National Planning Policy Framework

Debate between Gideon Amos and Andrew George

Thursday 16th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George]

As my hon. Friend is aware, I am very fortunate to have secured a place in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, and my Bill will be on affordable homes. The details have not been written, so there is an opportunity to work on that with him, and indeed with the Secretary of State. I am very keen to do so and to adapt a number of those policies so that it provides a framework within which the Government can work with Parliament to improve and adjust planning policy to achieve the desirable aims.

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. He reminds me that, frankly, I struggle with the fact that such a momentous and significant policy instrument is going through Parliament without a vote. It can hardly be right that these major policy changes, which will unleash development all over the country and reverse decades-old planning policies, will not be subject to a vote, considering that we quite rightly spend weeks and months going through Bills.

I am very grateful that my hon. Friend has chosen to prioritise these issues and is bringing them forward in his private Member’s Bill. I wish him well. I know that the Minister always works constructively across the House, and his work is appreciated for that. I know the Minister will work with my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives on his private Member’s Bill, as of course will I.

Together, the existing and proposed frameworks begin to look like a greenfield-first approach. The golden rules, which would rightly require more affordable and social housing where green belt is released, are absolutely right. But the Government have consulted on allowing viability assessments to potentially undermine that. I encourage the Minister to say something on whether land should escape the golden rules requiring more social housing just because it has been previously developed. The binning of the garden city principles in the draft is equally damaging. They are the very foundation of what made the new post-war towns, such as Milton Keynes with its famous 22 million trees, some of the best places to live. That is no doubt a bit of drafting by those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Similar centralising is proposed on nature and climate. National development management policies, along with constraints on local standard setting, will stop councils exceeding the statutory 10% of biodiversity net gain. Again, proposed policy PM13 will prevent councils from setting more ambitious energy targets. We saw the folly of that under the previous Government, who refused to continue with the zero-carbon homes programme. If they had continued that, and we had had solar panels on every house built since then, we could have avoided the need for an entire 900 MW power station—perhaps a small nuclear reactor or a gas-fired power station.

Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills pointed out, policy F5, paragraph 2(b)(ii), would create a new exemption from the sequential test for sites at risk of surface water flooding. As my hon. Friend said, the insurance industry has pointed out that there could be as many as 400,000 mortgage prisoners in the future, unable to afford insurance as a result of these kinds of policies.

To conclude, the Liberal Democrats are firmly committed to delivering the housing that we and our communities need, but placing all the emphasis on increasing permissions for private sector homes that few can afford is not the answer. We know that that will not reduce—and has not reduced—prices to make homes affordable. New homes are only 5% of the market, after all. With 13,000 homes with planning permission unbuilt in Somerset and 359,000 empty homes in the country, we should be redoubling our efforts to deliver on both of those fronts first.

What a community-led approach really means—and this framework lacks almost anything about community involvement—is homes that people can afford: council and social rent homes, alongside rent-to-own to help people get on to the housing ladder. The environment, our people and our communities are not the blockers of development; they are—or at least should be—the reason for development, and we can enhance the life chances of both if we get it right.

Bovine Tuberculosis Control and Badger Culling

Debate between Gideon Amos and Andrew George

Monday 13th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

Meur ras—pur dha—to my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). If we are being boastful about the number of people who are supporting the petition, the St Ives constituency, I should say that which includes west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, came first with 470 signatures. It is worth pausing for a moment to respect the constituency for having achieved that figure.

I do not want to make light of the issue, though. My hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth and others have rightly drawn attention to how it is a matter of deep emotion for everyone, but especially for the farmers who have been very deeply affected. Many farmers in my constituency have had a reactor and have been closed down and lost cattle. That has a very significant emotional impact on the family and on the viability of the holding, which is not something that we should dismiss or ignore.

I have been involved in this debate for many years. I was a member of the Agriculture Committee back in 1997—that shows my age—when randomised badger control trials started. At that stage, the independent scientific group used triplet areas, with proactive cull, reactive cull or no action, and my constituency was included. I was a strong supporter of the trial. I ran the gauntlet of a lot of animal rights campaigners at the time by supporting a cull in the area.

I believe that when we are establishing any kind of policy, we must base it on sound science; we cannot simply conjecture. The research by the independent scientific group provided a lot of baseline evidence against which we have been able to track and compare data over many years, which is really important. I supported it not because I wanted to see badgers culled, or because I felt that they were guilty, but on the basis that we needed to get the evidence. At the time, that was the only way of getting the evidence necessary to base our policy on sound science.

Since then, there have been many further iterations in the development of the policy. I remember the policy of proactive culling, which is rightly being brought to a close by the Government now, being brought forward within hotspot areas in 2014. The debates in the House of Commons at the time were sharply divided between team farmer and team badger—I think they even referred to themselves as such—while I was saying, “What about team science?” We need to base this policy on the evidence. Some people will remember the then right hon. Member for North Shropshire, who was the Secretary of State, accusing badgers of shifting the goalposts, which caused a great deal of mirth. We had a lot of fun at his expense on that occasion, I am sorry to say.

It is important that the Government look very carefully at the science as they go forward. To pre-empt what I will say at the end of my comments, I think they are coming to the right conclusion. I welcome the approach they appear to be taking. People have referred to badgers being involved in the spread of bovine TB, and it is reasonable to say that the science indicates that they are, but I would argue, and the evidence appears to show, that they are involved to a lesser extent than cattle-to-cattle transmission.

A 2021 University of Cambridge molecular genetics paper by van Tonder et al. demonstrated that, on the basis of the studies they undertook, bovine TB is 17 times more likely to spread between cattle than to originate from badgers. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. I imagine that she and her scientists have been looking closely at whole genome sequencing, which makes it possible not just to identify that there is a reactor, but to identify the source of the bovine TB and trace the sequencing process. That and the work of the University of Cambridge indicates where the infection originates. It is important to understand that when one is coming to conclusions in this respect.

While we were debating the matter in 2014, I was talking to Professor Rosie Woodroffe of the Zoological Society of London, who was involved in the randomised badger control trials and other work and who advises the Government on their partnership group. We were working with farmers in the constituency on the first community-led badger vaccination project. The Zoological Society of London did some great work at the time. We recruited a lot of support among the community of people who were not vaccinators, although some wished to undertake the training to become vaccinators.

That was the start of the first vaccination project where the community offered to support our farmers in the roll-out in Penwith—that is in the Land’s End area, for those that do not know my constituency well. Unfortunately, in 2015 I had to go on sabbatical from the House of Commons and therefore was not able to follow it as closely as I would have liked to as a Member of Parliament. There was then a worldwide shortage of the BCG vaccine, so projects like that could not proceed for two years. Nevertheless, the work of the Zoological Society of London continued across Penwith and the St Austell and Helston areas and is now rolling out further work elsewhere in Cornwall. A paper it published last August in People and Nature—for which, I say to the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, the abstract was in Kernewek, which is a first—demonstrated that the vaccination trials over four years in the St Austell area showed very productive results. I hope that the Minister and her scientists are prepared to look closely at that.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a helpful speech that benefits from his huge amount of experience. I congratulate the 229 people from my constituency who signed the petition. On the basis of team science, does my hon. Friend agree with Keith Cutler, a constituent of mine who is a past president of the British Cattle Veterinary Association, who has pointed out in academic papers that the DEFRA testing is really not up to standard and that a far better testing regime is needed? With better testing, there could be better monitoring and better control, preventing the cattle-to-cattle transmission, which, as we have heard, accounts for the greatest proportion.

[Andrew George]

My hon. Friend is of course correct. The testing regime has been hotly debated—indeed, not just debated; successive Government Ministers and scientists have promised progress on the testing regime for many years. In 1997, the agriculture Select Committee looked at this issue and the benefits of shifting from the tuberculin skin test to the gamma interferon test. The gamma interferon is often used and is a much more sensitive test. It produces many more false positives, which perhaps one might argue is a good thing, and fewer false negatives, so perhaps, if one wants to have a baseline of clean cattle, one might use it, but it adds to the complexity. None of this is perfect, of course, but perhaps the Minister might address the issue of the testing regimes that the Government are prepared to consider using to get on top of the disease.

I have a range of questions that I would like to ask the Minister. The first is about the tuberculin test and the gamma interferon test. I remember that back in 1997 there was a lot of talk about the diagnostic instrument for vaccinated animals test, or DIVA test, which has been referred to already, to differentiate between infected and vaccinated cattle. Clearly, that would be a golden bullet and enormously helpful to the industry, because until we get across that line, no cattle vaccine, no matter how effective it is, can be used, because farmers would not be able to sell cattle into the marketplace if they were not able to undertake that differentiation test. In 1997 we were told that an effective DIVA test was up to 10 years away. Every time we look at it, it is always 10 years away; the date simply rolls forward. We have been dealing with this issue for many years, so I would like to know this from the Minister: are we any closer to securing a DIVA test?

Secondly, if we are going to base policy on vaccination, are there enough vaccinators and do we have a mechanism through which we can create more? My understanding is that at present we have nothing like enough people who have the licence to undertake vaccination. When we were rolling out the community-led vaccination trial in my own constituency all those years ago, we knew that we were fortunate to have a number of people available to us then, but we also knew at the time that if any of them were to fall ill, we would struggle to continue the work. Clearly, there needs to be significant investment in training, and it is not something that can simply be created overnight. Maybe we could bring in a lot of vets, but that is an expensive way of doing it. Perhaps the Minister would like to advise us on that.

Gatcombe farm, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) has been referred to on many occasions already, so I will not go into it, but have the Government taken a view of the Gatcombe trials? If so, what has been identified?

Can the Minister tell us whether we are on the cusp of the end of the culling? My understanding is that no new licences are likely to be granted. On the basis of the licences that have been granted, is it reasonable therefore to say that this winter will be the last when there is any culling at all? When the Government announced their policy last year, there was a lot of concern that there would be culling until the end of this Parliament, but it looks to me—I may be wrong—as if culling is going to end. If so, the vaccine, cattle security measures and biosecurity measures need to be brought forward as quickly as possible.

What lessons have the Government learned from the Welsh Assembly policy so far? Wales has been ahead of England and Cornwall for some time in rolling out vaccines. Have any lessons been learned through conversations with other Government Departments? Similarly, southern Ireland was undertaking a widespread cull policy, which it stopped. What lessons have been learned there? I do not know, and I wonder whether the Government are fully aware.