some are not so good amendments. I will try and rattle through as many as I possibly can stop the first amendment I would like to speak on and support is new clause 43 in the name of my honourable member for rice would. The protection of our villages should have the same protection as towns. Villagers have unique character across all of our constituencies and I'm privileged to represent six of them.

Can I have seen local council that has built development, probably too much development in a village in I've seen that change the fundamental character of Goffs Oak and that's something we should try to protect. When people move to visit villages they move there for the rural way of life and unique character and identity and we should stop urban sprawl and stop villages leaking altogether. The next new clause I supporters new clause 39, we should not be putting solar farms across all of our agricultural land across the country.

I don't mind, I do mind even if it's one% as the Government Minister made out in a number of colleagues opposite, 1% is one% too much. Of course I support solar panels but why not put them on you houses, factories, reefs, I didn't see the government coming forward to support the sunshine bill which was Private Members' bills putting solar panels on you houses. We won't take any lectures from the party opposite MM and 44 I fully support as well and I'm surprised the government aren't supporting them.

The government made a number of announcements about our adverts. When they put that in the legislation and widen the acceptance amendment and put in the bill? If the government is so determined to protect our greenbelt command hesitant about saying that because don't think the government care about the greenbelt in this country. Because if they did, they would put amendments in this bill to safeguard the greenbelt and make development brownfield first. I also like to support and have spoken on this number of times about development, particular my constituency of Broxbourne, new clause 46, and we've had a number of members speak on this about where development comes forward to a particular and outline planning permission, they come forward, is painted in gold and have mentioned this before you get a new school, new GP surgery, there's a new road, a park, lots of community facilities, lots of community money, and when the developer comes back, full planning application, is completely changed.

They've taken away all of the infrastructure. There is no new GP surgery, no new schools, no new infrastructure, no new community facilities, and clause 46 go some way in trying to deal with making infrastructure first. And that's what our residents want to see. When planning permission is granted, it's easier for us as politicians to support the planning permission and get our residents in favour, more in favour of that planning permission if the infrastructure is going to be first. If they got see new homes, hundreds being built, and there's no in infrastructure, that's when our residents get fed up that, particular when it comes to new GP surgeries.

Nickel 63 which I'd also like to sport, which tells us about planting trees on highways. I think planting trees on highways next to the highway makes a beautiful Street. It makes places people want to live. This government is only focused on building 1.5 million homes, which you don't think they will. They're not focusing on designing and making communities of the future and making communities actually livable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You are making a wonderful point about the clause which I have about the clause which I have introduced. Does the honourable member agree with me that the impact also is about improving our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

also is about improving our environment, reducing pollution, and we need to think about all of that when we consider this bill? I thank her for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for that intervention. Of course I do. She makes an important point and I fully support amendment and I know she's a keen advocate for this to happen in her constituency of Chester South her constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, this is about creating communities. As I said, this government is only interested in hitting a national target, which I don't think a lot of experts in the industry don't think they are going to me. The need to be thinking going to me.

The need to be thinking about how they are going to create communities of the future, but where people want to live. That means people want to live. That means designing them really nice and getting developers round the table and doing design codes and making sure developers really put the money where their mouth is. Making sure we have tree-lined streets because when we go out in our constituency, as I'm sure you do in yours, walking down a tree-lined street looks absolutely beautiful. That's so much more better for the people living there and everybody in their constituency if we make that a reality for lots of our residents rather than focusing on building a set number, which focus on creating the communities of the future and places where our constituents want to live.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise in favour of Amendment 69

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise in favour of Amendment 69 and new clause 2, both from the Member for north-east Hertfordshire,
21:05
Neil Duncan-Jordan Portrait Neil Duncan-Jordan MP (Poole, Labour)
-
-
Member for north-east Hertfordshire, and I'd like to commend him for his work on the bill. I believe the government has got it wrong with its changes to nature detection. I appreciate ministers will say this comes from a genuine desire to address the housing crisis. But this bill removes the foundations of our nature laws, including the mitigation hierarchy that requires developers to avoid harm. Nearly every major conservation group opposes the bill. And the government watchdog the office for environmental protection says it degrades nature protections.

Amendment 69 offers practical improvements, ensuring environmental delivery plans achieve their stated purpose. Making developers pay to offset damage to nature. It ensures plans result in an improvement to the specific feature being harmed. So the bill doesn't give a green light to degrade irreplaceable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

habitats. I thank my honourable friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving way. The bar just is not -- last nature report which was produced by a team including my excellent constituent reveals the housing developers are frequently failing on their legally binding failing on their legally binding ecological commitments. It's survey of 42 new housing departments, including two in my constituency show that only half of the ecological enhancements promised, including hedgehog highways, there boxes, planted trees vitally being delivered. Does he agree with me that while trusting developers promises, we must take upfront steps promises, we must take upfront steps to empower and expand Natural England and other authorities to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hold them to account. I thank him for it intervention and yes I wholeheartedly agree with the point he makes. Amendment 69 also mandates that improvements be delivered before harm occurs. Without that, we risk species being pushed closer to extinction before their habitats are replaced, but worst of all, this bill still won't deliver the affordable homes we desperately need.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way. In the notes to amendment 69, says the amendment would require EDPs to set amendment would require EDPs to set out a timetable for and thereafter reporting conservation measures and require improvement of the status before any developer can take place in areas where Natural England think there is harm. So how long does Mount Fran think that would take in Mount Fran think that would take in the case of nutrient neutrality and a developer who wanted to build a a developer who wanted to build a new social home, how long for that process to take place?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

process to take place? I don't have an answer specifically to that point. I can't give you an answer to that. The give you an answer to that. The government's own impact assessment government's own impact assessment provided no data but environmental protections are a blocker. -- That. protections are a blocker. -- That. Nature is being scapegoated to distract from a broken developer led model. Last year...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful. He is contributing to a debate in which we've heard a lot debate in which we've heard a lot about the failures of developer bill infrastructure, protecting nature rather than social housing for the business show the status quo is broken and that's why this bill is so important and heading in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right direction? I thank him. The current system is broken absolutely, but I don't think that hard-pressed planning think that hard-pressed planning officers are the problem. I think developers are the problem. Last year fewer than 2% of new homes year fewer than 2% of new homes where social rents, delivered through the planning system. Private through the planning system. Private developers prioritise maximum profit with high-end luxury builds. Particular in constituencies like mine in Paul. At the current rate, we need to build over 5 million homes to deliver just 90,000 social rent properties.

Yet there's over one million people on waiting lists. That's why I've brought clause 92 to bring in binding clauses 1st social homes. If we are serious as I believe we are on this site about getting families out of temporary accommodation and off waiting lists, local authorities need the power and funding to lead a new generation of funding to lead a new generation of council House telling. We also can't ignore that is the developer led model, creating conflict with nature.

As under resourced councils are forced to accept whatever sites developers propose, regardless of how suitable or unsuitable they are for sustainable development. There is no amount of badges of redtape bonfires which is going to fix that. It's too simplistic to argue that this is a debate of builders versus blockers. The overwhelming majority of planning applications are approved, which is why we have over a million planning permissions in the last decade that have yet to be built. Developers continue to drip feed developments into the system, prioritising properties which maximise profit and are far from affordable for local people.

Therefore it's time to move away from the failed market dogma, and I believe returned to Labour values. The post-war Labour government built millions of homes, supported by the planning system our party created, and I think it's time we did it again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support or to speak on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support or to speak on new clause 85, which is in my name, and in doing so to also add my support to new clause 51 on solar and battery energy storage systems and battery energy storage systems and new clause 39 on solar. The purpose of my new clause is to purpose of my new clause is to prohibit the development of battery energy storage systems on higher quality agricultural land because just last week and this place we had just last week and this place we had a debate on this topic.

We had from
21:12
Wendy Morton Portrait Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)
-
-
my honourable friend from South Northamptonshire that there is actually 78 kW of battery capacity either operating, awaiting construction having received planning permission or awaiting consideration. That's equal to supplying 200 million homes, 10 times the homes the houses we should have. This is ludicrous. There are numerous safety questions, questions of a fire risk, accessibility, and proximity to homes and communities, yet these are producing flammable is with metal containers, eating into the national food security our food chain.

Farmland as we all know is irreplaceable. What we are seeing is far too many planning applications coming forward like greenbelt risks being trashed and the term grey belt is used to create a grey area which will be used by planning inspectors to take advantage of. So do hope the government is listening to this point and that one made by others on solar as well. I want to touch on the time I have to support a number of other clauses and amendments that I know matter to my constituents.

New clause 79 and the duty to cooperate. In constituencies such as mine, it's not that we don't expect to have to have targets, but we don't expect to do all the heavy lifting. We don't expect to pick up the can and let authority such as labour Birmingham of the hook. We know they can't manage their bins and they certainly can't manage their housing either. As we've seen with the Commonwealth village in Perry bar three is on, none of those properties have actually been let.

It cannot be right that housing targets in areas like Birmingham and London are being literally placed onto authorities such as Walsall where we are having our targets hiked up, not least when evidence points towards more people wanting to live in towns and centres. Surely what we should be doing is regenerating these areas, building on our brownfield. Do it sensibly for some will protect the greenbelt, protect environments, protect green and open spaces that we all love and enjoy. I'd also like to support new clause 45 on intentional unauthorised developments, something that really irks some of my constituents.

They write to me, come and see me where developers or individuals flagrantly breach or ignore planning regulation permissions, creating misery to neighbours. How can it be that someone simply gets away without repercussion for doing this sort of thing when others abide by the rules and are left picking up the pieces? I know time is short, so I've already spoken of my support for new clause 43 and preventing the merger of villages. This is crucial to constituencies such as mine which are on the edge of Birmingham and where our communities risk being consumed in the urban sprawl of this.

And finally Natural England there is so much I can say, but I really do worry that the government is giving more powers to an unelected quango when it comes to planning, and action taking power away from local authorities and away from local authorities and
21:15
Alex Sobel Portrait Alex Sobel MP (Leeds Central and Headingley, Labour )
-
-
I rise to move new clause 58 in my name. New clause 58 would player might place a clear duty on forestry England and its parent body the Forestry Commission. The simple but crucial step is long overdue. It manages over 198,000 hectares of land across England and comes with huge untapped potential. Estimates suggest that around 100,000 hectares of ancient woodland and Oakland habitats which is low land pizza could be restored full stop restoration of that scale could deliver 1/5 of the government legally binding targets and restore 500,000 hectares of while -- wildlife rich habitats as set out in the Environment Act, that is a massive opportunity and one we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cannot afford to waste. Right now... I thank him for giving way, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way, I wonder whether he agrees with me that new clause 56 in my name would that new clause 56 in my name would also enhance by a diverse. Simple acts like bird bosses -- bird boxes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

acts like bird bosses -- bird boxes could all enhance the environmental health is talking about now Absolutely we've seen a huge loss

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely we've seen a huge loss in this country and as Minister of the former government Lord God Goldsmith said we are one of the Goldsmith said we are one of the most nature depleted countries in the world. Just making these small changes in planning law will increase biodiversity, but coming increase biodiversity, but coming back to forestry England. The duties on forestry England are simply the on forestry England are simply the only existing nature duty is updated in 2021 Environment Act.

It is ineffective, it only requires them to consider bio diverse not actually contribute to nature recovery. That's not good enough, it lacks clarity, enforceability and crucially, any tie to legally binding nature targets. Forestry England continues in many cases to pray prioritise commercial forestry over restoring by diverse habitats including ancient woodland. There are no legal climate duties, their current climate work while good is entirely at the whim of political feelings at the time. This imbalance , the Forestry Commission was set up in 1919 to promote timber production and that economic priority still dominates.

This is reinforced by the deregulation act 2015 growth duty which requires both bodies to have regard to economic growth. As the climate crisis has worsened the law has failed to catch up. The result, missed out opportunities, poor outcomes and actions that directly undermine government policy like grant funding invasive species or approving development on deep peat. Destroying damaged ancient woodland is 500 hectares per year full stop Were restored last year indefensible. You clause 58 is a straightforward cost-effective fix, would rebalance the scales and give forestry England property legal duties contribute to climate goals in line with the government's own targets.

No more missed chances, just clear accountability, better outcomes and better value for public money. I urge the Minister to look at the clause and consider giving them the clear mandate they need to deliver for people, nature and the climate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand to support new clause 39.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand to support new clause 39. Building large-scale solar farms and productive agricultural land is productive agricultural land is shortsighted. The proposed project touted as a national significance project will cover over 3,000 acres
21:19
Llinos Medi Portrait Llinos Medi MP (Ynys Môn, Plaid Cymru)
-
-
project will cover over 3,000 acres of agricultural land. This is not just any land, it's land that sustains rural livelihoods and underpins economic and cultural identity of the island. Let's not forget why Ennis one is known as the mother of Wales. Our island has long mother of Wales. Our island has long been the breadbasket of the nation paying -- playing a key role in food production. This land isn't just soil, it security, and replacing it with solar panels serves developers not communities.

The climate crisis will make a suitable agricultural land scarce in the future, that makes protecting what we have now even more important. Once this land is lost to development we don't get it back. That is not sustainability, that is short-term gain at long-term that is short-term gain at long-term We are also seeing a serious inconsistency in how planning policies are applied. In Wales good quality agricultural land is considered in the planning process for smaller scale developments, but when it comes to large-scale developments like mine here, those protections seem to vanish.

This contradiction between Welsh and UK government policies is unacceptable, there must be A-level playing field regardless of scale of proposals. We've already felt the impact of the energy insecurity in recent years, that's not repeat the same mistakes with food security. To close, I asked the government to rethink its approach to protect our agricultural land. Our economy and communities land. Our economy and communities land. Our economy and communities
21:22
Peter Prinsley Portrait Peter Prinsley MP (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, Labour)
-
-
I rise to speak in support I rise to speak in support of I rise to speak in support of new clause 64 which has been tabled in my name. This clause 6 to encourage a great focus on the delivery of affordable through rural exception affordable through rural exception sites. Bringing forward to prompt further consideration of the role of further consideration of the role of this policy can play in addressing the urgent need for affordable homes the urgent need for affordable homes in all communities.

Many who represent rural areas with significant rural populations will know that we have a very serious know that we have a very serious housing problem. Waiting lists grow faster in rural areas than anywhere else in young people are forced out of villages and towns lack of affordable, parents face old age without the comfort of their without the comfort of their without the comfort of their Pubs and post offices and shops start to struggle for lack of customers, the businesses closed and the small village and the whole community feels the damage.

But rural exception sites usually found on the outskirts of small settlements offer a modest but vital solution. Developed for the provision of affordable to those with the commit -- connection to the area help sustain local economies, retain local people and skills and keep families together. Because they join existing villages develop and takes place on a gently human scale. With houses radiating out from historic core, respect -- respecting the historic situation. These are not soulless disconnected housing estates, this is development on a scale which assures that affordable is woven into the fabric of our communities, not added on.

Preserving and recreating the sort of social mix once typical of our towns where is Knipe Evan remembered, the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and the farm labourer all that on the same street. That sort of community is presently an exception. Let's reform rural exception sites and offer a route back to that ideal. Despite the potential the current regime is alarmingly underused. Of 145 local authorities in the country only 25 use rural exception sites to deliver affordable homes in the year 21 /22.

I thank the Member for sometimes not presently here although he was here for most of the afternoon, his support of my amendment. Cornwall leaves the country by example stop 50% of what is delivered in rural exception sites across the whole of England is in Cornwall. 20 to 30% of housing delivered in Cornwall is through rural exception. Why don't we equip other areas across the country including my own county of Suffolk to do the same? Increasing awareness and engagement will double outputs for affordable on these sites so let's encourage officers and local authorities across the country to take a much closer look at this guidance.

This will give us a new strategy for engagement for delivery partners with the local community working closely with landowners this will be crucial. By giving rural exception sites the prominence they deserve in planning we increase the supply of affordable homes but maintain the unique character and spirit of our rural communities. I was heartened to read in the government's response to the consultation on the revised National Planning Policy Framework that further consideration is indeed being given to exceptions as a means of supporting rural affordable houses.

This is very welcome and I'm optimistic that the potential use rural exception sites could be brought forward in much greater numbers, delivering small scale affordable that the English countryside is a vibrant and exclusive -- community for generations to come. That's put the life back into the heart of rural

**** Possible New Speaker ****

England. I love trees which is why rise today to support new clause 63 today to support new clause 63 tabled in my name. I'm sure all of tabled in my name. I'm sure all of us in this House recognise the value of trees not just their ecological importance but for the character and beauty they bring to our communities beauty they bring to our communities and high streets. I hope in my remarks I can demonstrate why
21:25
Aphra Brandreth Portrait Aphra Brandreth MP (Chester South and Eddisbury, Conservative)
-
-
remarks I can demonstrate why amending the current rules to allow for sensible guidance around the planting of trees can help liberate local authorities from the default position of being overly cautious and kickstarted a treeplanting revolution. New clause 63 six to remove some of the ambiguity and misconceptions surrounding regulation of treeplanting along highways. Currently the highways that 1980 includes provisions for local authorities to maintain free- flowing roads but these provisions can and have been misinterpreted the block treeplanting, in particular the licensing rules that are established within section 142 of the highways that should be relaxed to make it easier for local residents to plant trees too often even well-meaning councils impose In Windsor and Maidenhead individuals must pay between £500 and £1000 in administrative these and secure £10 million in public liability insurance, hardly encouraging.

Hampshire County Council strict interpretation of section 1245 has led to a buffer around utilities blocking many ideal planting sites despite minimal risk to those services. Let me briefly touch on the environmental case. I wouldn't trust report of the benefits people of trees outside words that found that roadside trees are highly effective at capturing pollutants especially important that traffic is a major short source of air pollution in the UK. A study by Lancaster University event on the Terraced street removed harmful particulate matter in nearby homes by over 50%.

There's also the critical role trees place in sporting by diverse, common species such as lime and flowering cherry trees are not only beauty my beautiful but pollinators. Cheshire is a proud dairy and beef farming County we have some of the most carbon efficient cows in the world and we should be proud of our record on this. If we can improve further on this. If we can improve further the environmental impact, for rural areas having tree-lined rural roads can help remit reduce ammonium levels, impacts and habitats in the surrounding environment.

Again placement of trees in this case matters and having more trees near seminatural habitats that need protection rather than more trees and establishment woodland has a greater impact. Of course safety must remain a priority, not every road is suitable for treeplanting but where space and conditions allowed trees can actually improve road safety. Studies have shown that tree-lined streets make Rhodes feel narrower naturally encouraging drivers to reduce their speed. There are many more benefits I could speak to such as improving soil quality, but I know time is short so I will finish by touching on the aesthetic benefit to trees near highways because they really do make a difference.

They stand the test of time, they add character to the area, they take on cultural significance and improve our mental health. Our perceptions and appreciation of the areas in which we live. Three new clause 63 in amending this bill I hope we can empower local authorities to plant the right trees in the right areas where there is local support and I'm confident we will notice the benefits of doing so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise someone who is privileged to be a member of the Bill Committee to be a member of the Bill Committee on this piece of legislation, I started the Bill Committee as a supporter of this legislation and I
21:29
Jim Dickson Portrait Jim Dickson MP (Dartford, Labour)
-
-
supporter of this legislation and I rise to speak now after the Bill Committee is an equally strong supporter of this legislation many of my constituents in Dartford are also extremely strong supporters of change their town is regularly paralysed by overspill traffic from the overloaded Dartford Cross and this has been an issue for decades with a need for a new crossing versa just as long ago as the 1980s. Yet despite a route being agreed in 2017 we only saw development consent granted this year with hundreds of millions having been spent on the process so far and I strongly therefore support the measures to streamline the regime and give more certainty than larger much-needed projects like the Lower Thames Crossing, like mentioned by the Member for Milton Keynes North in his speech.

This bill will make changes to dramatically improve the situation and that fact mustn't be lost as we debate the amendments today. I want to briefly talk to three of the immense -- amendments I feel strongly about and cover net zero, sustainability and the social content of new development. I know there are a number of amendments tabled including new clause 73 by the Member for Brent West and others, around the issue of swift bricks, another issue discussed at some length during the Bill Committee and members across the House recognise we must do more to support vital species like swifts, and I welcome the steps already taken by the housebuilding industry on this issue with a voluntary standard signed up to by 28 homebuilders accounting for 100,000 homes per year committing to bird nesting brick or box installed for every new home built as well as hedgehog highways as standard for every new development and I hope ministers will monitor the effectiveness of this voluntary measure and look at what further I'm also supportive of the sentiment in new clause to that would require new homes to be built to a net zero carbon building standard and include provision of the generation of solar power.

I hope however he will welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for energy security and net zero on Friday that future home standard when published later this year will require with a small number of exceptions all new homes to include solar panels. Not everything we want to see happen needs to be included on the face of this bill. I do want however just to finish to speak in favour of new clause 82 put forward by my honourable friend the honourable member for Bournemouth East.

This will require local authorities to assess local play provision and take reasonable steps to improve place efficiency. As other members have mentioned, hundreds of playgrounds have been lost over the last decade and 1/2. Speak to any young parent and they will tell you the value of play, especially outdoor play where they can meet and play safely with other young children, so I hope ministers will see the strength of feeling on this issue and whether they accept this amendment or not, do more to help create spaces to play for families across the country.

Notwithstanding the amendments discussed tonight, I'm proud to have helped move this vital piece of legislation nearer to the statute book and look forward to this bill helping get Britain building again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will get straight to the point. There are two big problems with this bill. First, there is no social bill. First, there is no social housing target. So that means it doesn't do anything to secure doesn't do anything to secure delivery of the fit for the future social rent housing that we so desperately need as colleagues desperately need as colleagues across the House have said tonight. And second, draws back vital nature And second, draws back vital nature protections, effectively giving developers carte blanche to bulldoze nature to build luxury homes nature to build luxury homes accessible and to the richest.

Now accessible and to the richest. Now we gave this chance at second reading. Green MPs gave this chances reading. Green MPs gave this chances second reading because a secure home is out of reach for too many people. is out of reach for too many people. Rents are spiralling. Over 165,000 children living in temporary accommodation, over one million people stuck on housing waiting lists. It's scandalous that just 3% of housing built in the last decade whether social rent. And there's over 100 year wait for a family - sized social home.

I served in the Bill committee for the past 6+ weeks and have worked very hard to persuade government to fix the
21:35
Ellie Chowns Portrait Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)
-
-
serious flaws in these bail, but unfortunately these calls have so unfortunately these calls have so far been ignored. I'm profoundly concerned that in the absence of social rent target, this bill is writing a chart of the developer agreed. That's why Green have tabled agreed. That's why Green have tabled 78 amendment to push for warm homes 78 amendment to push for warm homes at a truly affordable price. It requires housing plans to set targets for budding zero carbon social housing based on local need social housing based on local need because without an explicit social housing commitment, big developers will be able to line their pockets will be able to line their pockets even further while ordinary people are still locked out of affording a are still locked out of affording a decent home.

I'm also hugely concerned as so many people and the nature organisations we all trust, nature organisations we all trust, by the way the bill rolls back nature protections. That's why I've proposed 24 to 63 to delete part three of the bill entirely because the government repeatedly blocked cross-party efforts in committee to amend part three to reduce its harmful impact on nature. Part three is harmful for three key reasons. First of all it weakens and undermines the current requirement for nature protection to be achieved to a high level of scientific certainty.

Second, it does create a paid police system allowing developers to skip straight to offsetting, trashing the long established principle of the mitigation hierarchy, i.e. The development should first seek to avoid harm, and that it upends the current requirement for compensation to be delivered upfront and creates wiggle room for developers to avoid paying the true cost of the harm they do. The government knows the nature crisis in our country is severe and yet they repeatedly voted in committee to reject a raft of constructive amendments to improve part three and ensure a win-win for housing and nature.

I'd remind the House that the Labour Party is 24 Manifesto pointed out conservatives have left it in one of the most nature depleted countries in the world, but part three will make this terrible situation worse. It's not just the nature organisations that tell us that. It's the independent expert advice of the office for environmental protection who say this bill constitutes a regression in environmental law. Directly contradicting the assertion of the Secretary of State. If ministers insist on bulldozing ahead on part three, at the very least I urge them to accept my clause 26 which seeks to match the current degree of certainty for environmental protection.

I also strongly support the amendment 69 in the name of the honourable member for North East Hertfordshire which would ensure improvements are delivered before the damage they are compensating for. We can and must both protect nature and build warm affordable zero carbon social rent homes. The government said is what they won four top sadly is not the board developers. Without urgent change...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. The planning system certainly needs change. The local people know needs change. The local people know the area. Which is why local planning authorities must retain their powers as outlined in amendment one. Each entry as we've amendment one. Each entry as we've heard today is different. In my constituency of North East Hampshire we are fortunate to have their lot
21:37
Alex Brewer Portrait Alex Brewer MP (North East Hampshire, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
in an Whitewater chalk stream rivers nurturing ecosystems and sustaining biodiversity. The Labour manifesto promises more high quality designs and sustainable homes, creating places that increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery. Chalk streams in this country are at risk. 1/3 are over obstructed, 1/3 fail there targets and 1/3 fail their fishing plan assessments. Only 11 have any form of protection. We cannot rely on the local nature recovery strategy or the national policy planning policy framework to protect these ecosystems.

These rivers need bespoke national protection written into primary legislation in this House as outlined in amendment 16. We can't make reparation after the fact. Once chalk aquifers are destroyed, they can't be replaced. When we say irreplaceable, we mean it. The government also says it once to make the UK a clean energy superpower, and my colleagues and I are thrilled that the Liberal Democrat calls for solar panels on new homes is finally being implemented. Solar power is a key way to harness the power of the natural environment as we develop infrastructure for our communities.

So supporting new clause 7 and putting solar panels on all new car parks would be the natural next step in the right direction.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On cars, electric vehicles the key is being held back. Does the key is being held back. Does the honourable member agree that local authorities must be empowered to approve safe cross pavement charging approve safe cross pavement charging solutions without expensive and time-consuming street work licences

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or planning applications? I thank her for her intervention and absolutely agree with her on and absolutely agree with her on those policies. Solar panels don't just soak up the sun and create clean energy, they also provide shade, protect vehicles and frankly over a car park look quite good while they are doing it. We should be prioritising solar panels on the be prioritising solar panels on the teeth 200,000 ha of rooftops not our precious green spaces. Car parks precious green spaces.

Car parks often located in energy intensive areas, hospitals, office buildings for survey makes perfect sense to generate power right next to where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's needed. Would you agree with me that carboxyl rooftops might be a good place for solar, but prime place for solar, but prime agricultural land in this country is not?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not? I thank the Member for her intervention and we have to find the right balance between agriculture and renewable energy. Francis orally and renewable energy. Francis orally taken the lead, mandating that all car parks with more than 80 spaces must be covered with solar panels. This bill is the right time for us to instigate a similar clause. Solar to instigate a similar clause. Solar uses around 10 times more energy than biomass. It's efficient, clean than biomass. It's efficient, clean and ready to go.

I'm highly concerned that this bill is overcommitted biomass, which is not overcommitted biomass, which is not a form of renewable energy. We have the knowledge and expertise in Britain to develop new housing, Britain to develop new housing, energy ending the structure with nature in mind. The government is treating this issue as an either or, but we could and should be much more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ambitious and have both. Thank you. I rise to speak in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I rise to speak in support of my new clause 93 in
21:41
Helen Maguire Portrait Helen Maguire MP (Epsom and Ewell, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
support of my new clause 93 in amendments 122 2126 of the bill, which aim to tackle the growing electric vehicle charging divide. An issue that's nationally buying the structure but fairness, affordability and climate action. Nearly 4 out of every 10 households in the UK don't have a driveway. The many the transition to leisure vehicles remains a challenge. It is bureaucratic barriers mean the phase charging cost they can be 10 times more expensive compared to those who are able to charge their cars at home.

Today someone with a driveway could charge their electric vehicle overnight for as little as 7p per kilowatt-hour, but a driver without one may be forced to pay up to 80p at a public charger. There could be over £1000 more per year. And its renters, terraced House residents, low-income families bearing the brunt. My amendments would cut unnecessary red tape, enabling local authorities to approve safe cross pavement charging without planning applications. It gives councils control while empowering residents to take part in the EV revolution, a vital step in closing the gap from those who could charge affordably home and those who can't.

It helps reduce reliance on overstretched public charges, support grids resilience and builds confidence in the EV transition. While unlocking green jobs and cutting emissions. This is also an issue of energy security. Skyhigh energy and fuel bills are hurting families and businesses, fuelling the cost of living crisis. Russia's assault in Ukraine has reinforced the need to significantly reduce the U.K.'s dependence of fossil fuels and Both to cut energy bills and help deliver energy security. TVs can help millions of families avoid a petrol premium, saving travel costs and strengthen our national security and independence.

If we are really serious about hitting net zero, cleaning our and reducing the cost of living, we must make EV adoption are genuinely accessible and affordable option for everyone, not just for those with a driveway. I urge members to support my common sense future facing amendments and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

new clause 93. Thank you. I rise to speak on my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I rise to speak on my amendments 145 to 147 and highlight the importance of clauses 39, 84 and the importance of clauses 39, 84 and if time, 53. Turning to my amendments, these seek to correct a amendments, these seek to correct a clear oversight in this legislation by extending the energy Bill discounts to those who live near energy generation sites rather than simply energy transmission sites. Why is it that those who have pylons
21:43
Sarah Bool Portrait Sarah Bool MP (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)
-
-
Why is it that those who have pylons built near their homes are compensated while those who have solar farms like the proposed greenhouse development near Granton in my constituency are not? This is arbitrary distinction exposing the governments proposals are not only inconsistent but fundamentally unfair. Disparities like this understandably riled residents who must live -- cheek by jowl with solar farms, by simply extending the energy homes discount the end she would least put an arm around those who bear the burden and help to encourage communities to embrace renewables, and encourage them as to take this forward, though I won't, breath.

Nicholas is 39 and 48... Sorry, 84 are essential. The number of proposed solar farms and battery energy storage systems are if you will pardon the pun, exploding. They should not be built on higher quality agricultural land. This government said repeatedly that food security is national security, but any plans that take agricultural land out of producing food leaves the government and this country down a very dangerous path. We must encourage and incentivise farmers to do exactly that. Which is farming. The government is creating an either or situation by allowing these on higher quality agricultural land.

I urge members to support these new clauses. Very briefly, new clause 53 proposed by my honourable friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire would prevent local planning authorities from allowing developments on functional floodplains. I have visited far too many homes in my constituency last year that were devastated by flooding. By developing on these known sites we are sleepwalking into a crisis. How this will be devastated, homeowners finding the homes uninsurable and risk to life. The government is exacerbating the problem of flooding exacerbating the problem of flooding

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My understanding is this is hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My understanding is this is hope that new clause 82 has been selected to be called for a separate decision of the House. My concern is that of the House. My concern is that actually the House is going to be denied the ability to have that
21:46
None Portrait Points of Order
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

separate decision. Can I thank the right honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the right honourable member for his point of order. He will know that the member who put forward the amendment has the right forward the amendment has the right to withdraw it and has indicated that they will do, it is that the chair's discretion whether a separate decision is called for and in this case it is my understanding that the amendment is not going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be moved. My understanding is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My understanding is that the member should shout and make it member should shout and make it clear on the Floor of the House that he does not wish to put this to the vote so that members can actually

**** Possible New Speaker ****

voice their opinion. Can I thank the right honourable member for his further point of member for his further point of order. If I do not call the member and it is not my intention to call the honourable member to move his amendment and so therefore there will be no separate decision. Point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of order Paul Holmes. I'm entitled to raise a point of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm entitled to raise a point of order. I appreciate your ruling on this matter but it is my understanding, I'm asking for clarification, that if we have been informed that a question is being put separate decision, it is my The The member The member whose The member whose amendment The member whose amendment it The member whose amendment it is The member whose amendment it is to, with the leave of the House, withdraw that amendment. That would give the member on the Floor of the House that chance to withdraw the amendment and that question is usually asked.

I'm asking for clarification because I have never seen an amendment put four separate decision not putting a question to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the member whose amendment it is. Can I thank the honourable member for that point of order, it is simply not the case that has to be withdrawn on the forum like house, it has happened numerous occasions.
21:48
Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

it has happened numerous occasions. With leave of the House it is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With leave of the House it is a pleasure to rise to respond to what has been a very comprehensive debate. A significant number of amendments have been spoken to...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments have been spoken to... The right honourable member should not be shouting at the clerks should not be shouting at the clerks in that way. I have made my point. A significant number of amendments have been spoken during the course of the debate and house will appreciate I do not have the time to address the vast majority, therefore I will focus on addressing as many of the key points of contention as I can. As I've been extremely generous in opening the debate and giving way I hope honourable members will appreciate and allow me to get through as many points as possible I won't be taking interventions.

The debate this evening has evidence to For nature and ensuring we get the nature restoration fund right, I spoke in detail about the government position in opening the debate. As I repeatedly made clear in Bill Committee and will reiterate this evening, we are listening to the concerns raised by honourable members and stakeholders. We are clear this model is the right model to take us forward we are of course open to ways to improve the legislation. On that basis and to emphasise the points I made earlier in the debate we are giving serious consideration to ways we might instil further confidence that part three will deliver the outcomes we believe it will.

Such as looking at providing greater confidence in the rigour of the overall improvement test as raised by the OEP and the Member for Taunton and Wellington. We are also giving due consideration to how we can provide greater certainty and the timescale for delivering conservation measures as raised by honourable member for North East Hertfordshire as well as seeking to clarify the evidential basis and environmental rationale strategic conservation measures as raised by the Member for Chesterfield. The status quo is not working, the case for moving to a more strategic approach is compelling and I look forward to further consideration of part three in the other place.

Turning to the important issue of children's play areas I thank the Member for Taunton and Wellington and Bournemouth East for tabling new clauses 82 and 16 respectively and I commend in particular my honourable friend fall he is doing to make the case for high quality accessible and inclusive areas for playful stop the government agrees that access the playspace is vital which is why strong protections are already in place for the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that Local Plan thing policy should be based on robust and up-to-date assessment of the need for open space sport and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision including places for children's play.

In December we strengthened the plants from protections already in place by adding explicit reference to safeguarding formal playspace is it means these facilities can only be lost where facilities can only be lost where Needed or there is a justified and appropriate alternative. Given these existing expectations safeguard some sources of support we don't believe it's necessary to add the sort of legislative requirements these amendments would entail. I do however recognise the importance of what these amendments are seeking to achieve and the provision of playspace is one of the areas we are considering as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision-making on which we will decision-making on which we will consult this year.

I can also commit my honourable friend to write to my counterparts at the DFE and DCMS to ensure we are acting across government to increase basis for play and I will work with him to broker the necessary ministerial meetings that he is seeking an with these assurances I hope he and the honourable gentleman will be able to withdraw their amendments. Turning withdraw their amendments. Turning to Swift bricks. Which has been mentioned several times in the debate. We recognise the these are vitally important means of arresting the long-term decline of reading Swift populations while the coverage Swift populations while the coverage is increasing with nearly 30 housebuilders having made a voluntary commitment to install one for every new home belt, the government wants to do more to drive up installation.

It is however principal difference of opinion is the best way to achieve that objective. While I understand why many are attracted to the argument that the only way to make a significant difference to Swift numbers and other listed species is to mandate the incorporation of Swift bricks into all new build properties through building or freestanding legislation I take a different view. I'd tell the House in all sincerity I don't believe that amending building regulations is the most appropriate way to secure the outcome I think the House as a whole seeks.

Building regulations are mandatory meaning going through down this road would compel developers to install them in all new buildings irrespective of what they are aware they are located and contrary to what honourable members might assume, amending It It can It can take It can take years It can take years for It can take years for changes It can take years for changes to feed through into building design and we don't think Swift's can afford to wait that long. For these and other reasons I remain of the view that changing national planning is a more effective route to securing Swift bricks as a standard feature of the vast majority of new belts, as the House will be aware the revised FTP yes expects development to incorporate features that threatened species such as swifts and hedgehogs, however as I made clear over recent months we have always intended to go further.

With specifically giving consideration to using a new suite of national policies for decision- making which will require Swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings unless there are compelling reasons which preclude the use, or which would make them ineffective. This would significantly strengthen the planning policy expectations in place, meaning for example we would expect to see at least one Swiss brick in all new brick built houses. I believe this is the best way we can achieve the objective of seeing them used as widely as possible as it means the use and placement of Swift bricks can be integrated into the planning process and become a standard expectation in the design of new development.

We will be Set of national policies later this year and so no one can be in any doubt about our intentions here, the government has today published new planning practice guidance setting out how Swift bricks are intended to be used in new developments as an interim step ahead of the planned consultation will stop I've also heard from several members who want to see stronger protections put in place the chalk streams. The measures in the bill will not weaken existing protections for these valuable areas for nature but the government continues to give cattle consideration to this matter in the context of ongoing reform to national planning and I'm happy to engage with members from across the House on it.

I want to turn to amendment one tabled by the Member for Taunton and Wellington. This would prevent the government from incrementing a national scheme of delegation for planning committees. It is put simply a wrecking amendments and the government cannot accept it for the following reasons. Planning is principally a local activity and the government recognises the vital role banning recognises the vital role banning committee's play. We must ensure that they are operating as effectively as possible, at present every council has its own scheme of delegation and 96% of planning decisions in England are already made by planning officers.

However there is significant variation across the country and this creates risk and uncertainty in the system. We believe there is a robust case for introducing a national scheme of delegation. Since Committee stage where we debated at length the governance has published the technical consultation setting out plans for reform. I would encourage members to read that consultation we proposed splitting planning applications into two tiers providing certainty about what decisions will be delegated to expert officers but at the same time ensuring councillors can continue to Housing Housing and Housing and commercial Housing and commercial developments to allow for effective local democratic oversight of the most controversial applications where warranted.

I believe that members do engage with the detail of that conversation they will recognise that what is being proposed is not an attempt to ride roughshod over local democracy, but a sensible and proportionate change designed to improve certainty and decision- making in the planning system. On the fundamental point of whether we should introduce a national scheme of delegation, the government's position is an unequivocal yes, for that reason I can't accept the amendment in question. I will turn briefly to the amendments tabled by the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch and Taunton and Wellington relating to the bills new reflective amendment procedure.

For national policy savings. I'd like to reassure the House I'll changes are not about eroding parliamentary scrutiny but about ensuring scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made. We absolutely recognise the value such scrutiny brings to getting important changes right. As I discussed with the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch there are several safeguards in place which ensure that parliamentary oversight is protected. I will oversight is protected. I will Where we intend to make a reflective amendment statement will be made in Parliament announcing a review and we write to the relevant Select Committee.

Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the committee authorities practicable and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period. Let me be very clear in response, the government recognises the importance of ministers attending to explain the proposed changes I'm happy to say the Deputy Prime Minister and I will write colleagues to ensure that that is fully and clearly understood. Importantly the PPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with, this means Parliament retain retains the ultimate say over whether changes enacted.

I hope that clarifies the process and reassures the House more widely. Finally, I want to also address some of the amendments tabled regarding the provision of affordable and social housing including amendments new clause 32 and new clause 50 by the members for North East Hertfordshire and Vauxhall and Camberwell Green. The government is committed to the biggest generational uplift in social and affordable house. In our first 10 months in office we have put our money where our mouth is. We have announced a new 800 in year funding to top up the 2021 a new 800 in year funding to top up the 20 20 January, 2026 affordable homes program and we announced that spring statement an immediate injection of £2 billion in new capital investment to act as a bridge to the future Grant Programme to be announced this week at Spending Review.

To date we have not chosen to define a target for social and affordable and there is good reason why that is the case. Including the fact that the sector has faced significant financial constraints and needs regular Tory certainty, made worse by many of the completely responsible and unacceptable decisions made by the opposition when in government over the past 14 years. It wouldn't be appropriate to set a target until after the sector is stabilised, knows what is required and importantly is clear as to what investment will be available to support delivery, something that will only become apparent after the Spending Review.

There are range of complex factors which contribute to the numbers of affordable coming forward in this country and which impact on the sector's ability to build more homes but we will of course this matter under review. Very briefly, I want to mention green belt and the protection of villages, we recently published guidance in relation to the green belt. None of the long-standing green belt purposes are touched by those changes and that includes the purpose of precluding the merging of towns stop the guidance doesn't remove that appropriate and relevant protections from land around villages and any greenbelt land including land in or near villages which conflicts with the relevant purposes would not be identified as grey belt.

To conclude, can I once again thank all Honourable members who participated in the debate today and I thank everyone for their contributions, the government will continue to reflect on the arguments made. I urge the House to support the targeted amendments the government has proposed to this bill government has proposed to this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that new clause 60 9B read a second time. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Order have it, the ayes have it. Order order. And the order of the House of today, I must now put the question as necessary to bring this day's as necessary to bring this day's proceedings on consideration to a conclusion.

The question is that new conclusion. The question is that new clause 69 be added to the bill. As many as are of that opinion say, many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it. The ayes
22:01
22:02
22:17
None Portrait Points of Order
-

that new clause 82 and I'm going to call him my honourable friend because he's a county name are from Bournemouth and says he doesn't intend to move it. My understanding was that Mr speaker having said it would be subject to a separate decision de facto anybody would interpret it as there will be a vote. My understanding is certainly from previous experience where the principal signatory of an amendment has decided not to move it, any honourable or right honourable member who is a co-signatory to that met amendment is at liberty to move it to test the mood of the House.

It may well be that Standing Orders have changed and I am negligence of that knowledge and if that is the case then my apologies to you. But changed?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the honourable member for his point of order, had he been in the chamber earlier he would have heard that there were several earlier point of order on this earlier point of order on this specific question. He will also have heard me say that it would be at the discretion of the chair and the discretion of the chair and the Speaker had earlier indicated that there would be a separate decision, the member who had tabled the amendment indicated you wish to have it with drawn.

It is at the it with drawn. It is at the discretion of the chair, if the honourable gentleman wishes to question that further he is at liberty to do so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

liberty to do so. Point of order, Paul Holmes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point of order, Paul Holmes. You may junto but I have a right to raise point of order and to raise point of order and processed in the south of the may I ask for your guidance because I'm a relatively new member, when I want relatively new member, when I want to and it's not up to you to say yes I can't. New clause 82 has been signed by over 60 members of this House. Through the usual channels and through myself as a shadow minister we were indicated that the Speaker's Office had selected this new clause for a separate decision.

Because there are over 60 members who have signed this new clause, it is my understanding that through precedent in this House that any member who has signed new clause can move that amendment. There is a new dangerous precedent here if members before the debate has started can indicate that they wish to withdraw a new clause without other members who have signed that clause being given the choice of moving that themselves considering that they signed it, can I seek your clarification because it seems highly unusual to me that if over 60 members of signed this new clause that no one on that new clause can move it, especially when we have been given indications that it would be subject to a separate decision on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the floor of this House. Can I thank the honourable member for his further point of order on the subject. I have provided the clarity for which he has been asked, clarity for which he has been asked, it is the discretion of the chair. it is the discretion of the chair. New clause 43 has been selected for New clause 43 has been selected for separate decision. I call the shadow minister to move new clause formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to me. The question is that new clause 43 is added to the bill. As many are 43 is added to the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". Division, clear
22:20
None Portrait Division
-

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that new The question is that new clause The question is that new clause 43 be added to the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the Ayes James Wild and Rebecca Smith, tellers for the Noes Martin This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Order order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right where 167.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right where 167. The ayes to the right were 167. The noes to the left, 334. So the noes noes to the left, 334. So the noes noes to the left, 334. So the noes I call the Minister to move I call the Minister to move amendments 93 to 98 formally. The question is that government amendments 93 to 98 be made. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." I think the ayes have it, the ayes have it.

Amendment 15 has been selected for separate decision. Michael Gideon Amos to move the amendment formally. The question is that amendment 15 be made. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 15 The question is that amendment 15 be made. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye." Of the contrary, "No." The tellers for the ayes are Will Forster and Charlie Maynard.

The tellers for the noes, Martin

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. Dias to the right, 73. The Noes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dias to the right, 73. The Noes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- -- The -- The Ayes. The Ayes to the right was 73. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right was 73. The Noes to the left, 323. The "Noes" Noes to the left, 323. The "Noes" Noes to the left, 323. The "Noes" have it. Unlock. I called the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to move formally. Moved formally. The question is that government amendment 99 is made. As many are of amendment 99 is made. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The "Ayes" have it. Amendment 69 has been selected for Amendment 69 has been selected for separate decision. I call Chris Hinchliff to move the amendment formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is that amendment 69 be made. As many are of that opinion be made. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, say, "Aye", and of the contrary, The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 69 The question is that amendment 69 is made. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No".

The tellers for the Ayes are Jeremy Corbyn and Neil Duncan- Jordan. The tellers for the Noes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lock Lock the Lock the door. Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right, 180. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right, 180. The Noes to the left, 307. The "Noes" Noes to the left, 307. The "Noes" have it. Unlock. I call the Minister have it. Unlock. I call the Minister have it. Unlock. I call the Minister to move amendments 108, 103 108, 115

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move amendments 108, 103 108, 115 114 formally. Moved formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moved formally. The question is that government amendments 100 through 108, 115 through 119 and 109 through 114 are made. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The "Ayes" have it. Bill to be further considered what day? Tomorrow. Motion number three, on Financial Services and Markets Bill's minister to move. The question is as on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No".

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The "Ayes" have it. Beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
23:00
None Portrait Adjournment: Breast cancer screening rates in Bassetlaw
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn. Joe White. Thank you. First known

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. First known descriptions of breast-cancer date
23:00
Jo White Portrait Jo White MP (Bassetlaw, Labour)
-
-
descriptions of breast-cancer date back to beyond 3,000 BC. Hippocrates describing the progressive stages of breast cancer and 400 BC when he outlined his theory. Whilst breast cancer mortality rates have been decreasing since the 1970s, approximately 11,400 women and 85 men die from breast-cancer every This is 32 deaths from breast cancer every single day of the week. We all know someone who has been impacted by breast cancer. A mother, sister, a granny, a daughter, a work colleague or friend.

It was my Nan, the matriarch of my family, a character fit and healthy who went out to daily clean other people's houses. We lost her when I was 19 years old. She was too embarrassed to show her breast to her doctor and explained away her lump is an injury caused by falling off a window ledge when cleaning windows. By the time she finally went, it was too late and she died months later, and we lost too soon. Perhaps it's also fear that kept her away.

Two of her sisters were also taken by breast cancer. This is such a familiar story. So many women being treated for breast cancer tell me of their family members commands, sisters, mothers, grandmothers who have also been through the same experiences. My Nan was of Jewish descent and it's now known the Jewish people of back -- Ashkenazy Heritage have one in 40 chance of carrying the gene. A much higher chance of developing breast cancer, a one in two chance by the age of 70.

And for the sake of my family I'm currently having genetic screening to check if this was the familiar because it has not been passed down. And I would urge every woman of Jewish heritage to do the same. It's provided free by the NHS and you can do it in your own home.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

While medical testing of the gene

**** Possible New Speaker ****

While medical testing of the gene is a very effective way to understand, there is also apologetic understand, there is also apologetic risk factors that mean that if you have a combination of genes, that you might be more at risk. Of breast you might be more at risk. Of breast cancer. Does the honourable member think that what we should be doing is rolling out a polygenic risk is rolling out a polygenic risk testing right the way across, so we understand how frequent and how often women should be having their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

breasts are checked by understanding their genes better? Thank you so much for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you so much for intervention. You make a very valuable point and one which should valuable point and one which should be raised in this debate, the hip the Minister is taking heed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my honourable friend for giving way. As somebody who was diagnosed with breast cancer during COVID, and going through the journey early-stage breast cancer, does my honourable friend agree with me that it's also important that the system understands that breast cancer can present in younger women as well and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not just older women? Thank you for making that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for making that point. And I do have sympathy for the experience you have gone through and I hope you are now fully recovered, I hope you are now fully recovered, but yes, we do have to be very conscious that women of all ages conscious that women of all ages could have breast cancer and certainly awareness needs to be raised so women continue checking their breasts for that. But what I do know is this. Breast cancer screening saves lives.

Early detection saves lives. The earlier breast cancer is detected, the simpler and more effective the treatment is likely to be. Between the ages of 50 and 70 on the three- year cycle women will get a letter through the post inviting them into screening. A chance conversation last autumn with a local GP alerted me to his concern that numbers of women attending Bassetlaw hospital for their screening appointment had dropped dramatically. I asked the Chief Executive of our local hospital trust to investigate this and he quickly came back with some very worrying figures that show that attendance had dropped in recent times to below 50% of those women invited for screening.

This was either due to an appointment cancellation or no-show on the day. Data from NHS England shows that prior to the coronavirus pandemic, 78% of women in Bassetlaw Doncaster were going for screening. A decline is dramatic and is not unique to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bassetlaw. I commend the honourable lady for Bassetlaw for bringing this forward. Bassetlaw for bringing this forward. I spoke to her beforehand and her concerns are the concerns of fossil concerns are the concerns of fossil commands as will -- and says of commands as will -- and says of Saul, and that's why we are all Saul, and that's why we are all here. And as an island breast cancer screening has been relatively stable at an average of 67%, but since at an average of 67%, but since 2019, when it decreased to 25% in 2022 and the COVID impact on breast screening is entirely worrying as well as the fact that most trusts are not back to the pre-COVID screen tests.

So does the honourable lady tests. So does the honourable lady not agree, to look forward to the Minister's response, that will be do Minister's response, that will be do need is a coordinated approach throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to enhance screenings.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I agree it's worrying that only half the trusts in England that only half the trusts in England are meeting the national target of 70% of eligible women going for 70% of eligible women going for their screening. Next year we hit a milestone. It's estimated that almost one million women will be invited to go for their screening. And I welcome that NHS England are taking steps to actively encourage more women to book and attend their screening. And I ask the Minister to provide more detail of this.

But to provide more detail of this. But to provide more detail of this. But to be honest, in Bassetlaw I can't wait for a national operation to kick in. for a national operation to kick in. And last month I launched the Bassetlaw love your boobs, get them checked campaign, supporting local women to encourage women to go for their breast screening. And want to their breast screening. And want to pay tribute to the wonderful Bassetlaw women who have been active in the campaign. Women like Liz Rukh, and Maria Charlesworth who found lumps in their breasts and went for their screening.

Robert Baldwin and Claire Bevan joined my campaign as they had friends take into scene by breast cancer, and don't want anyone else to have to go through the same. Lynn Dixon from Bassetlaw had breast cancer in her family and was first diagnosed at the age of 36 after finding a lump. And she has just recently found another lump and was screened, and this week she is facing further treatment for breast cancer. My thoughts and love are with Lynn right now.

Jenny Bailey is a former NHS nurse and midwife in Bassetlaw who had had breast cancer identified the following routine screening. The women from Bassetlaw are amazing, using their life experiences to join the fighting spirit, encouraging their friends, family, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

neighbours to get screened. I thank her very much for having

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her very much for having brought this debate forward. I think it's so important and I couldn't agree more that screening is agree more that screening is incredibly important, but actually we also need to make sure that there is modern radiotherapy treatment is modern radiotherapy treatment available for those who have breast cancer once that's been detected, to know that NHS England has actually degraded the availability of radiotherapy treatment, and many regions of England over the last 10 years.

I understand breast cancer patients have to travel over an hour patients have to travel over an hour from Bassetlaw as they do in my area as well to receive radiotherapy that they need. So I wondered what the honourable lady might say about the government's new cancer plan and how government's new cancer plan and how this is going to go, I hope it goes a long way to actually resolving the problem of getting access to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

radiotherapy which is so effective. I welcome the honourable members contribution, certainly women in contribution, certainly women in Bassetlaw have to travel all the way to Sheffield once they've been diagnosed to have treatment and for radiotherapy. And that's a long radiotherapy. And that's a long journey, and ideally it would be better if it could be treated in Bassetlaw, and I wait to hear how that could be achieved in future. that could be achieved in future. Because it's so important people are treated close to home.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

treated close to home. Thank you. And I thank my honourable friend for bringing this debate today. She is mentioned debate today. She is mentioned several women who I know personally, having worked with them, and she's having worked with them, and she's absolutely right that they are incredible and I particular send my condolences to Lynn and family. We know one of the barriers to improving breast cancer screening raises not only awareness but accessibility, and it's about people living in rural areas being able to get to the places where treatment can and screening can take place.

So she agreed with me that the government not only needs to think about treatment but the way in which people access their treatment when they are in rural areas like mine

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and like hers? Thank you very much for your contribution. I agree with the honourable member. In Bassetlaw we honourable member. In Bassetlaw we have a unit. I know in other rural areas that you have mobile units areas that you have mobile units that go out and maybe better way in certain areas to encourage take-up. But it is far too common a But it is far too common a misconception that only women can get breast cancer. Almost 400 men a year do like my constituent Danny year do like my constituent Danny Emerson from Worksop was to be found some lumps in his armpit whilst some lumps in his armpit whilst watching TV and went to his GP to get checked and very quickly was diagnosed as having breast cancer.

diagnosed as having breast cancer. Thank you Danny for joining my campaign to raise awareness that men campaign to raise awareness that men get breast cancer too. So I ask today is that everyone in the chamber, man or woman is to check yourself and encourage your wives, partners, daughters, granddaughters, sisters and all the women in your lives to attend their breast cancer screening appointments. This debate is not the end of my campaign. On 29 June I will be running in the race for life in my constituency and visiting the Bassetlaw Princess Diana mammography unit to help tell the story of how easy it is to get your breast screened.

Can I welcome the member's for Doncaster Central and Don Valley and the Isle of Axum are in their place for the debate today? The data Doncaster North law hospital covers all our constituencies and whilst I understand was in the lower attendance levels are in our more deprived wards, can the Minister provide advice on what more the Department can do to assure we can get hospital specific data for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

up? Does the honourable member agree with me that it's absolutely critical that we get this data to that level so the trusts like ours, Doncaster North law trust can Doncaster North law trust can naturally target the areas and perhaps even the age groups where screening take-up is at its lowest?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I certainly agree, we have data. I'm not sure whether those figures are and I would very much like to go are and I would very much like to go towards areas where perhaps take-up is low and actually knock on doors and encourage women to go for their and encourage women to go for their screening. So it would be very helpful to have precise data because there were two hospitals in the Doncaster North law trust. There are Doncaster North law trust.

There are several organisations across Bassetlaw that support people with cancer, and I wish to highlight the work of aurora in Worksop who offer support to those during and after cancer treatment. From their experience, from the service they provide from exercise space to beauty treatments to emotional support, or even just a cup of tea with a friendly face and a listening ear, organisations like these on our constituency are the unsung heroes of people going through the challenge that is cancer treatment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her for giving way and congratulate her on this important debate this evening and the campaign debate this evening and the campaign she is leading around women and men being screened for breast cancer being screened for breast cancer early. And of course we know that the uptake is very low nationally and the problem as she has said in Doncaster in the Ilam accent. I'd like to highlight the incredible work done by places like Portree who work done by places like Portree who turned the town pink last month, raised £50,000 for breast cancer charities.

But most importantly charities. But most importantly amplifying that message that it's important to get early detection in important to get early detection in order to save lives. Would you agree with me that these kind of grassroots organisations efforts are grassroots organisations efforts are vital and the government must support them but also support the improved screening access and public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

health messaging? I think him for the comments he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think him for the comments he made. I certainly agree it is just across the border from my constituency and no they have very constituency and no they have very strong communities, and when I go there, I can see how many people, in there, I can see how many people, in the streets and support one another so I'm sure it's a very strong campaign. But I've come across many charities and organisations in my charities and organisations in my constituency were doing, and they come because usually they are people who have gone through breast cancer process themselves and want to process themselves and want to educate and encourage other women to be screened.

So they are very important in the work we're doing in important in the work we're doing in this. And they want to say since the this. And they want to say since the beginning of breast screening checks in 1988, there has been a cut off in 1988, there has been a cut off age of 70. My campaign doesn't. My Nan was diagnosed with cancer. Why do women over 70 have to rely on memory and friends going to get a diagnosis? Cancer does not discriminate for age or background.

I want to congratulate those over 70 numbers. They argue the cost of treatment of breast cancer far outweighs the cost of screening. Early prevention not only saves lives, it saves the NHS money. They are calling for the threshold to be This is there and my ask of the Minister. As we've heard today and early diagnosis of breast cancer can save lives, I'm doing it with ICANN locally to encourage women to attend the screenings when they are invited. My Bassetlaw messages, love your boobs, get them checked.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the Member for bring forward this debate this evening. It's a really important topic which It's a really important topic which is close to my heart and I know to so many other honourable members. It so many other honourable members. It is really important to ensure that as many women as possible take up the offer of screening and they shouldn't feel embarrassed to seek help if they feel something untoward help if they feel something untoward is when they feel their breasts.

My honourable friend has spoken eloquently unsupported by other colleagues tonight as she has done on other occasions highlighting her own family's experience of losing a own family's experience of losing a loved one. Due to that fear of seeking medical advice. She is right to raise the issue of downturn in women choosing to be screened both in her constituency and sadly across in her constituency and sadly across the country. Survival rates for breast-cancer can be good. If it is found early at stage I of five years survival rate me as high as 98.2% survival rate me as high as 98.2% this plummets to 26.6% when breast cancer was not found until stage IV.

The earlier breast-cancer is caught the earlier it can be treated and the more likely patients will be to To check their breasts for lumps. There have been some excellent public health campaigns over the years from various charities explaining what to look for be at a lump, discharge or dimpling of the skin on the breast, if the changes found it's essential that no time is wasted before contacting a GP. That's why screening is an essential tool in our arsenal when trying to prevent this disease.

A mammogram can identify breast-cancer before it's large enough to be felt. The NHS National breast-cancer screening program invites all women aged 50 to 71 to attend a screening appointment once every three years. Mammograms can be uncomfortable as those of us who have had them no, they can be uncomfortable and many women have anxiety about having to get undressed in front of strangers. That short discomfort could save a life. It's important we encourage all women not to put off their scans. The NHS breast screening program is badly affected by the pandemic as we've heard this evening.

Screening for breast cancer was paused and when it restarted the number of women taking up the offer did not recover to pre-pandemic levels. Even after the backlog of missed appointments had been cleared, take-up of invitations was low. Data indicates that lots of women are still not coming forward to start the screening journey. The NHS is doing more to help engagement and we can all do more to help as my honourable friend is doing. The most recent NHS data shows the breast- cancer screening uptake in the area included by her constituency as currently reported a 74.1%.

With an achievable standard of 80%, this is higher than the national average of 70% but it's shorter that achievable high standard. The data also shows the percentage of women screening within 36 months of the previous one is 97.5%, vs the acceptable standard of 90% and the achievable standard of 99%. While there is clearly more than can be done, I've had these figures across the entire patch provide some reassurance that women are coming forward to be screened, but I take her point and the point made by her colleagues that that data does need to be understood as a more granular level and locality level so we understand particularly in areas of high deprivation women are coming forward to make sure she does have access to that information following this debate.

I'm pleased that Doncaster teaching hospitals screening services made improvements over the past year to improve attendance at appointments and I really commend her lovely -- love your boobs campaign and the work she highlighted with local women. Making that point that is important that men also check. Services recently expanded availability by offering more appointments outside of traditional hours including extending clinic hours and regular Saturday appointments. Invitation method has also been changed from
23:21
Karin Smyth Portrait Karin Smyth MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Bristol South, Labour)
-
-
open appointments to timed and dated appointments which has been shown to increase engagement. The service has met with the cancer alliance and commissioners to review ways to increase uptake. I understand that the teaching hospitals breast cancer screening program has invited to screening program has invited to visit her constituency and I hope will provide her with further information to increase uptake I know together she will make sure that happens. In February this year that happens. In February this year the NHS launched a national breast screening awareness campaign to screening awareness campaign to encourage more women to take up the offer of screening, debates like we are having here tonight I think really do help with raising that really do help with raising that importance.

We are not complacent, as well as increasing the level of uptake for routine screening programs we need to ensure that women who are most at risk are screened more frequently. The breast screening after radiotherapy dataset screening after radiotherapy dataset is currently working to identify and invite women who received radiotherapy involving breast ticket tissue at the age between 10 and 35 years of their also genetic tracing programs looking at identifying carriers of genes including the ICA predisposed individuals to be is a higher risk of breast-cancer, these women are entitled to a frequent screening.

Need to ensure they are identified and informed. UK National screening committee is considering other changes to the breast screening program. The looking at whether women with dense breasts need to be screened differently in the program and an ongoing trial is the program and an ongoing trial is NSE are currently discussing first findings of the trial and I'm sure honourable members will keep a close interest in that. There will continue to review braid and other findings as they become available to ensure early decisions can be made to keep the program updated and dynamic.

We are also investigating the age threshold for screening, currently only higher risk women are invited for screening below the age of 50. They the women over 70 can choose to opt back in to regular screens. A trial is reviewing whether an additional screen three years before and three years after the existing age threshold would increase the effectiveness of this program and save more lives. The Edith refer -- research studies looking at whether AI can be used to help the reading of mammograms will stop if it can it could really -- relieve pressure on workforce and allow more screens to take place and increase capacity to translate results of the government has invested £11 million into this and More More widely More widely the More widely the government More widely the government is committed to tackling breast-cancer and ensuring that women get diagnosed and treated faster and more efficiently, that's why we are publishing a national cancer plan later this year, the plan would have patients at its heart and cover the entirety of the pathway from referral and diagnosis to treatment and ongoing care as well as prevention screening research and innovation.

Ill seek to improve every aspect of cancer care to improve the experience and outcomes of people with cancer. Our goal is to reduce the number of lives lost to cancer over the next 10 years and to finish, please can I thank my honourable friend and members of being here this evening, given this House an important opportunity to shine a light on the life-saving importance of breast screening. She is doing a great service in publicising her work in the NHS and I wish her good luck with race for life.

We all have the same goal and together we can improve outcomes and increase the number of women surviving breast-cancer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House do now adjourn. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The "Ayes" have it.
00:00
None Portrait Message from The King
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page