Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Seventh sitting)
Wednesday 14th May 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2025 - (14 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to our Hansard colleagues at hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I also ask Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Officially, I think that Members have to ask my permission to remove their jackets, so I can give a unilateral order, on a hot day like this, that you may all have it off—[Laughter.] You may all remove your jackets; it is hot, especially for women of a certain age. We now come to clause 47.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 47, page 62, leave out from line 32 to line 2 on page 63.
This relates to amendment 22. This amendment would remove the requirement for unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 22, in clause 47, page 63, leave out lines 14 to 17.
This relates to amendment 21. This amendment would remove the requirement for unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq—although I was not sure how much of a pleasure until you introduced the sitting in the way that you did.
Amendments 21 and 22 would remove the requirement on unitary authorities to prepare spatial development strategies, simply based on the resources that unitary authorities have and the stretch under which they have been placed.
My own authority is working hard to stave off financial challenges after being left with a massive deficit to manage—£2 of every £3 of the council’s funding is spent on care for children and adults, but it also has to prepare a new local plan. It has permission for 11,000 homes that are not yet built, but the new plan will require a 41% increase in housing allocations in Somerset, which is a massive task that will cost millions of pounds. For an individual unitary authority, having to not only establish a unitary local plan but, at the same time, prepare a spatial development strategy seems over the top. That should be reserved for mayoral authorities, where a strategic authority is established.
We do not oppose the concept of spatial development strategies; for strategic-level authorities, they could be a sensible addition to the planning system to reintroduce the strategic level of planning that was taken away. However, we are concerned about the significant additional burden on unitary authorities in also being required to prepare spatial development strategies that are meant to be more strategic in nature and have more than a single unitary authority area. With that in mind, I commend amendments 21 and 22 to the Committee.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to resume our proceedings with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling amendment 21, but the Government will have to resist it for reasons that I will set out. Having said that, as we have already discussed in previous sessions, we absolutely recognise the real challenges that local planning authorities face not only in resourcing but more widely in capability and capacity. We have discussed a number of the measures that the Government are taking, both in the Bill and outside it, to address that challenge.
Amendments 21 and 22 seek to make upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities ineligible to produce a spatial development plan. It is the Government’s intention that, in the future, all spatial development strategies will be produced by strategic authorities in accordance with our devolution framework, including combined authorities, combined county authorities and the Greater London Authority. While we are making substantial progress, with six areas currently part of the devolution priority programme, the establishment of strategic authorities across the whole of England will be a gradual process.
However, the Government want to move quickly on strategic planning. That means that, as well as combined authorities and combined county authorities, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities are being made into strategic planning authorities with a requirement to produce a spatial development strategy. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington would remove the requirement for those aforementioned authorities.
The requirement to produce a spatial development strategy will be realised either individually or in defined groupings; in some cases, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities may also be grouped with a combined authority or combined county authority. As such, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Gideon Amos
Dr Huq, I do not know whether I get the opportunity to sum up, so I have jumped in with an intervention. Could the Minister clarify the circumstances in which an individual unitary authority—perhaps a unitary county such as Somerset, or Oxfordshire, if it becomes a unitary county—would be required to, on its own, prepare a spatial development strategy? Will all unitary authorities be required to prepare spatial development strategies on top of, and in parallel with, preparing local plans? I think that that clarification would be helpful.
The Chair
Apparently, there will be a chance to sum up and to respond to the summing up.
Matthew Pennycook
Thank you for that clarification, Dr Huq; we may hear further from the hon. Gentleman on that point. Just to be clear, the Government are driving for universal coverage for strategic planning across the whole of England, so, either individually or in defined groupings, upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities will have to, in some form, be part of producing a spatial development strategy.
As I said, I very much recognise the challenge that the hon. Gentleman posed around resourcing. It is worth pointing out that, in addition to the elements that we discussed yesterday—the £46 million that the Budget allocated to local planning authority capacity and capability, and the measures in the Bill allowing for the setting of fees locally and the ringfencing of those fees—the Government have already identified funding for 2025-26 to support authorities to prepare for the production of spatial development strategies. We recognise the need for core funding and that is being negotiated with the Treasury as part of the spending review for 2026 to 2029.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Could the Minister outline what would happen if a unitary council created a spatial development strategy and then became part of a larger, bigger authority under the devolution? What would happen to their specific strategy, and would that new authority, as a bigger authority, have to create a new SDS across the whole area?
Matthew Pennycook
Over time, spatial development strategies will have to reflect the appropriate geographies at the point they are renewed and refreshed—if that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point. But as I said, either individually or in groupings through the strategic boards we are creating, we will have to have those SDSs in places, although obviously the geographies will be able to change over time, if that is the wish of the component member authorities.
As I was saying, for the reasons I have outlined the Government believe that the legislation, as drafted, is essential to support the introduction of our strategic planning policy, which is an important means of ensuring our pro-growth agenda and that we are able to deliver 1.5 million homes over this Parliament. As we have argued on many occasions, the introduction of a robust, universal system of strategic planning is a core part of the Government’s reform agenda, and we think that the Bill is required to operate in the way that I have set out. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to withdraw his amendment.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, and he has my respect for bringing strategic planning back into the system. I know he has worked on that for a number of years; some of us have also worked on regional planning for a number of years and can remember the regional spatial strategy processes—in fact, took part in them. However, the question of individual unitary authorities preparing SDSs remains quite a challenge.
Perhaps the Minister, in summing up, could say something about the timescale. I can see that the Government are moving towards universal coverage of mayoral—well, strategic—authorities, as well as SDSs, which makes sense, but the timescale will be crucial here. If an individual authority becomes something of an orphan, or it needs time to ally itself with others and agree its strategic authority area—for example, Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire put forward their proposal but were knocked back, so they cannot establish that strategic authority—it would seem unfair for those authorities to be required to prepare three SDSs for those three counties on top of three local plans. That is a massive amount of work. We must not underestimate the weight of work that goes into a local plan. For a huge area such as Somerset, it will costs tens of millions of pounds and it will take several years. For those three authorities also to be required to prepare an SDS at the same time would be unfortunate.
If the timing could work such that—this may be the Government’s intention—those authorities have sufficient time to establish their mayoral strategic authorities first, and then develop an SDS, that would appear to be a much better way. I am interested in the Minister’s comments on that. We do not intend to press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
Minister, I am advised that you are not obliged to speak now—you can respond in writing—but if you wish to, you can.
Matthew Pennycook
I will address a couple of points to give the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington some reassurance. First, I very much welcome his support for the reintroduction of sub-regional strategic planning—I would actually say introduction, because we are not proposing a regional model along the lines of what happened before.
In our view, there has been a clear lack of strategic planning and of those effective cross-boundary mechanisms between local authorities for delivering housing growth in the past 14 years. Therefore, we do not intend to wait for strategic planning to be reintroduced. It is the Government’s intention for all future SDSs to be produced by strategic authorities, but I recognise that there is a sequencing issue here.
As I have said, however, establishing strategic authorities nationwide will be a gradual process, and the Government want all areas of England to feel the benefit of effective strategic planning as soon as possible. Strategic planning boards will allow areas outside of strategic authorities to do that, so we think there is a mechanism that will allow for those instances where a strategic authority is not yet in place. As I said, however, I do recognise the sequencing issue.
To reiterate to the hon. Gentleman, we have already identified funding for 2025-26 to support authorities to prepare for the production of spatial development strategies. We expect all local planning authorities within the area of a strategic planning authority, such as district councils within a combined authority, to be closely involved in the production of a spatial development strategy, including by sharing staff members and expertise. That is already standard practice in areas producing a joint local plan, which can be done at the discretion of local authorities wishing to take part, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. On that basis, I hope that I have reassured him and other hon. Members as to the Government’s intentions in this area.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 47, page 63, leave out from line 28 to the end of line 28 on page 65.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 122, in clause 47, page 64, line 40, at end insert—
“(e) requiring the production of infrastructure delivery plans;
(f) funding for meeting the requirements of this subsection.”
This amendment would extend the list of matters which the Secretary of State could include in regulations about strategic planning boards.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I cannot tell you how delighted I am to be here for the second day in a row, with a third day tomorrow.
This simple amendment would block the mandatory transfer of powers over planning to strategic planning authorities in proposed new sections 12B and 12C of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. On the consultation for the spatial development strategy, we also think the consultation requirement in proposed new section 12H(3) should be replaced with a simple requirement to consult the public.
Blocking the mandatory transfer of powers over planning to strategic planning authorities would allow for greater local control and flexibility in decision making. It would ensure that planning decisions remained more closely aligned with the specific needs and priorities of individual communities, rather than being imposed by a centralised authority. Local authorities often have a better understanding of their residents’ needs, the environmental considerations and the unique challenges, making them more capable of tailoring development plans to suit their areas.
Retaining those powers at the local level would also promote accountability, as local officials and politicians are directly answerable to the communities they serve, and foster a more transparent and responsible planning process. That approach would encourage more balanced development that reflects local aspirations, while reducing the risk of a one-size-fits-all solution imposed from above.
We take into account the comments of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington about the burden on local authorities. I think the Minister has responded to that issue, but I would like to press him further on the Government’s drive to unitarisation. He is outlining that, as we go through, this would be a gradual process, but I hope he would acknowledge that there is a risk that the repeated reforming of local government could mean added bureaucracy and a repeated requirement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said, to amalgamate plans and go through another review period. I hope the Minister can reassure us that there would be no burden on local authorities in relation to amendment 21, which slightly ties into the concerns and aspirations behind why amendment 76 was tabled, but I do not intend to debate this amendment for very long.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I bob to speak to amendment 122. Is now the right time?
Olly Glover
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq, and thank you for your ongoing generosity to those of us who continue to learn how Bill Committees work.
Lib Dem amendment 122 would require the production of infrastructure delivery plans by local authorities and accompanying funding to meet the requirements of those. I note the comments of other hon. Members about taking into account the administrative burden on local authorities; we need to strike the optimum balance here, but I shall explain why I think infrastructure development plans are of merit and need to be mandated.
For those not familiar with IDPs—to use yet another dreaded acronym—I should say that they are developed during the local plan-making stage and serve as an important part of the evidence base and quality of those local plans. They identify and schedule the infrastructure needs for a community, including social, physical and green infrastructure, all of which are needed in addition to houses for the high quality, well-functioning communities we all wish to see.
The planning policy team at the local authority writes to all infrastructure providers to ask them to identify what infrastructure will be needed to accompany the development that the local plan is proposing. That becomes a list, which is tested through a viability assessment and local plan examination. Once the plan is adopted, and at the point where planning applications are submitted, planning officers will use the IDP to help to secure infrastructure—through direct delivery, financial contributions or indeed a mix of the two. IDPs are therefore an important part of both securing infrastructure and tracking the progress of its delivery.
However, at present IDPs are not compulsory and are not specified in the national planning policy framework or the Government’s planning practice guidance. Local plans are supposed to be reviewed every five years, although many are not, and by extension IDPs may be updated only infrequently. We think Government should compel local authorities to produce infrastructure delivery plans so that communities get the necessary infrastructure to create the well-function communities that we need to transform our country.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. As we have seen, there are very many amendments to this part of the Bill, which speaks to the fact that it is one of the most important parts of the legislation the Government are moving through. It is absolutely necessary that it should happen, but I want to make a quick point about infrastructure that is pertinent to this amendment.
As the Minister knows, and the Committee may know, I represent Ebbsfleet Garden City in Dartford: a new community that has arisen from no homes in about 2015 to around 5,000 now, and is due to be 15,000 by the middle of the next decade. We have seen with Ebbsfleet Garden City the importance of social and physical infrastructure being built alongside homes. Generally, the corporation there has done a good job in making sure that there are schools, recreation areas, community spaces and medical facilities; the timing has not always been brilliant, and sometimes the growth of the homes has outstripped the provision of infrastructure, but that infrastructure does eventually get delivered.
It is extremely important that the Minister gives an assurance, in line with what the amendment, I know, is seeking to do. I do not know whether the precise format that the amendment suggests is the right way to do it, but it is vital that we see that social and physical infrastructure grow at the same time as the housing.
Lewis Cocking
Does the hon. Member agree that nothing in this Bill makes developers build the social infrastructure that he is describing, which many communities desperately need, first—or at all?
Jim Dickson
The hon. Member is helping me to make my point. The only difference I have with him is that I know that the Government intend to ensure that infrastructure appears at the same time as homes and the Minister will provide reassurance on that. It is vital that that happens, via either a development corporation with those powers, or the spatial development strategies that we are discussing. Let us ensure that we do build the physical and social infrastructure at the same time as homes, with the examples of generally good development we see in Ebbsfleet Garden City reproduced elsewhere, as the Government meet their ambitious plans to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me begin with amendment 76, tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, which seeks to remove provision for the establishment of strategic planning boards that would allow two or more authorities to produce a spatial development strategy jointly. The main purpose of strategic planning is to provide a mechanism for cross-boundary planning between local planning authorities and to plan for growth on a scale that is larger than local. For that to be done as effectively as possible, it is essential that spatial development strategies are produced across the most appropriate geographies. To that end, it will be necessary for some strategic planning authorities to be grouped together so that they can produce a spatial development strategy across their combined area. Unless SDSs are produced across appropriate geographies, they will not be as effective as they could be and the full benefits of strategic planning will not be realised.
To address the perfectly reasonable point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, establishing strategic authorities nationwide will be a gradual process, as I said, and the Government want all areas of England to benefit from effective strategic planning as soon as possible. Therefore, in some cases, responsibility for producing an SDS will transfer between different authorities while the broader reforms are being undertaken. We are seeking powers in the Bill to complement existing powers to make regulations for transitional arrangements when such scenarios occur, similar to how responsibility for a local plan can transfer when a local authority becomes a unitary authority. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.
I turn to amendment 122, which seeks to add provision for infrastructure delivery plans and funding to the list of matters in proposed new section 12C(3) to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 that the Secretary of State may consider, including in regulations establishing a strategic planning board. I should make it clear to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that that list is not exhaustive. Indeed, proposed new section 12C(2) is clear:
“Strategic planning board regulations may make provision about…such…matters as the Secretary of State considers are necessary or expedient to facilitate the exercise by a strategic planning board of its functions”.
In general terms, the Government are clear that new development must come with the appropriate social and physical infrastructure and amenities for new communities to thrive. The hon. Member for Broxbourne challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, saying that there are not provisions in the Bill directly relating to things like infrastructure delivery plans. That is right, but the Bill is not the sum total of the action the Government are taking in housing and planning. As my hon. Friend alluded to, we are talking action in other areas. However, to address the point made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage directly, it is not the Government’s intention for strategic planning boards or any other strategic planning authority to be required to produce an infrastructure delivery plan, although I am more than happy to pick up the wider discussion about infrastructure with him outside the Committee.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for reiterating the Government’s position and commitment to infrastructure delivery alongside housing. Will he comment specifically on infrastructure that allows people to get on a train and go to work? Does he agree that transport infrastructure is critical and that we must not build homes in the middle of nowhere, which condemn people to poverty? The ability of people to connect to places by getting on a train or a bus to go to work and earn a decent wage, and then to get back home, is crucial for an economy that works for everyone.
Matthew Pennycook
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As we know, done properly, transport infrastructure and effective interventions in that regard can unlock huge numbers of homes. As I said, the Government have already taken action to support the provision of infrastructure, for example in the changes to the national planning policy framework in December last year, and we are looking at what more can be done, but it is not necessary for the clause to introduce that.
I will make a final point about how IDPs work now. IDPs are put in place where local authorities decide to take them forward, on the basis that they support the delivery of a local development plan. Local development plans have to be in general conformity with spatial development strategies. There is a clear link here, even though we are not asking strategic planning boards to have responsibility for bringing forward IDPs in the way that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage suggests. I hope that I have given him some reassurance and, on that basis, that he will agree that amendment 122 is not necessary. I also request that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley withdraws his amendment 76.
Paul Holmes
I appreciate the spirit in which, as usual, the Minister comes back. I am content to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I would appreciate some further conversations and some reassurance on how, in the reform of local government, we do not add an undue burden on local authorities.
The hon. Member for Barking made an astute point, as usual, approaching this topic with her experience: we must absolutely make sure that where development happens, whether in rural areas or areas in the middle of nowhere—although I presume that that would be rural too—the infrastructure also comes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said, nowhere is that stated in the legislation.
The Minister is a man of integrity and I take what he says as such. I know that his aims and ambitions are to make sure that there are further plans with an infrastructure-first approach, but given the Bill at the moment, as well as the reforms and changes to the NPPF, the aspirations of the hon. Member for Barking will simply not be met under this legislative agenda. Indeed, some of the housing targets and reforms brought in by this Government have placed an overwhelming burden on rural areas, rather than on urban areas where the infrastructure is already in place and easier to develop.
We look forward to challenging and scrutinising the Minister in future stages of the Bill. We also await with anticipation proposed future legislation that he will bring forward on infrastructure—
Paul Holmes
Not legislation, sorry. Forgive me. We are good mates—well, I think we are—so I must resist the temptation to talk across the aisle. On that basis, we look forward to what the Minister will say. We will scrutinise the measures on infrastructure that he may bring forward, and we will not press the amendment to a vote.
Olly Glover
Briefly, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and for his empathy with and understanding of the point that we sought to make about infrastructure supporting housing. I am very grateful for his offer to discuss the wider problem at a future stage. On that basis, I am content not to move amendment 122.
Paul Holmes
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 47, page 65, line 34, at end insert—
“(1A) A spatial development strategy must prioritise for new development previously-developed land.”
This amendment would require that spatial development strategies prioritise development on brownfield land over other locations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 75, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) A strategic planning board has a duty to ensure that any development specified or described under subsections (4) or (5) does not take place on green belt land unless there is no practicable option for development in existing urban areas, including by—
(a) increasing the density of existing development, and
(b) regenerating an existing development,
in an urban area.”
This amendment would ensure that a strategic planning board must only propose development on green belt land where development in urban areas is not possible.
Amendment 82, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a spatial development strategy proposes the development or use of agricultural land, the strategy must consider—
(a) the grade of such agricultural land;
(b) the cumulative impact of projects developing or using such agricultural land.”
New clause 104—Protection of Green Belt land—
“For the purposes of protecting Green Belt land, local planning authorities must—
(a) within two years of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of existing areas of Green Belt land and;
(b) for areas designated as Green Belt land under the review, prevent any development for a minimum period of 20 years.”
Paul Holmes
The amendments stand in the name my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner or, in the case of amendment 82, my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—I cannot remember his constituency name, but he is listed on the amendment paper. Like the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, I am learning on the job—
Paul Holmes
I appreciate your forbearance, Dr Huq.
The amendment and the others tabled by Conservative Members relate to a brownfield-first approach. Our concern with the measures in the legislation as drafted, and with the actions of the Government so far, is that the green belt at the moment is under threat. Specifically, with amendment 72, we want to ensure that land that has previously been developed should be considered for development ahead of other categories of land. That will reduce pressure to build on undeveloped greenfield land, helping to protect natural habitats, agricultural land and green belt.
In addition, we believe that such developments can regenerate neglected or derelict urban areas, improving the local environment, attracting investment and jobs, and helping residents. That is not to mention that putting brownfield sites first may benefit from existing infrastructure such as roads, public transport and water power, reducing the need for costly new developments, and making services more efficient. Essentially, we are saying to the Minister that we want spatial development to have a brownfield-first and an existing development-first approach, and a basic assumption within those guidelines.
With amendment 75, we want essentially to allow development on green-belt land only where urban development is not possible. Already we have seen in the last couple of weeks the Mayor of London, for example—despite assurances from this Government that the green belt would be safe—proposing to put something forward around the M25 on green-belt land. I know the Minister cannot comment on live planning or on the decision made by the Secretary of State this week, but there are other examples where we are seeing an encroachment on to the green belt. The Government have given assurances that the green belt would not be under threat, but we can see that some measures in the spatial development strategies and the existing powers being given to Ministers and the Secretary of State do not provide overwhelming safeguards to the green belt across the UK.
The amendment is a perfectly practicable step to make sure that ,where we have previously developed land and brownfield sites, there is a basic assumption that that is where buildings should go first, for all the reasons I set out. We also think that restricting development on green-belt land, and allowing it only where urban development is not possible, helps to protect the countryside from urban sprawl and ensures that the natural landscape, farmland and biodiversity are preserved for future generations.
We also argue that it encourages a more efficient use of previously developed brownfield sites, as I said, within towns and cities, supporting urban regeneration and reducing the environmental impact of new construction. I think that slightly matches the aspirations of the hon. Member for Barking: by focusing growth within existing urban areas, this approach also makes better use of existing infrastructure and public services, helps to maintain clear boundaries between towns and rural areas, and supports sustainable patterns of development that are less car dependent and more community focused.
Amendment 82 would require that a spatial development strategy consider the grade of agricultural land and the cumulative impact of projects on agricultural land. Notwithstanding what I said about the protection of the green belt, previous actions, particularly by the Minister’s ministerial colleagues from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, show an eradication of, and an easier approach to developing on, agricultural land. The position we have long held on that, which I know the Minister may not agree with, is that in this world of uncertainty, agricultural land should be protected. Food security is of absolute importance when we have seen food prices go up in the country because of international uncertainty.
By requiring a spatial development strategy to consider both the grade of agricultural land and the cumulative impact of projects such as the ones I described, the amendment would help to safeguard the UK’s long-term food security. High-grade agricultural land is a finite and valuable resource—I think everyone on the Committee would agree with that—and it is essential for domestic food production. Factoring in its quality ensures that development prioritises lower-value land where possible, reducing the loss of productive farm land. Additionally, considering the cumulative impact of multiple developments helps to prevent gradual, piecemeal erosion of agricultural capacity, which might otherwise go unnoticed in individual planning decisions. This approach promotes a more balanced and informed strategy that protects rural economies, biodiversity and the resilience of the agricultural sector.
I hope the Minister takes the amendments in the spirit in which they are intended, which is to protect. They are not political amendments, but genuine attempts to probe the Minister to see whether he could bring in some additional protections—despite previous actions on the green belt—and look to strengthen the legislation to protect agricultural land, which I know he will agree is so important at this time for our domestic food production. The Government have been positive, and I welcome the food strategy announced by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We support that, and we absolutely agree with the aspiration.
We need a food strategy in this country—before the Minister stands up and says that the last Government did not do enough on that, let me say that I think that is a fair challenge. That is why we welcomed the Secretary of State’s announcement at the beginning of this Government, but that has to be matched by the legislative actions being taken in other areas of Government, which is why we have tabled these amendments.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to new clause 104, which relates to green belt protection. We recognise that the Government’s proposals are set out in the national planning policy framework. We do not support the way in which the standard method is being imposed on local authorities, nor do we support the way in which green belt release will be forced on local authorities through the requirement that they review and effectively release land for green belt. However, among the rules that the Government have put forward, we sympathise with the strictures they have come up with for the release of green-belt land where local authorities decide to do that, which should support higher levels of social housing.
Our new clause would require a quid pro quo for the release of green-belt land, which clearly will happen—it must happen, because it has been required and dictated in an NPPF. Local areas want to see proper protection for their green-belt land. Indeed, many areas would like to have a green belt, but it is extremely difficult for areas that have not historically had green belt to introduce it, such that there are hardly any areas where that has ever happened.
There is therefore an inequity in terms of protecting land. Greenfield land can be just as valuable and important in Taunton, where we have green wedges stretching into the centre of town, as it is in and around London, where there is official green belt protection. Our new clause would provide for local authorities to carry out a review of the green belt and then to protect that land from development for 20 years. That semi-permanent protection would be a quid pro quo for the loss of green-belt land that many authorities will see under the NPPF.
It gives people a real sense of the planning system’s failures when they have believed for years and years that a piece of land near them is protected green belt, but then they attend the planning committee or some meeting, and a planner—possibly like myself in the past—comes up and says, “Oh, no, no. It’s not actually protected any more. It’s not got long-term protection; that protection didn’t mean anything,” and it is wafted away. Communities want to know how their most precious areas of green land will be protected. Our amendment seeks to provide them with a mechanism to establish green belt protection for at least 20 years.
Nesil Caliskan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I would like to make a couple of points about the green belt, not least because I would like to address the direct comments from the shadow Minister.
Nesil Caliskan
I do not expect him to have followed my very short career to date or my position on the green belt, but just for the record, my long-standing position has been to identify appropriate areas on the green belt, particularly in London, where we have a housing crisis, that can be built on. The truth is that there are many areas of the green belt—areas that could, indeed, be described as grey belt—that already have some kind of development, perhaps without planning permission, or where enforcement is needed, that are entirely appropriate for housing development, and many of those areas are already well connected.
In my constituency, a new train station has been built in the Barking Riverside area in recent years. It is not green belt, but it is strategic industrial land. In our discussions about well-connected neighbourhoods, we often forget the pressure on strategic industrial land, too. That is a good example of where infrastructure was delivered and houses have followed. The rest of the country can follow that example.
On the point about urban areas needing to be the priority for development, of course, we have to see urban development intensify in housing delivery, but many of our urban areas already have high density, and overcrowding is a familiar picture. It is simply not possible to deliver the housing numbers we need by looking only at urban areas. I often hear the argument that it should be brownfield sites first. Of course, they should be first, but if people think there is a secret drawer full of brownfield sites that will deliver the housing numbers we need in this country, they are out of touch with the housing pressures facing our communities.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is right that I have not followed the minutiae of her career, but I know from her comments in the Chamber and this Committee that she has an expertise that we should all listen to, even if we disagree. She led a council for a good while, so I know that she is an expert in these areas.
She outlined in her comments that urban areas should have a higher rate of delivery because they are of higher densities. Why is it, then, that on the Floor of the House, that is not matched by what she is voting for? Housing targets under the new algorithm in her area and her constituency are being reduced, while in rural areas, where she is concerned about the lack of infrastructure, they are being increased exponentially. How does she defend that, with what she has just said?
Nesil Caliskan
The hon. Member gives me the opportunity to make two points. First, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will allow the Government to spearhead infrastructure delivery in this country in rural areas that do not have the necessary infrastructure. That is why the Bill is so important. With the necessary infrastructure, we will be able to see the delivery of homes not just in urban areas. Secondly, to the point about housing delivery in Barking and Dagenham, the area has some of the most impressive stats for house building in London and the rest of the country. It has been delivering housing at a much better rate than areas not just in London, but in the rest of the country.
My final point is about the threat to the green belt, which the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned. The biggest threat to the green belt is not having a strategic approach to planning in this country. If we take the absence of local plans in areas, as it stands, the legal framework means that if a planner says no to a planning application, and there is no up-to-date local plan, then on appeal, the appeal process can enforce such that the development happens in the green belt anyway. We need a strategic approach across the country that not only encourages or, in fact, forces local authorities to have up-to-date local plans, but ensures that house building—alongside infrastructure, which I firmly believe the Bill will help to deliver—is fair in its approach to delivering homes.
We cannot just build in urban areas. We do not have that capacity. It is unfair for those who are already living in overcrowded accommodation. People deserve to have access to open and green spaces, and our rural communities deserve to have the infrastructure necessary for well-connected neighbourhoods. I firmly believe that the Bill supports that, and that the debate around green belt and access is more nuanced than some Opposition Members have set out.
Lewis Cocking
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I rise in support of amendments 72, 75 and 82. I await with anticipation what the Minister will say, because surely we can all agree that green belt should be protected and that we should do brownfield first. Sometimes, under the current planning system, green-belt land gets developed on through the back door.
Even if a council has an up-to-date local plan, there can be issues if it does not meet its five-year land supply or housing targets in terms of its build-out rates, which the council has very little control over. The council has control over the speed and determination of planning applications. However, it can approve all the applications it wants—it could approve thousands—but if the developer or developers are not building them, the council then gets punished. Someone else will come along and say, “I want to develop on this piece of green-belt land,” and when that goes to appeal, the Planning Inspectorate will say to the council, “You haven’t got a five-year land supply, and you’re not meeting your build-out rate targets.” It is the community and the council that get punished for developers not building what they have been given approval to build.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In relation to previous comments that have been made about building on green belt through the back door, does he agree that these amendments strengthen the case for some of those councils? The current planning appeals system takes into regard national guidelines and national legislation, and these amendments provide a safeguard to stop some of those things happening.
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and I completely agree. We should do anything we can to strengthen councils’ hands in protecting green belt. I suspect there is broad support for brownfield-first and protecting the green belt.
I turn to amendment 82, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). A wider failure of the planning system is that it does not account for the cumulative impact of lots of planning decisions. This amendment goes some way to protecting farmland. It may be appropriate for a field to be developed for a specific farming purpose, but if there is lots of development in farming areas in a specific location and the planning committee does not take into account the cumulative impact, there can be negative consequences—for example, where a floodplain is built on and that creates issues for the field next door.
The Government need to grapple with this wider issue of the cumulative impact of lots of development. At the moment, planning committees judge the planning application in front of them and do not necessarily look at the cumulative impact. I hope the Government will support our amendments, in particular amendment 82, which tries to rectify some of those cumulative impacts in order to protect our agricultural land, which is very important for our food security.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank members of the Committee for these amendments. I hope I can give them some reassurance that none of them is necessary from the Government’s point of view.
I turn first to amendments 72, 75 and 82, tabled by the hon. Members for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. These amendments relate to developments taking place on green-belt, brownfield and agricultural land resulting from the introduction of spatial development strategies. While I understand the positive intent behind the amendments in seeking to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect valuable land from development, they are not necessary, as current national policy already achieves the intended aims.
On amendment 72, I fully agree that we must make the best use possible of brownfield land for development. The Government have been very clear that we have a brownfield-first approach to development. That is recognised in national planning policy. We made changes in the recent national planning policy framework update to expand the definition of “previously developed land” and reinforce the expectation that development proposals on such land within settlements should normally be approved.
We are also consulting on our working paper on a brownfield passport, which we are considering through the introduction of national development management policies, as provided for by the previous Government’s Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The aim of those proposals we are seeking feedback on—lots of feedback has been gratefully received—is to ensure that we prioritise and accelerate the development of previously developed land wherever possible. We are very firm on our brownfield-first approach.
Paul Holmes
I accept what the Minister says; there is a recognition across Government, demonstrated by some of the actions they have taken, that they have a brownfield-first approach. I simply ask him: what has he got to fear from an amendment that would back that up and ensure that that goes out into the community, strengthening his Government’s position?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that challenge. On this whole group of amendments, whether they have been tabled on the basis of a misunderstanding of spatial development strategies or Members have just taken the opportunity—I completely appreciate why—to initiate wider debates on the Government’s national planning policy, I will address why I do not think they are necessary.
The Government are in absolute agreement on the point made about brownfield first. In a sense, we want the default answer for planning permissions on brownfield to be yes, unless circumstances necessitate otherwise. The hon. Member for Broxbourne made a very good point about build-out, which I addressed yesterday. The Government are looking to take action on build-out, not least with the introduction of the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, to incentivise the prompt build-out of housing sites, and we are looking to bring those forward in fairly short order.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister has just said that he wants a default yes on brownfield sites. Is he concerned that if we give carte blanche to developers and say, “You can build whatever you want on brownfield sites,” some of that development on brownfield sites will not be of the quality that I am sure we both want?
Matthew Pennycook
I am not concerned, for the reasons set out in the “Brownfield Passport” working paper, which I encourage the hon. Gentleman to go away and read, if he has not had the chance to do so already. In a sense, we are looking at a set of proposals, and again I emphasise that we have asked for feedback on them and we are considering how that feedback maps on to how we take forward this approach through national development management policies. In effect, we are saying that there is a presumption that the answer to applications on brownfield land is yes, but it has to meet certain criteria and conditions. The various options that we have explored are set out in that note, but it would absolutely not be a free-for-all on brownfield land, so I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman on that point.
I do not agree that amendment 72 is necessary to achieve the important objective that it raises because, while spatial development strategies will provide for a high-level framework for infrastructure investment for housing growth, they will not allocate specific sites. Strategic planning authorities will be required to have regard to the need to ensure that their spatial development strategy is consistent with national policy. National planning policy, as I have said, already provides strong support for brownfield development, and it is clear that brownfield land should be the first port of call.
It is also clear that authorities should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs. In the event that spatial development strategies do not meet the requirements of the NPPF, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a range of intervention powers to ensure consistency with national policies, and those national policies are clear, as I have argued. I therefore ask that the shadow Minister withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 75 seeks to ensure that spatial development strategies consider other practical options before identifying infrastructure or the distribution of housing within the green belt. To be clear, spatial development strategies cannot allocate land for development. This is a really important point: they can identify broad locations for new development, if the participating members wish to take those forward, and that may include land within the green belt. However, the formal allocation of sites will remain the preserve of local plans and neighbourhood plans.
I am in full agreement that it is crucial to take a brownfield-first approach to development, as I have said, in which the reuse of previously developed land and options to increase density are given priority. I can assure Opposition Members that, when any such green belt review takes place, existing planning policy in relation to the reuse of green belt will still apply. The NPPF makes it clear that, when plans are considering the release of green-belt land, they must demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting identified needs, including making use of brownfield land and optimising the density of developments. This is a point that I have made on several other occasions: there is a sequential approach to plan making to green-belt release, and it is very clearly set out what the Government intend in that regard.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My apologies, Dr Huq, for my late arrival to the Committee. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, for moving the amendment, which stands in my name. I seek a more detailed assurance from the Minister. I appreciate that he is not in a position to comment on the specifics of individual cases, but yesterday I raised something that is very pertinent: the decision of the Secretary of State on the Abbots Langley development.
It was a longstanding principle of the approach to green belt that, where there were hard boundaries such as motorways, rivers and railway lines, the preservation of green space between them and adjoining settlements was very important, because it creates a green boundary and some additional space to reduce air pollution. The Secretary of State’s decision in respect of the national planning policy framework 2025 is effectively to redesignate all such land as grey belt. Areas that our constituents clearly understood were directly protected and were in the green belt have effectively, at the stroke of a pen, been redesignated as grey belt and eligible for development. That is why these amendments are so important. We need to guarantee that those vital green spaces, which provide a bit of a cushion between hard infrastructure and people’s residences, will be preserved and protected. Without commenting on that specific case, will the Minister address the legitimate concerns raised by that decision?
Matthew Pennycook
I will make a couple of points in response to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I understand his argument, but I go back to the point that what we are doing in this clause and others in this part of the Bill is setting out a framework for spatial development strategies for cross-boundary strategic planning. National planning policy is already in place in those areas and is very clear. The national planning policy framework sets out the considerations for deciding whether development in the green belt is appropriate.
The definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the NPPF. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it includes previously developed land in the green belt, such as disused petrol stations, and other land that, although formally designated green belt, does not strongly contribute to green belt purposes. The test of what qualifies as grey belt is very clear in the NPPF, and that is supplemented by planning policy guidance. For every application, there will be a judgment about how the national policy applies—the hon. Gentleman will understand, for the reasons he has outlined, why I will not comment on specifics.
I repeat that it will not be for SDSs to allocate plots of land; that will be for local plans and neighbourhood plans. Where the release of green-belt land is necessary, the Government are asking authorities to prioritise the release of brownfield land within the green belt, along the lines I have just discussed. Our proposal in the Bill to allow spatial development strategies to specify infrastructure of strategic importance or an amount of distribution of affordable housing does not change the existing requirements in relation to the release of green-belt land. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendment 75.
I can assure the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine that the Government are committed to maintaining strong protections on agricultural land, but I do not consider amendment 82 to be necessary to achieve that objective. Strategic planning authorities will need to consider national policy when preparing their SDSs. The NPPF is clear that authorities should make best use of brownfield land before considering development on other types of land, including agricultural land. Planning policy already recognises the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. If the development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer-quality land should be prioritised.
The Government are supplementing the national planning policy that is in place in respect of this issue with a land use framework, which has gone out to consultation. That will set out the Government’s vision for long-term land use change, including by exploring what improvements are needed to the agricultural land classification system to support effective land use decisions. We all agree on the need, on such a constrained island, to make the most effective use of land possible.
When it comes to issues such as solar farms, which we have discussed in the Chamber many times, I want to ensure the debate is proportionate. Even in some of the most optimistic scenarios I have seen for solar deployment, no more than 1% of agricultural land will be released. That is why the National Farmers Union and other bodies have called for a proportionate debate in this area. It will be necessary in certain circumstances to release agricultural land, but that must clearly proceed on the basis of national planning policy.
In the event that spatial development strategies do not meet the requirements in the NPPF, the Bill gives the Secretary of State a range of intervention powers to ensure consistency with national policies. For those reasons, I am confident that there is adequate planning policy and guidance already in place to describe requirements for development on different types of land tenures.
New clause 104, in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, also focuses on green-belt developments. It seeks to prevent development on green-belt land for 20 years or more after a green belt review has been completed. As hon. Members know, the Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, not least in checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another. That remains the case.
I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking. Not only did the green belt expand between 1979 and 1997—it almost doubled to just over 1.6 million hectares—but we saw a significant amount of green-belt land release, in what I would argue was a completely haphazard manner, under the last Government. It is not the case that this Government have introduced green-belt land release for the first time, and through the changes to national policy we are trying to introduce a strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release so that we release the right parts of the green belt first. Our revised national planning policy framework maintains strong protections for the green belt and preserves the long-standing green-belt purposes. It also underlines our commitment to a brownfield-first approach.
However, we know that there is not enough brownfield land in this country, and not least brownfield land that is viable and in the right locations to meet housing demand and needs. That is why we ask local authorities who cannot meet their needs through it to review their green-belt land to identify opportunities to create more affordable, sustainable and well designed developments. In doing so, we expect authorities to prioritise the development of brownfield land and low quality grey-belt land in the first instance.
High performing green-belt land and land safeguarded for environmental reasons will still be protected, and our new golden rules will ensure that development that takes place on the green belt benefits communities in nature, including the delivery of high numbers of affordable housing. That is a really important point to stress once again. Given the value that the public attribute to the green belt, the Government clearly expect that through our golden rules the communities that see development take place on it will benefit in a way that is slightly different from other forms of development.
The framework is clear that where it is necessary—only in exceptional circumstances—to alter green-belt boundaries, that must be done using the local plan process of public consultation and formal examination by planning inspectors. The framework is clear that development can be committed in the green belt only in specific prescribed exceptional circumstances. Beyond that, it can happen only in very special circumstances. That is a high bar.
Given that statutory plans secure the designated status of green-belt land and that planning policy already demands the rational and evidence-based application of green-belt protection for plans and decisions, I do not consider amendment to be necessary. In the same way as I have politely asked Opposition Front-Bench Members to withdraw their amendments, I hope the hon. Member will feel content to withdraw this amendment, for the reasons that I have outlined.
Paul Holmes
As always, I appreciate the Minister’s very detailed response. However, we tabled these amendments to set a precedent. We welcome the Minister’s clear words about how there is an anticipation and a want from the Government’s policy agenda, particularly through the NPPF, for a brownfield-first strategy. He therefore has nothing to fear from allowing some of these new spatial development strategy boards to have that precedence underlying how they are acting and operating.
The Minister is absolutely right that those boards do not allocate sites, but there is an argument to be made about where those boards, in their constitution through the national legislation that is being set up, are guided by precedence that is overwhelmingly backed, as he clearly said, by other legislation and guidance from his Department. He therefore has nothing to fear from amendments 72 and 75.
On amendment 82, I completely understand the Minister’s point. It would be churlish for any politician to stand up and say there should be absolutely no development on agricultural land. That is a fair challenge, and that is not what the amendment’s parameters seek to establish. He was right that development will be needed on such sites on occasions, but again, the amendment would clearly set out that the most valuable productive agricultural land—not in terms of financial value—would have precedence in the guidelines of these new boards.
Again, the Minister should not fear the intentions of the amendment. He clearly set out that he agrees—much more than I thought he would—with some of the aims and aspirations behind the amendments. Apparently, his Government agree with those intentions and will cover them through other means. He should not fear the amendments. I politely ask him to accept them, although I know that he will not change his mind.
Paul Holmes
That does not mean to say that once they are reviewed again after 20 years, those sites might not be allocated, but that is the choice of the local authority and the local people that are leading that piece of work.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that he would have our support for new clause 104 if he decided to press it to a Division. However, there is a clear precedent and reason why we have tabled our three amendments. I say to the Minister that we must go for a brownfield-first approach, with an acceptance that we must protect green-belt land when urban development is not possible. We must also protect the most valuable and productive agricultural land in the country through the planning system and Government regulation. We intend to press amendments 72, 75 and 82 to a vote. I hope that the Liberal Democrats also press theirs to a vote.
Gideon Amos
I rise simply to confirm that we will press new clause 104 to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be brief because I can see that the hon. Members opposite are intent on pressing the amendments to a vote. I have a couple of things to say, at risk of eroding the fondness that hon. Members opposite have expressed for me in recent days. That is troubling, but I will continue none the less.
What can I gently say to the shadow Minister? I think he must have forgotten—because I am sure he has not overlooked it—that it is not the case that the Government have been converted to the Opposition’s view on the subject. From day one, we have been clear about the stipulations in terms of a brownfield-first approach, and the approach to green-belt release that I have outlined. They were clear in the NPPF changes, and they remain the case. I gently challenge the hon. Members by asking them to think again.
SDSs are intended to be high-level plans for housing growth and the allocation of infrastructure investment. They are not big local plans; they do not need to do everything in national planning policy. The logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley is that we transcribe all national planning policy into SDSs and have requirements. The requirements are already there, they apply, and regard will need to be given to them in the development and production of SDSs. For those reasons, I do not think that the amendments are necessary. I humbly ask hon. Members to give a final thought about whether we need a Division.
David Simmonds
Again, at the risk of a political love-in taking place, I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with all of the debates extremely courteously, and he has responded in detail. However, there is a genuine point of principle. I gently respond to him on a point that I raised earlier. We have had a lot of assurances that there is a shared direction of travel around the protection of the green belt.
However, the first significant decision that has been taken by the Secretary of State, in line with the planning practice guidance from February 2025, has driven a coach and horses through the expectations that were set about how that protection will operate. I think that that has stiffened the resolve on this side, so that we are now saying that we need to press the issue, because it is clear that whatever undertakings appear to be made, the reality is that decisions to develop on the green belt, in places that constituents reasonably expect to be protected, are being taken. Therefore, we need to ensure that, as far as possible, we secure those protections in the legislation.
Matthew Pennycook
As I have already said, I will not speak about two individual decisions that have been made. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that the concern that he outlines—that is, a particular decision that he does not agree with—will not be resolved by trying to transcribe national planning policy into the SDS process. National planning policy remains in force, and I do not think it is necessary that in order to achieve the aims that are set out, which the Government agree with—in terms of brownfield first and a strategic approach to green belt release—for the amendments to be agreed. I ask hon. Members to think again, but reading the room, I think they are certain about pressing the amendment to a vote. The Government will resist it.
The Chair
No, because the debate was now, but the votes on amendments 75 and 82 and new clause 104 will come later.
The Chair
This afternoon, probably, after lunch. [Hon. Members: “Why?”] They are in that sequence on the amendment paper.
Gen Kitchen (Wellingborough and Rushden) (Lab)
I know we vote on new clause 104 later. But will we vote on amendments 75 and 82 now?
The Chair
If you look at your amendment paper, page 7 has got amendment 75, but we are only on page 2 now.
Gen Kitchen
Is it not that they are grouped together, so we vote on them as a group?
Paul Holmes
On a point of order, Dr Huq. I am not questioning the Clerk, who has been fantastic, or you as Chair, but I simply do not understand. It may be that I am being thick and stupid. All week we have had votes on the amendment paper listed by grouping, which I have been following. We have votes on amendments in the order they have appeared in the selection list.
I understand that new clauses are slightly different, but the precedent from the previous sessions is that we have voted on Opposition and other amendments tabled in the order they appear in the groupings. Can you explain why, on this occasion, we have voted on Opposition amendment 72, but amendments 75 and 82 come later? I am not challenging your decision; I am just seeking your clarification.
The Chair
The Clerk will talk to you afterwards. We want to go to Prime Minister’s Question Time—there are Members in the Committee Room who have questions at PMQs. As I said, amendment 122 was another example of an amendment where the debate and the vote were separate—I said that it had been previously debated.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 47, page 65, line 36, at end insert—
“(2A) A spatial development strategy must have regard to the need to provide 150,000 new social homes nationally a year.”
This amendment would require spatial development strategy to have regard to the need to provide 150,000 social homes nationally a year.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 73, in clause 47, page 66, line 8, after “describe” insert
“(subject to the conditions in subsection (5A))”.
Amendment 17, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert
“; (c) a specific density of housing development which ensures effective use of land and which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”
This amendment requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.
Amendment 35, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) the particular features or characteristics of communities or areas covered by the strategy which new development must have regard to in order to support and develop a sense of belonging and sense of place;
(d) a design style to which development taking place in part or all of the area covered by the strategy must have regard;
(e) any natural landmarks or features to which development should be sympathetic.”
Amendment 74, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a spatial development strategy specifies or describes an amount or distribution of housing, the strategy must not—
(a) increase the number of homes to be developed in any part of the strategy area by more than 20%, or
(b) reduce the required number of homes to be developed by more than 20% in area part of a strategy area which is an urban area, when compared to the previous spatial development strategy or the amount of housing currently provided in the relevant area.
(5B) In subsection (5A) “urban area” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”
This amendment would place limits on changes to housing targets in a spatial development strategy.
Amendment 94, in clause 47, page 67, line 11, leave out from “means” to the end of line 14 and insert
“housing which is to be let as social rent housing.
(15) For the purposes of this section, “social rent housing” has the meaning given by paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”
This amendment would define affordable housing, for the purposes of spatial development strategies, as social rent housing, as defined in the Directions on Rent Standards.
Amendment 85, in clause 47, page 67, line 13, after “2008,” insert—
“(aa) housing provided by an almshouse charity,”.
Gideon Amos
Amendment 29 would give effect to the Liberal Democrat target of building 150,000 new social homes per year by introducing such a requirement into spatial development strategies. It is a commitment set out in our manifesto, alongside a funding commitment of £6 billion per annum of capital investment—above current levels of affordable housing programme spending—to get to that level of provision over the course of a Parliament.
In contrast, the Government’s commitment of £2 billion in affordable housing programme funding for 2026-27, for up to 18,000 homes, is welcome but, in our view, does not go far enough. For too many people, a decent home has crept out of reach. The National Housing Federation and Shelter both make it clear that at least 90,000 new social homes are needed per year, given the loss of 20,500 social homes in 2023-24. According to the New Economics Foundation, 2 million council and social rent homes have been lost to right to buy since the 1980s, but only 4% of those have been replaced—a massive sell-off, leaving far too many people out in the cold when it comes to their housing aspirations.
A bath cannot be filled if the plug has been taken out. We need to end the current system of right to buy and allow councils the power to do so. As the University of Glasgow has shown, the building of private homes—even at the rates the Government advocate—will not mean any significant reduction in house prices. We should not rely on the private sector to build those low-rent and social rent homes we need. Private sector homes are built for profit. We need private market housing, and we have consented to thousands of new homes in my Taunton and Wellington constituency. However, those homes will never be released on to the market at a rate that will diminish prices or bring rents down to the levels that most people can afford. For all those reasons, we need to build 150,000 social rent homes per year, and that is the target that this amendment seeks to install into spatial environment strategies.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I rise to speak to amendments 17 and 94. Can you clarify this is the correct time to do so?
Ellie Chowns
Marvellous! These amendments have been tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), and I speak to them as probing amendments. Amendment 17
“requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.”
In our previous debate, we discussed questions of housing density. This amendment would help ensure land is used as effectively and efficiently as possible and prevent urban sprawl by encouraging strategic planning strategies to specify the optimal level of housing densities. It is not about specifying particular levels of housing densities but making sure that, in the preparation of strategic plans, adequate attention is given to the question of housing density.
That has a couple of benefits. First, it prevents unnecessary encroachment on green spaces, which, as I think we all agree, are so important—not just for nature protection but human wellbeing. It is also about ensuring that developments themselves have the life they need to succeed. The hon. Member for Barking made the point about the facilities, size and density of communities being at the critical mass to generate liveable communities. That means enough people to provide transport infrastructure and services, for example.
That is particularly relevant, as obviously our vital targets for decarbonisation require a modal shift away from short car journeys and towards active travel and public transport. Those forms of transport are especially supported by increasing housing density, so I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Amendment 94 is concerned with the definition of affordable housing in clause 47, and suggests that, for the purposes of the clause, “affordable housing” should be considered to mean “social rent housing.” In our debate yesterday, it was pointed out that so-called affordable housing should be done only with air quotes around it, because so often it is not anywhere close to being affordable. We have, however, already set out in existing legislation and guidance what social rent housing means.
The reality is that in our housing market, social rented housing is the most affordable form of housing by far. In the context of a housing crisis and an increasingly and incredibly unequal housing market, it is crucial that when we set strategic plans to create affordable housing, that housing must be genuinely affordable. That has to mean social rent. I very much look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Olly Glover
I shall keep my remarks brief, because we had a rich discussion during yesterday afternoon’s session about the need for social and affordable housing. I wish to say a few words in support of amendment 29, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington, which would stipulate within a spatial development strategy the need to provide 150,000 new social homes a year nationally. It is notable that all members of the Committee made clear their support for social and affordable housing, but we had a very valid debate yesterday about how to get there.
As per the evidence I gave from my constituency, and as is the case in many others, it has become clear that leaving it to the market and hoping that that leads to sufficient affordable and social housing is not an approach that has hitherto succeeded. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches therefore very much support mandating targets and far more social homes as part of the mix, rather than just hoping it happens organically via developers and local council regulation.
Paul Holmes
On a point of process, Dr Huq, I wish to move amendments 73 and 74. Do I speak to them now and move them formally?
Paul Holmes
Okay, I just wanted to double check. The Opposition have tabled amendments 73 and 74 to limit increases and decreases in the allocation of housing targets when being assessed by spatial development strategies. The Minister should not be surprised by this approach. We have been very clear from the beginning that we disagree fundamentally with how the Minister and the Secretary of State have decided to assess housing targets and algorithms since they took office last July.
We fundamentally disagree with what we think is a politically gerrymandering housing algorithm, as we can quite clearly see through the evidence. We believe that in the rural areas where there is a lack of infrastructure—notwithstanding that we agree that infrastructure needs to be built, although, as the Minister has said, there is no actual mechanism in the legislation to insist on an infrastructure-first approach—the housing targets outlined by the Government are political gerrymandering. In very rural areas, housing targets can sometimes be doubled, tripled or quadrupled, but in urban centres and particularly in cities, those housing targets have been reduced.
We have tabled our amendments because we believe there needs to be some guidance on spatial development strategies. There should be national guidance and regulation for the Government’s approach to housing allocation: on how much they should be allowed to uplift, but also on how much that they can decrease, particularly in the amount of housing they can deliver in urban areas.
There is precedent for why we have done this. If we take my constituency of Hamble Valley as an example, there are two local authority areas. Under the Minister’s proposals, Fareham borough council has gone from a yearly housing target of 470 houses to one of more than 800. Eastleigh borough council, which is already over-delivering on its annual housing targets, currently has a target of around 623. They are building 1,200 homes a year themselves because of their debt levels, which is clearly a massive overreach and increase in an area that does not have the necessary infrastructure. The doubling of that requirement for house building, including on junction 7 of the M27—I do not expect the Minister to know the geography—is leading to huge amounts of bad effects with increased traffic because of the lack of infrastructure delivered alongside the housing targets.
If the Minister looks at neighbouring Southampton city council, which is controlled by the Labour party and has delivered only 200 homes a year, whether they are affordable or for private purchase, its targets have been reduced from 1,200 a year to 1,000 a year. That is the same in nearly every urban authority that the Minister has put forward—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but if he looks at the evidence from the House of Commons Library, housing targets in urban council-centred areas are generally being reduced. It is happening in Southampton, and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Barking—her targets have gone down.
Need I remind the Minister that it is also happening in London? The Government’s targets in London are being reduced, while the mayor has announced just this week that he wants to build on the green belt. If he is so keen to build, he should be looking at the densification of his city. He should be looking to build on brownfield sites first, as we have just discussed, and he should not be given political cover for failure by a Minister and a Secretary of State who are reducing housing targets in predominantly Labour council areas in urban cities.
That is an argument that we have rehearsed before. I know the Minister will come back and say that he disagrees, and I expect him to do that, because he is defending his algorithm, but he cannot defend it to the people in this country. It is a politically gerrymandering algorithm that damages. It targets the failure of predominantly Labour councils in urban areas, and targets the success of predominantly rural authorities that struggle, and it punishes them. Those are the areas that have challenges that urban areas do not have in trying to match those housing targets.
We have tabled amendment 74 in such detail—to ensure that there cannot be an increase in the number of homes in any strategy area of more than 20%, or a reduction of the required number of homes in urban areas by more than 20%—to try to mitigate some of those politically motivated measures that the Government have undertaken in other areas through the national planning policy framework. That is why we are putting forward these amendments.
We have a fundamental disagreement with the Minister over the housing algorithm. He knows that we have a fundamental disagreement over housing targets and the way in which they deliver them, because we think that, where there are hugely increased housing targets, that places a burden on local authorities. The algorithm also reduces the quality of housing provided, because there is a rush to try to meet housing targets for fear of Government repercussions, but the quality of builds, the quality of the developments and the associated infrastructure and community investment goes down. Believe me, I have seen that in my local authority, and I invite the Minister to attend my constituency at any time he wants. On its boundaries, Eastleigh borough council has been building double the number of homes that are required. The financial decisions that it has made mean that the quality of development has gone down and resentment among the public has gone up. The infrastructure that has not been delivered means that people in my local area—and areas across the locality in Hampshire, just outside my constituency—suffer.
So I say to the Minister: that is why we are tabling these amendments. I know that he is going to come back to me very strongly—
Paul Holmes
Well, the Minister says “facts”, but he should read the House of Commons Library document on the housing targets that he proposed. He cannot deny that the rural uplift in housing targets under his algorithm is an exponential rise, but the increase under his housing algorithm for urban centres is much smaller. That is delivered by the fact that for many urban centres in cities across the United Kingdom, the number of houses required under his Government’s targets has reduced.
I look forward to the Minister’s “facts”. I hope that he knows that we have a fundamental disagreement on this; I have said that repeatedly in the Chamber, on Second Reading, and in many Westminster Hall debates, where housing targets have been a topic of concern for many Members of Parliament across the country. As I say, I look forward to his “facts”, and I look forward to his reading the House of Commons Library document that backs up the arguments that we are making. We will press this amendment to a vote.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Dr Huq. May I seek your guidance? My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, the shadow Minister, has spoken to two amendments tabled in my name, which we intend to push to a vote. It is a departure from Committee procedure to vote on one amendment but not on the others, when a vote has been expected, and to set them aside. When, in the Committee proceedings, will we return to the amendments discussed earlier to vote on them?
The Chair
It goes according to the sequence in the amendment paper. At the moment we are at amendment 29, on page 3 of the amendment paper. When will we reach amendment 73, on page 5? How long is a piece of a string? We intend to reach it today, but perhaps not before the sitting is adjourned at 11.25. This was all decided in a Programming Sub-Committee at the beginning of our Committee proceedings; someone put matters in this order.
Gen Kitchen
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. Opposition Members are very interested in their amendments, but I am keenly and acutely interested in Government amendment 48 and schedule 3. Government amendment 48 is on page 10 of the amendment paper. We have been going through the groupings of amendments on the selection list, and in previous sittings, when we have voted on amendments, we have voted on the groupings, rather than following the amendment paper. I am concerned that if we are now following the amendment paper, we should have voted today on amendments 5, 21, 22, 76, 122, 4 and 72.
Gen Kitchen
So therefore we have been going through the groupings, rather than the amendment paper.
The Chair
The learned Clerk tells me that he can ventriloquise an explanation but it would be easier for him to explain after the sitting is adjourned.
Gideon Amos
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I echo the comments of other members of the Committee. We have so far followed the groupings on the selection list, and within each group we have voted on each amendment that has been pushed to a vote. New clauses may be a different matter, but that is what has happened in the Committee to date.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I do not wish to exacerbate the conversation, but the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Wellingborough and Rushden, is correct, and I am concerned that if we entertain the new way of working, even though it may be challenged, that we will lose the efficiency and rhythm that this Committee has had.
I am open to challenge by the Clerk, but in previous sittings we have followed the groupings on the selection list, which has meant that we were prepared—though of course we are always prepared—and know the sequence that we are following. That was so for the whole of the Committee proceedings. This approach, following the amendment paper, has not been in action for the previous sittings of the Committee. I wholly endorse the comments made by the Government Whip. I believe that, if we could follow the groupings and vote on the amendments in order, as we take them, that would assist the Committee in getting through the process, and business of the day.
The Chair
I have been on these Committees for 10 years, and chaired them for the last five years, and as far as I understand, this is the way we always do it. We often say a measure “was debated earlier”. It just seems to be coincidence that the decisions fell as they did yesterday—or whenever it was. This is, I have been told, non-negotiable.
David Simmonds
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I return to the question: can you indicate when in the Committee proceedings we will return to vote on those amendments?
The Chair
That depends on how succinct or verbose people are. I am not Mystic Meg. The Committee will decide on those amendments whenever it gets to them in the amendment paper.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dr Huq. I know you want to discuss this matter with the Clerk after the sitting adjourns. I wholly welcome that. Perhaps we should all attend, so that we can learn. It must be the case, Dr Huq, that you can give us an indication. I get the point about the verbosity and speed of colleagues on the Committee, but it would benefit Committee members if we knew whether we will vote on the various amendments that we have tabled at the end of the discussion of clause 47, or whether those votes could come at a later stage, after the discussion of the clause. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is seeking that guidance and would appreciate a general steer.
The Chair
These things are often negotiated by the two Whips: they make it happen at a certain time. Any vote on amendment 73 will come after the debate on amendment 88—that will be today—and amendment 74 will come after that.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Dr Huq. The groupings have been negotiated by the Whips. The Chair’s selection of amendments is in that order, and votes have followed that process.
The Chair
The Clerk helpfully suggests that we could suspend the sitting to give members a primer on this matter.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Thank you, Dr Huq; it is a delight to serve under your chairship. Listeners to the debate have missed out on an entertaining discussion of the procedure of voting on amendments and clauses. I rise to comment briefly to amendment 29.
I do not think that anyone on the Government Benches disagrees with the notion that we need to build more genuinely affordable homes and social rent homes, but I do not think that the amendment fully accounts for the cost of 150,000 additional social homes. A generously low grant rate for a social home is around £183,000 a year, and that would be just over 30,000 homes a year, so there is a significant gap between what the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington proposes and what can be afforded through the amount of money that is being suggested.
I also gently remind Opposition Members that the largest cut to the affordable homes budget occurred in 2010, under the coalition Government. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and I have debated that previously. That was a 66% cut in the affordable homes budget, and we would not be in this situation had such a significant cut not been enacted.
Matthew Pennycook
Amendments 29, 73, 17, 74 and 94 would introduce additional requirements for spatial development strategies in relation to housing. They seek to specify or describe what spatial development strategies must include across a range of areas, such as housing target limits, affordable housing definitions and housing density requirements.
I thank hon. Members for their interest in the Bill’s spatial development strategy provisions. However, the Government believe that these amendments are not productive in achieving the Bill’s objectives. I will attempt to be succinct rather than verbose, given the time we have lost and the need to make progress on the Bill. In general terms, we think that introducing further requirements for SDSs would limit their effectiveness and operability, as well as the purpose and effect that the clause seeks to achieve.
Amendment 29, moved by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would make specific provision for strategic planning authorities to have regard to the provision for new social rented homes. The Government are clearly committed to delivering more social housing, and I hope the Committee recognises the steps that we have taken over the past 10 months, including an £800 million in-year funding top-up to the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme; £2 billion of bridging support—I think the hon. Gentleman made a mistake in referring to it as £2 million—that will bring forward up to 18,000 new social homes; and in the multi-year spending review, the Government will set out the full details of a new grant funding programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. In that, we are looking to prioritise the delivery of social rented homes, which is a Government priority.
Proposed new section 12D(5)(b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 makes provision for a spatial development strategy to specify or describe an amount or distribution of affordable housing, or any other kind of housing that the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area. SDSs can therefore already play an important role in the delivery of social and affordable housing, if the strategic authority in question considers it necessary. Amendment 29 is therefore not necessary, and I request that the hon. Member withdraws it.
The shadow Minister tempted me into a much wider debate on the Government’s revised standard method for assessing housing need, which was introduced in the updated NPPF late last year. I will not go into too much detail, but the point of difference is that, under the previous Government, a 35% urban uplift was applied to the most populous local planning authority within the country’s 20 largest cities and urban centres. We have removed that urban uplift.
Matthew Pennycook
Because it was a completely arbitrary number that bore no relation to objectively assessed housing need. We have replaced it with a standard method and with targets under which city regions, as a whole, will see their targets increase by 20%, on average, compared with the previous planning period. We have increased targets across those city regions, and the new method directs housing growth to a wider range of urban centres across England. We have introduced a more ambitious, credible and objective method of assessing housing need in any given area.
On average, that gives rise to a 20% increase in city regions. The previous Government said that the 35% urban uplift applied not to London’s most populous local authority but to the whole of London, which is out of kilter with all the other arrangements that they made across the country. That left London with a fantastical target that was impossible to deliver. We have rightly revised down the target, but the shadow Minister will know that we are being very clear that London needs to increase delivery quite significantly. The Mayor has taken steps in recent days to ensure that happens.
Amendments 73 and 74 would apply limitations to the extent that spatial development strategies can redistribute housing requirements over a strategy area. The distribution of housing requirements is likely to be a key role for most, if not all, spatial development strategies. It would be overly prescriptive to apply an arbitrary restraint on the ability to decide the most appropriate location for new housing. I hope that hon. Members recognise that, in many of the debates I attend, this is what their parties call for: a smarter and more strategic way for local authorities in sub-regional groups to come together and select locations for housing growth that help to absorb some of their housing target numbers in a more sensible way, where that is applicable. We do not want to be prescriptive and constrain their ability to do so in whatever way works for the sub-region in question.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Member for Basingstoke invited me to go down memory lane to what was happening in 2009, 2010 and so on. I am happy to do so. The Liberal Democrats went into coalition at that point. They were 9% of the Members of Parliament, but prevented a great deal of the worst excesses of the Conservative Government over that time, and continue to stand by that achievement. In fact, there was a 25% increase in affordable housing starts based on £15 billion of additional funding on affordable social housing under the coalition. In contrast, in 2009, a Labour Chancellor proposed cuts in the pre-Budget papers that he called “deeper and tougher” than anything Margaret Thatcher did in the 1980s, and began a £22 billion cut in capital expenditure, which was greater than the—
Gideon Amos
I will not give way. I need to get back to the present day, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. It is important to dwell not on the proposed cuts of £22 billion to capital expenditure from 2009-10 onwards that the outgoing Labour Government were proposing, but on the reality of the situation that faces people who need social homes today. That is what amendment 29 is all about.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke suggested that the amount required per social home is £183,000. Figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research suggest that that is actually £131,000 a home. I do not doubt his sincerity in looking at the costs of each social home, but those are our figures. Against that, our proposed investment of £6 billion would be on top of the existing affordable homes programme of £2.3 billion.
In passing, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, we recognise and respect the £2 billion investment that the Government have put into the affordable housing programme for up to 18,000 affordable homes. It is worthwhile. Our amendment simply asks the Government to go further and faster. Our commitment of £6 billion per year in our suggested budget—funded by the taxation proposals we set out there—added to the £2.3 billion of the existing affordable homes programme, would be sufficient to get us to a delivery level of 150,000 social homes per year in the course of a Parliament, according to figures from the Centre for Economics and Business Research.
Our proposals are therefore founded on some consideration of the financial costs involved and of the priority that the Government need to give to the delivery of social homes. I reiterate simply that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage pointed out, relying on the private sector to provide low-cost social housing or even to bring down the price of housing has not worked to date and is extremely unlikely, to say the least, to happen in future.
Matthew Pennycook
An important point to make is that, through the revised standard method for assessing housing need and the housing targets that flow from that, we are asking local authorities to do more to meet the housing crisis. We expect more social and affordable homes to come through under section 106 agreements.
I take issue, gently, with the assertion that I think is implicit in some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman: that we are just leaving everything to the private market and doing nothing ourselves. The fact that we have topped up the affordable homes programme by £800 million and brought forward this bridge of £2 billion in anticipation of the future grant funding to come is very much at odds with his description of leaving it all to the market. The Government are not leaving it all to the market; we are providing grant funding over and above what we inherited from the previous Government.
Gideon Amos
We have always accepted and we support that allocation of funding to social housing, but a theme in Government thinking seems to be that the delivery of more homes through the private sector will bring prices down. If the Minister wishes to correct me, he should feel free to do so. That was my central point: we cannot rely on private housing to do that. The delivery of social homes needs to be done by Government. I was pleased with the Minister’s passion for delivering social homes, which he expressed clearly, and I therefore expect him to accept the amendment. It would simply increase the targets to deliver social homes to a reasonable level of 150,000 per year.
The delivery of social homes is a priority. We need to fund that to make it happen. If we really want to deliver more homes in this country, however, there are two big blockers, and they are not people, wildlife or the communities who will lose their voice in planning committees. The blockers are the funding for social housing and for infrastructure. If those two things were brought forward, I suggest that we would be able to build almost unlimited numbers of new homes.
For all those reasons we moved our amendment, which would simply take the Government’s rightful ambitions and laudable objectives of delivering social homes a little further and faster, and would set a target for the first time for the delivery of social homes. We do not have such a target, but one is desperately needed if we are to address the housing crisis, as organisations across the board have attested we should, including the National Housing Federation, Shelter and so many others. On that basis, I have moved this amendment.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. The first one is pretty obvious: as far as I am concerned, we can remove jackets if we so wish. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 1
Regulations about bringing dogs, cats and ferrets into the United Kingdom
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 3, line 15, after “offence” insert—
“(but see subsection (2A))”.
This amendment inserts in clause 2(1)(g) a signpost to the new subsection inserted by Amendment 2.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 21, leave out “But”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 2.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under section 1 may create a criminal offence only in relation to (or in relation to the causing or permitting of)—
(a) a contravention of a prohibition or restriction imposed by virtue of section 1(2)(a);
(b) where by virtue of section 1(2)(b) such a prohibition or restriction is subject to an exemption, a contravention of a condition attached to the exemption;
(c) a contravention of a requirement imposed by any relevant legislation to carry out checks in relation to the bringing of animals into the United Kingdom;
(d) a contravention of a requirement imposed by any relevant legislation to provide information or documents, or the provision of false or misleading information or documents in purported compliance with such a requirement;
(e) the obstruction of, or a failure to assist, a person acting in the execution of powers conferred by any relevant legislation.
(2B) In subsection (2A), ‘relevant legislation’ means legislation (including regulations under section 1) that relates to animal welfare or animal health.”
This amendment qualifies clause 2(1)(g) (power to create criminal offences in regulations under clause 1) by setting out the only conduct in relation to which offences may be created.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank hon. Members for joining the Committee today. I also want to thank Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, all the officials, and everyone else who helped draw up the Bill, including my team in my parliamentary office. Many veterinary and animal welfare organisations contributed to our discussions over the last few months.
I welcome the Government’s support for the Bill. Ending puppy smuggling is an aim of three major parties, so I am pleased that together we are committed to tackling the trade. The Bill aims to address the issues of illegal puppy smuggling and low-welfare movements of dogs and cats into the United Kingdom. Evidently, we are a nation of animal lovers. A survey conducted last year by the PDSA showed that 51% of UK adults own a pet, and I contribute to that statistic. At home we have Frank, a border terrier cross pug who is now 15 years old, and I was able to wish him happy birthday in Westminster Hall the other day. We also have Moose, an 11-month-old labrador; my partner Emma is doing the bulk of the training, which is pretty tough.
As the mental health spokesman for the Lib Dems, I have long been aware of the mental health benefits of owning pets. In veterinary practice, we often find that people come in who might be a widower or who might live alone with a pet. Certainly, during lockdown, many people told us that it would have been unbearable had they not had the company of their pet. We sometimes underestimate just how important being able to own a pet is for people’s wellbeing.
During my time practising as a veterinary surgeon, I met many members of the public who had bought a new puppy and discovered afterwards that it was potentially smuggled in from abroad—they had absolutely no idea when they went to buy it. A survey showed that about half of adverts online are for potentially smuggled puppies when people think they are buying one from the UK. This is not a niche problem; it is a huge problem.
It is clear how much pets mean to people across the country. The pet travel and import rules are there to protect our pets’ health and welfare. They ensure safe travel for pets and assistance dogs with their owners when relocating to the UK to settle in their new homes. However, it has become apparent that unscrupulous pet traders are exploiting loopholes in our pet travel rules. The number of non-commercial movements of pets has risen dramatically over the last decade, and with that, the risk of fraudulent activity. Data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency showed that in 2024, 368,000 dogs, cats and ferrets were moved non-commercially into Great Britian. It is important to highlight that, under the current pet travel rules, there is a limit of five pets per person, but deceitful traders abuse that rule by claiming ownership of up to five pets each, which allows them to cram large numbers of animals into vehicles for transport into Great Britain in a single trip.
Evidence from stakeholders suggests that the increased demand for pets during the covid-19 pandemic has also led to a considerable increase in the illegal trade of puppies. The welfare of those puppies is frequently compromised, with puppies being separated from their mothers far too young and transported into Great Britain in sub-par, unsafe conditions.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman talks eloquently about the plight of puppies being transported into the United Kingdom. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats, and the proud owner of two cats, Clement Catlee and Mo Meowlam, I can also attest to the positive benefits that they bring to mental health.
On the transport of cats into the UK, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been a significant rise in the number of purebred and pedigree cats over the last five years? Last year, for the first time, the percentage of pedigree and purebred cats obtained, at 45%, overtook the number of moggies, which is currently at 43%. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that stress in cats is often very serious, and that travel is particularly stressful for them?
The Chair
I realise that we had to get the cat names in, but may I ask for interventions to be brief? The hon. Lady is of course welcome to try to catch my eye if she wants to make a longer contribution.
Dr Chambers
The hon. Lady is completely right that the surge in demand for pedigree cats has also led to a surge in demand for the illegal import of cats, and cats struggle more medically with stress than most other animals.
Paired with the illegal trade of puppies is the emerging practice of moving heavily pregnant dogs into Great Britain to sell their litters. There is anecdotal evidence that these animals are brought into Great Britain to give birth and then transported back to breed again in low-welfare conditions abroad. If we do not act now to restrict the movement of heavily pregnant dogs and cats, it is a worry that traders may turn to this tactic when we raise the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens. The British Veterinary Association reported last year that one in five vets reported seeing illegally imported puppies in the previous 12 months.
There is also a concerning demand for importing cropped and docked dogs into Great Britain, even though it has rightly been illegal to carry out a non-exempt mutilation within Great Britain for more than 15 years. That loophole creates a smokescreen for ear cropping and tail docking to be carried out illegally in the UK, where it is not done by a vet and probably not done under anaesthetic, causing a huge amount of physical and psychological damage. The loophole allows individuals to claim that these dogs have been legally imported. Ear cropping reports have increased sevenfold in the past five years, according to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill will provide the powers to improve welfare for our beloved pets, including powers to close these loopholes exploited by unscrupulous commercial traders and prevent these abhorrent pet-smuggling practices.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman, the Minister and all those involved for bringing this legislation to close those loopholes. I have two cats myself, Cookie and Sprinkles, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for his private Member’s Bill that will allow a safe practice for people to have pets, which will rightfully help their mental health. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Bill is vital and much needed.
Dr Chambers
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am really enjoying all the cat names—that is a very good reason for introducing the Bill on its own. Although this is a huge animal welfare issue, we should also acknowledge that, because these dogs and cats are being brought in illegally, it is a public health issue, as they are clearly not being tested, checked or registered, so there is the risk of them bringing zoonotic diseases such as rabies and Brucella into the UK. So that we can consider the Bill in more detail, I will now run through its eight clauses.
The Chair
Order. Just the one we are discussing at the moment, and we will return to the other clauses later.
Dr Chambers
Thank you, Sir Jeremy.
Clause 1 creates a regulation-making power that will allow the Government to introduce measures through secondary legislation to tackle low-welfare movements of dogs, cats and ferrets into the United Kingdom from third countries. Importantly, the clause gives the Government the ability to introduce regulations to respond dynamically to pet smuggling practices as they evolve in the future. We know that illicit traders are quick to react to legislative changes and find ways to circumvent new restrictions, so the ability to impose restrictions to protect animal welfare both now and in the future will be important and will ensure that we can tackle illegal activity and pet smuggling quickly and effectively.
Subsection (1) empowers an appropriate national authority to make regulations about the bringing into the UK of dogs, cats or ferrets for the purpose of promoting their welfare. Subsection (2) makes it clear that that includes the ability to prohibit or restrict such imports according to specified criteria. An appropriate national authority is defined in clause 3 as the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of Northern Ireland. Clause 1(2) provides an indicative list of matters that regulations made under subsection (1) may cover. Those include exemptions to prohibitions or restrictions, issuing permits and enforcement mechanisms.
Many Members have asked me about this next point. Ferrets are included in the scope of this regulation-making power to align with the scope of the non-commercial pet travel rules, which apply equally to dogs, cats and ferrets. Our pet travel rules apply to dogs, cats and ferrets because they are species that are susceptible to rabies and commonly kept as pets.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for inviting me to be on the Committee, for introducing the Bill and for mentioning ferrets. It is very important. In discussing the last iteration of this legislation, I put on record that my brother had a ferret called Oscar, and I would like to repeat that.
Dr Chambers
He is not—my condolences to the hon. Lady’s brother on the loss of Oscar, his much-loved ferret.
Crucially, subsections (3) and (4) state that the first regulations made under the regulation-making power in subsection (1) in relation to England, Scotland and Wales must include prohibitions on the three specific types of low-welfare imports. Governments in Great Britain must first use the power to raise the minimum age at which a dog or cat can be brought into Great Britain to six months, to prohibit the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats that are heavily pregnant and to ban the bringing into Great Britain of dogs and cats with non-exempted mutilations, such as cropped ears.
Johanna Baxter
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that under subsection (4)(c), the reference to cats that have been mutilated includes cats that have been declawed?
Dr Chambers
Yes, I can confirm that. The declawing of cats is specifically included, but it covers any mutilation that is for cosmetic purposes only and not for the welfare of the animal.
The restrictions will be subject to appropriate exemptions, which I will touch on shortly. Despite the current rules specifying that a dog or cat cannot be brought into Great Britain under 15 weeks old, we still see puppies arriving that are eight weeks old or sometimes even younger. Separating a puppy from its mother too young has implications for the puppy’s health and welfare. Evidence from stakeholders also suggests that puppies imported into Great Britain have frequently been subjected to unacceptable breeding practices abroad and transported in poor conditions.
Raising the minimum age at which a puppy or kitten can be brought into Great Britain to six months old will disrupt the low-welfare movement of under-age puppies into Great Britain. At six months old, both puppies and kittens can be aged more accurately, which will make it easier to enforce the new minimum age and to identify under-age dogs and cats. We hope that the measure will result in significantly fewer low-welfare breeding operations supplying the Great Britain market.
Currently, welfare and transport regulations prevent an animal from being transported during the final 10% of its gestation. That limit is insufficient to tackle the emerging practice of importing heavily pregnant dogs, and it is very difficult to identify the stage of pregnancy accurately.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing us the Bill. Does he agree that it is especially dangerous for cats in the last third of their gestation to travel when pregnant?
Dr Chambers
Yes, we know that late-stage travel during pregnancy is a risk factor for problems during the pregnancy and that it can lead to the cat giving birth early.
The potential for low welfare during travel greatly increases as the pregnancy of the female advances, and that risks the health and welfare of the offspring. We also anticipate that traders may respond to an increase in the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens by increasing the number of pregnant dogs and cats that they import. A ban on bringing heavily pregnant dogs and cats into Great Britain is therefore needed to mitigate that. The first set of regulations made under clause 1 will go further than the current requirements, so that dogs or cats that are more than 42 days pregnant cannot be brought into Great Britain. At 42 days, there are much more reliable visual markers of pregnancy, meaning that the ban will be much easier to enforce.
It is currently illegal to carry out a non-exempted mutilation in Great Britain, and it has been since 2007. Despite that, demand continues for pets with mutilations such as dogs with cropped ears or docked tails and declawed cats. Those procedures are cruel and cause unnecessary pain. The definition of mutilation is set out in subsection (9):
“a dog or cat has been ‘mutilated’ if it has undergone a procedure which involves interference with its sensitive tissues or bone structure otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment.”
For example, the amputation of the tail of an injured dog for medical reasons would still be permitted. Allowing people to bring animals into Great Britain that have suffered in this way only outsources such cruelty. Fundamentally, the ban would make the purchase or ownership of dogs and cats of non-exempted mutilations extremely difficult. It would also remove the smokescreen that enables ear cropping to continue to be done illegally in Great Britain with relative impunity.
Members will note that ferrets are not covered by the initial provisions. That is because very low numbers of ferrets are being brought into Great Britain, and unlike dogs and cats, there is no evidence of a significant illegal trade in, or low-welfare movement of, ferrets at this time. Importantly, the regulation-making powers in clause 1 will allow for measures to protect ferrets’ welfare to be introduced in the future should that situation change. Those three measures are widely supported by stakeholders and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Together, they will help to disrupt low-welfare movements of pet animals into Great Britain for sale.
Delivering the measures via secondary legislation allows the Government the opportunity to gather further evidence and to discuss the prohibitions with stakeholders, the public and enforcement bodies. That crucial exercise will ensure that new restrictions are developed and implemented effectively with no unintended consequences and with appropriate exemptions. I understand that the Government have already started engaging with stakeholders, including the Kennel Club, to gather information and to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to support appropriate exemptions. Any exemptions will need to be finely balanced against the risk of creating loopholes that could be exploited. Importantly, as set out in subsection (5), the prohibitions would only be lifted in subsequent regulations following consultation with appropriate persons.
Subsections (6) and (7) will enable regulations to set out a process for non-compliant dogs, cats and ferrets that are seized or detained. That will allow for the costs of detention to be met and, if necessary, for animals to be rehomed. The powers will help enforcers to effectively tackle the low-welfare movements of dogs and cats that are routinely seen on entry into Great Britain, while maintaining our high standards of biosecurity. Subsection (8) will allow regulations to make provision for monetary penalties to be imposed, which will help to ensure that measures envisaged by the Bill can be enforced appropriately and act as a sufficient deterrent.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman is under no obligation to speak to clause 3, but, if he wants to do so, now would be the time.
Dr Chambers
Thank you, Sir Jeremy. Clause 3 outlines who can exercise the regulation-making powers in clause 1. For the purposes of those powers, clause 3(1) defines the “appropriate national authority” in respect of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That subsection confirms that the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland will have the power to make regulations for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.
Animal welfare is a devolved matter in Scotland and Wales, including in relation to the movement of animals into Scotland or Wales for the purposes of protecting animal welfare. In Northern Ireland, animal welfare is generally a transferred matter, but the subject matter of the Bill means that the reserved matter in paragraph 20 of schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is engaged. Therefore clause 3(2) sets out that the consent of the Secretary of State may be necessary when DAERA proposes to make regulations under the powers in clause 1. To provide for effective collaboration, clause 3(3) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations that extend and apply to Northern Ireland where DAERA gives its consent. Subsection (4) sets out that DAERA’s consent would not be needed in such circumstances as described by subsection (2).
Sarah Champion
I think this is the first time I have served under your guidance, Sir Jeremy; it is a pleasure to do so. I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for using his private Member’s Bill to shepherd this vital legislation through the House and for inviting me to be part of the Committee. The Bill is deeply welcomed. I have campaigned on animal smuggling for a decade, and those hon. Members around me have been campaigning on it for just as long. It generous of him to let us see the Bill through what is hopefully the final phase.
My constituents often write to me expressing their concern about this vile, exploitative practice and urging legislators to take meaningful action. They are frustrated by how many animals experience unnecessary suffering, which so often could be stopped with a stroke of a pen in this place. But let me be clear: these measures should have been acted on years ago. I urge the Committee to use this momentum to push for the strongest protections possible and support the Bill.
The puppy smuggling trade is worth billions in the UK. The Naturewatch Foundation found that an estimated 80% of dogs and puppies in the UK still come from unknown sources, including unlicensed breeders, illegal puppy farms and puppy smuggling operations. There are huge welfare concerns for puppies being transported long distances at such a young age having been taken from their mothers too soon, which hampers their development and often leads to illnesses and lifelong conditions. There is a human risk, too, with imported dogs leading to serious biosecurity concerns. I did not know, but in 2022 we had the first case of Brucella canis transferring from an imported dog to an owner. It is no wonder that the public overwhelmingly support the Bill’s actions, with 83% backing stronger rules to stop puppy smuggling.
Cats face similar mistreatment. Cats Protection’s 2023 report highlighted that an estimated 50,000 cats acquired in the 12 months preceding the survey came from an overseas source. It is unclear whether they received health and welfare checks or what conditions they were subjected to during travel. Without proper regulation, cats likely arrived in the UK in an extremely poor state of health, carrying infectious diseases that they would inevitably pass on to other cats.
I therefore strongly support clause 1(3) and (4), which increase the minimum age for importing puppies and kittens from 15 weeks to six months. They also introduce new measures to prevent the import of mutilated animals. For years, puppies and kittens have been imported into the UK, completely legally, with painful mutilations, including docked tails, cropped ears or having been declawed or debarked. Continued importation normalises these practices and makes it near impossible to enforce a ban in the UK.
The abhorrent declawing procedure, is, I am sorry to say, the equivalent of amputating a human fingertip to the first knuckle. The 2024 PDSA “Animal Wellbeing” report stated, alarmingly:
“4% of cat owners who acquired their pet from abroad told us they did so because they wanted them to be declawed”.
That equates to 15,000 cats whose owners want them to be mutilated. To end such an appalling practice once and for all, I urge the Committee to maintain the strength of the Bill’s core provisions. In so doing, we will answer the public’s long-standing call for reform, protect our beloved dogs, cats and ferrets from ill treatment, and entrench the UK’s leadership on animal welfare.
Finally, if you will indulge me, Sir Jeremy, while I appreciate that the Bill looks at a very specific area of animal imports, I want to take the opportunity to reflect the strong feelings of the animal welfare and conservation sector about the decline in cross-border movements of zoo animals between the UK and the EU. Those movements are often part of essential conservation breeding programmes, and I share the hopes of the sector that, as the Government address dog, cat and ferret imports, they will soon address cross-border animal movements for zoos and aquariums.
I fully support the Bill. I wish it well with its progress, and I hope that it has the Committee’s support.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak briefly in support of this important Bill, which addresses some long-standing and deeply concerning issues around the welfare of animals brought into the UK.
As someone who has run a veterinary business and is married to a vet, I have seen at first hand, and heard about from colleagues over the years, the serious impact on animal health and welfare—and, indeed, the risks to human health—of puppy smuggling. Sadly, we have seen too many cases in which puppies and cats arrive in the UK from countries with lower welfare standards, often in very poor condition. Many suffer from diseases and parasites, and some have been bred irresponsibly, resulting in painful and lifelong conditions—orthopaedic problems, breathing difficulties and eye defects, to name just a few.
It is not just animals that are at risk. As the hon. Member for Winchester said, diseases such as Brucella canis, which is endemic in countries such as Romania and Ukraine, pose a real threat to humans—especially those caring for the dogs, including veterinary surgeons and nurses. In the most serious cases, the infection can cause miscarriage. While responsible breeders may carry out appropriate testing, those involved in illegal smuggling often do not. That makes the Bill not only a matter of animal welfare, but one of public health.
Irresponsible and illegal breeders have exploited loopholes in existing legislation to treat animals with complete disregard and reduce them to mere commodities. It is absolutely right that we seek to close those gaps through the Bill. I therefore welcome the provisions in clause 1(3) and (4) to prohibit the importation of dogs and cats under six months of age. That is particularly important in the case of very young puppies, whose age can be difficulty to verify. As a result, they may be taken from their mothers too soon and imported at far too young an age, before receiving essential vaccinations, such as for rabies, putting both animals and humans at risk.
I also welcome the vital prohibition on importing heavily pregnant dogs and cats—those more than 42 days pregnant. The stress of a long journey can impact the health of both the mother and her unborn young. Heavily pregnant animals require more frequent toilet breaks and are at higher risk of overheating, and the physical stress can compromise their respiratory health.
I fully welcome the prohibition on importing animals that have been subject to mutilations such as cropped ears, docked tails or declawing, which are harmful and unnecessary practices. We should not allow our high UK welfare standards to be undermined by those who seek to profit through cruelty. This is no way to treat animals.
As a country that is rightly proud of our standards in animal welfare and biosecurity, we must continue to lead by example, so the Bill is both necessary and welcome. I also acknowledge the important work of charities including the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and Cats Protection, which have consistently championed these issues and called for stronger protections.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I rise to speak to clause 1 and the related amendments. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester on bringing forward this important Bill, which is backed by huge expert and public support. It is great to see the Public Gallery so full. I must declare my allegiance to the cat community—although I am anxious about the ferret community not having quite the popularity. You will be pleased to know, Sir Jeremy, that I will not be naming my cats. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] They have asked for anonymity—[Laughter.]
Frankly, action on a lot of the issues the Bill addresses is a long time coming, and much work on this subject has been done by previous hon. Members before the hon. Member for Winchester. This debate demonstrates the genuine cross-party support that exists on these issues. I am hugely supportive of the Bill’s provisions, particularly clause 1, which will protect young animals with a six-month minimum age limit, end the importation of mutilated animals, and prevent the transport of heavily pregnant animals.
As Members have already outlined, the Bill will go a long way in enabling us to tackle the criminals who take advantage of policy loopholes. It is vital that we uphold the UK’s reputation as a leader in animal welfare by taking a firm stand against cruelty and exploitation. But the Bill—particularly clause 1—is about more than animal welfare, as it also extends to the protection of public health. As has been outlined, some smuggled animals could carry harmful diseases that can be transmitted to humans. I urge colleagues to support clause 1 and the rest of the Bill as it goes forward.
While I am on my feet, I hope you will indulge me, Sir Jeremy. It is an animal welfare Bill, so I would like to press the Minister for an update on when the animal welfare strategy will be published. We are desperately waiting for it, and many of the private Members’ Bills that are coming forward would be aligned with that strategy.
I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for his Bill and for asking me to be on the Committee, and I look forward to seeing the Bill progress into legislation.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. First, I declare my professional and personal interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
I am delighted that we are here to discuss this Bill. I was the first veterinary surgeon elected to the House of Commons since 1884. Now, vets in the Commons are a little bit like London buses: you wait 130 years and then another five years, and then another one comes along. I am delighted to support my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester. Vets in the House of Commons are now a bit of a danger: we are breeding like rabbits. At this rate, we would probably be able to fill a car by the end of the century. But under this new legislation there would be a maximum of five vets per car.
I strongly support the Bill and cannot say how pleased and relieved I am to be here today opposite my friend the Minister. We served together on the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill Committee and have now swapped places. I am delighted that this Bill is now getting over the line with cross-party support. Can I also offer a shout out? This legislation was started under the Conservative Government: the clauses were in the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, and then the former Conservative Member of Parliament for North Devon, Selaine Saxby, had a private Member’s Bill identical to this one. I pay tribute to her. We are here today to push that work forward.
I, too, acknowledge the important work of the charitable sector and organisations in the animal space including the British Veterinary Association, the Dogs Trust—its former chief vet, Paula Boyden, spearheaded the campaign—Cats Protection, Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which the hon. Member for Winchester and I visited yesterday in the light of this Bill, the RSPCA, FOUR PAWS and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. Marc Abraham, a fellow veterinary surgeon, has also done a lot of work on this issue.
In the previous Parliament, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I was a member, did a number of inquiries on this issue, one of which was on the movement of animals across borders, and we looked at a lot of the situations that are highlighted in these clauses. Our inquiry on pet welfare and abuse highlighted some of the issues that clauses 1, 2 and 3 set out and made important points about biosecurity. I welcome the measures in the clauses to increase the minimum age to six months, which will be important for the health and welfare of these animals.
I note—the Minister is well aware of these issues because we have been discussing them for many years—that some measures are not included in the Bill, and I hope that he will keep them under review and consider introducing future secondary legislation. They include the institution of pre-importation health checks for animals, the reinstatement of rabies titre checks, and an increase of the wait time after a rabies vaccination to 12 weeks. That would help to enforce the change to a minimum age of entry of six months.
I very much welcome the commitments in the clauses on the stage of gestation for cats and dogs coming into this country. The EFRA Committee heard harrowing evidence about heavily pregnant animals that are smuggled in, give birth and are then smuggled out, often with fresh suture wounds from caesarean sections. They are just shipped in and out, so hopefully the Bill will close that loophole. The requirement for import not to take place in the last third of gestation is very important. It is currently banned in the last 10% of gestation, but it is very difficult to judge the stage of gestation, so that is an important change.
We have talked about mutilations. The Bill will tighten the requirements and, as the hon. Member for Winchester said, bring down the smokescreen. People are importing dogs that have been horrifically mutilated.
Aphra Brandreth
Ear cropping in dogs is a cruel and clinically unnecessary procedure, and is illegal in the UK. The shadow Minister has long campaigned to raise awareness of that. Does he agree that images of dogs with cropped ears have been normalised, and that many owners are still unaware of the cruelty of the practice, so we must continue to highlight its impact?
Dr Hudson
I very much agree. Ear cropping has been normalised in popular culture, but a recent survey by Battersea found that 50% of respondents had no idea that it is illegal. The fact that it is normalised in the media and popular culture means that people, sometimes unwittingly, try to source one of those animals.
Ear cropping is an absolutely horrific procedure, and it is increasingly prevalent. There is absolutely no clinical indication to crop a dog’s ears—it is just a barbaric practice. The EFRA Committee has taken evidence on it, and it is suspected that it is unfortunately taking place in the United Kingdom illegally, potentially with online dog cropping kits, which are still available, and without analgesia. If a veterinary surgeon were to perform that procedure in the United Kingdom, they would be struck off and would not be allowed to be a veterinary surgeon, but unfortunately it still goes on.
One of my favourite films, which I have watched many times with my family, is the Disney Pixar film “Up”. It is a wonderful and very moving film, but some of the dogs in it have had their ears cropped. If families see these films, it normalises the practice: people say, “That’s a lovely dog. I’d like a dog that looks like that.” As recently as a couple of years ago, the lead character in the film “DC League of Super-Pets” had cropped ears.
As recently as this year, the “best in show” winner of the Westminster dog show in the United States was Monty, a giant schnauzer with his ears cropped. The show was reported on the BBC website with a picture of the winning dog, but with no disclaimer explaining that the procedure is illegal in the UK. Anyone looking at the website would have thought, “What a wonderful dog—he’s won the prize!” It needs to be pointed out.
Conservative MPs have written an open letter to film studios and media outlets, calling on them to be responsible in their portrayal of dogs in the media. When studios make films with dogs, they should not have them cropped—it is very simple. When the media publish reports on such dogs, they should include a health warning.
Sadly, it is still possible in this country to buy ear cropping kits online. We are calling on the Government to close that loophole and put pressure on online advertisers so that we can stamp out that practice. I am delighted that the Bill will help to address that, because we have to stop the importation of cropped dogs, stop normalising them in popular culture and stop making cropping possible in this country.
As the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South and for Rotherham mentioned, it is also very important that the legislation should cover the declawing of cats, an issue that Cats Protection has highlighted. It is a horrific procedure, with no clinical indication for cats whatever. Amputating at the level of the fingernails means that cats are no longer able to express themselves, use scratching posts or climb trees. People are sourcing declawed cats so that they can protect their furniture. That needs to stop.
The recommendations that have been made about stages of gestation and about age will help to address issues with biosecurity and specifically with rabies. The importation of dogs carries zoonotic risks, including risks of rabies and brucellosis, so it is important to keep that under review. Many dogs that are rehomed from eastern Europe have brought diseases in with them. People bring them in unwittingly, thinking that they are helping, but actually it is putting dogs and people in this country at risk. I urge the Minister to consider secondary legislation to add pre-importation health screening.
As we debated when considering the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, we should potentially reinstate the tick and tapeworm treatments that stopped in the EU in 2012. A few years ago, in Harlow, Essex, there was a case of babesiosis in a dog that had never left the country. Another dog must have come in and dropped a tick that the Essex dog then picked up, leading it to contract the disease.
It is important to be cognisant of animal and human health. The hon. Member for Winchester is a huge advocate of the concept of “one health” for animals and humans. We give a lot of affection to the pets we love and nurture; they give us a lot in return, and it helps our physical and mental health.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me push the Government to ensure that Bills like this one protect our biosecurity. In this context we are talking about a small animal setting, but the Animal and Plant Health Agency is pivotal in protecting not only against canine brucellosis, rabies and babesiosis, but against diseases such as African swine fever and foot and mouth disease. As I did at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on Thursday, I will push the Government to make sure that they rapidly redevelop the APHA headquarters in Weybridge, Surrey.
His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition stand firmly—125%—behind the Bill. We wish it well.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for promoting this private Member’s Bill; as we have heard from a range of hon. Members this morning, it is an extremely important Bill for animal welfare and the safe movement of our beloved pets. I also thank him for the amendments that he has tabled, which I assure him the Government support.
I echo the witty comments from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, at the beginning. We have been through a long journey on this issue, and I am delighted that Parliament is at a stage where we can deliver it. The Bill will be welcome. I well remember the discussion of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill and Selaine Saxby’s efforts, to which I pay tribute.
Dr Chambers
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the Bill is timely and essential. I thank you, Sir Jeremy, for chairing the Committee this morning. I also thank my whole team from Winchester—
The Chair
Order. I should have been clearer: I meant that the hon. Gentleman should sum up the debate on the first group in relation to clauses 1 to 3 and the amendments that he has proposed. He will have a chance to make general valedictory statements later.
Dr Chambers
Okay; I will thank my team from Winchester again later. Shall I go on to clause 4?
The Chair
We need to first put the questions related to the first group. Before I do that, I will give a friendly warning. Clause 1 is fairly broad in scope, so I have allowed the debate to be fairly broad. Subsequent clauses are much narrower, so the debate will have to be narrower.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Regulations under section 1: supplementary
Amendments made: 1, in clause 2, page 3, line 15, after “offence” insert “(but see subsection (2A))”.
This amendment inserts in clause 2(1)(g) a signpost to the new subsection inserted by Amendment 2.
Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 21, leave out “But”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 2.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under section 1 may create a criminal offence only in relation to (or in relation to the causing or permitting of)—
(a) a contravention of a prohibition or restriction imposed by virtue of section 1(2)(a);
(b) where by virtue of section 1(2)(b) such a prohibition or restriction is subject to an exemption, a contravention of a condition attached to the exemption;
(c) a contravention of a requirement imposed by any relevant legislation to carry out checks in relation to the bringing of animals into the United Kingdom;
(d) a contravention of a requirement imposed by any relevant legislation to provide information or documents, or the provision of false or misleading information or documents in purported compliance with such a requirement;
(e) the obstruction of, or a failure to assist, a person acting in the execution of powers conferred by any relevant legislation.
(2B) In subsection (2A), ‘relevant legislation’ means legislation (including regulations under section 1) that relates to animal welfare or animal health.”—(Dr Chambers.)
This amendment qualifies clause 2(1)(g) (power to create criminal offences in regulations under clause 1) by setting out the only conduct in relation to which offences may be created.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Disapplication of non-commercial rules in certain cases
Dr Chambers
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 4, page 5, line 28, at end insert—
“(b) in point (b), after ‘non-commercial movement’ (in the first place it occurs) insert ‘(including movement that would be non-commercial movement but for Article 5 or 5A)’.”
This amendment makes a minor clarificatory change in consequence of the other amendments made by Clause 4.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 6, line 8, after “to” insert “a movement of”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
“(ba) after paragraph 3 insert—
‘3A Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of pet animals if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if the relevant maximum is exceeded; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.’”
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the limit on the number of animals that can be brought in under the rules applicable to non-commercial movements, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 6, line 13, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) In paragraph 4, for the words from the beginning to ‘those pet animals’ substitute ‘Where paragraph 1 applies and the relevant maximum is exceeded, the pet animals in question’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 6, line 23, leave out “the movement” and insert “a movement”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 8.
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
“2 Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of a pet animal if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if—
(i) the animal is not accompanied by the owner, and
(ii) one or both of the conditions in paragraph 1(a) and (b) are not met; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.”
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the requirement that an animal’s movement be within 5 days of the owner’s, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Clause stand part.
Clause 5 stand part.
Dr Chambers
Clause 4 will close loopholes in the non-commercial pet travel rules to make it harder for those rules to be exploited for commercial gain. The clause contains the second set of substantive measures in the Bill to tackle puppy smuggling. The measures are designed to make it more difficult and less profitable for traders to disguise commercial imports as genuine pet movements.
Our non-commercial pet travel rules are intended to make it easier for the genuine pet owner to travel with their dog, cat or ferret. We know, however, that some unscrupulous commercial importers abuse the existing rules to bring in pets for sale. Those individuals seek to maximise their profits, often at the expense of the welfare of the animals they are importing. By its very nature, the true extent of pet smuggling operations cannot be known; it is likely that APHA figures only capture a small proportion of the animals being smuggled into the country.
A key loophole in our current rules is that up to five pets per person can travel in a single non-commercial movement. Consequently, unscrupulous traders can claim ownership of up to five puppies each, enabling them to cram vans with tens of dogs for transportation into Great Britain in a single trip.
By bringing animals in under the non-commercial rules, these traders avoid the more onerous requirements of the commercial import regime, which include the clinical examination by vets of animals before transport and enhanced traceability requirements. These requirements protect both animal welfare and our high biosecurity standards.
Sadik Al-Hassan
I thank the hon. Member for the proposals in this Bill on behalf of my constituents in North Somerset and on behalf of Cats Protection, which has sent me numerous emails about this clause regulating the number of animals allowed in a vehicle. I think he will agree that these vital changes need to be made, to ensure that we end the horrible atrocity of the smuggling of puppies, cats and ferrets.
Dr Chambers
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I spent many happy years living in his North Somerset constituency while I was teaching at Bristol Veterinary School at the University of Bristol. He must be very proud that there is such an institution, which does so much to improve animal welfare, in his constituency.
To close this loophole, subsection (4) of clause 4 reduces the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that can be brought into Great Britain from a third country in a single non-commercial movement from five per person to five per vehicle, including vehicles on board a train or a ferry, and to three per person for foot or air passengers. This represents a significant reduction in the number of pets that can travel in a single, non-commercial movement. It is, however, a proportionate intervention that balances the need to disrupt illegal trade while minimising the impact on genuine pet owners.
The new caps are high enough to ensure that family and friends travelling together with their pets have enough flexibility to transport their pets non-commercially when they have genuine and legitimate needs to do so. They are also high enough to ensure that individuals are able to travel with assistance dogs and still have enough space to travel with any additional pets. The new limits in clause 4 also align with industry practice. Eurotunnel, which sees the greatest volume of pet movements, has capped the number of animals moving non-commercially on its service to five per vehicle.
Importantly, these restrictions would not preclude the movement of larger consignments of animals. A person who wishes to move more than five pets per vehicle or three per person for air or foot passenger travel would still be able to do so under the commercial import regime.
Currently, the pet travel rules also allow the non-commercial movement of a dog, cat or ferret into Great Britain within five days by a person authorised by the owner to carry out the movement on their behalf. Unfortunately, there is evidence from APHA and anecdotal evidence from stakeholders that this rule is also being exploited. Some individuals are known to pose as authorised persons to move animals under the non-commercial rules, when they are actually bringing them into Great Britain for sale. These pets should be moved under the commercial import regime, subject to more stringent requirements.
To prevent the misuse of these rules, clause 4(5) amends the existing pet travel rules to directly link the non-commercial movement of a dog, cat or ferret with its owner, in order to ensure that a pet can only be moved by an authorised person if it is within five days of the owner’s completing the same journey. Subsection (6) also makes amendments to the non-commercial pet travel regulations to ensure that only an owner, and not an authorised person, is permitted to sign a declaration that the movement of a dog, cat or ferret is non-commercial.
Amendments 5 and 8 together, with consequential amendments 4, 6 and 7—provide the appropriate authority with powers enabling it to grant exemptions in certain circumstances from the requirements affecting non-commercial movements of pet animals in new articles 5 and 5A of the pet travel regulation.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester for inviting me to join him on this Committee. Our much-loved cockapoo, Todd, came to us as a result of rehoming from a family in the UK who had underestimated the needs of such a lively young dog. I align myself with my hon. Friend’s comments about the mental health benefits of pets, particularly as we are in Mental Health Awareness Week.
Todd has certainly improved our lives, especially by acting as an informal therapy and support dog for our son George. However, importing puppies too early or without their mothers can cause stress to the animals, which can lead to behavioural issues and, later, their abandonment by people who are completely unprepared for the attention, investment and care needed by their pets. I therefore welcome the clauses that will limit the number of animals being moved internationally, but I am concerned that amendment 5 to clause 4 could open up risks under the non-commercial rules relating to the numbers of animals, as well as the exceptions and exemptions that are available.
Many friends of mine have changed the lives of rescue dogs from Eastern Europe, including Cassie and Merlin, but research by RSPCA suggests that some—not them, I stress—are unknowingly imported commercially under the guise of pet rescue. I ask the Minister what additional and specific measures can be taken to support those who seek to give new homes to dogs from abroad and ensure that the exemptions are tightly regulated. I also want to thank the Government for supporting the Bill and ask for clarification on the progress made on their commitments in the Labour manifesto. Specifically, I would like to ask for an update on the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is so important to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester is doing, and on tackling of horse, pony and donkey smuggling in the animal strategy.
The Chair
I know the Minister will recognise that the latter list of animals is not covered by the Bill. However, out of the generosity of his heart, he may want to give a short answer on that. I come to the shadow Minister, Dr Neil Hudson.
Dr Hudson
The measures in clauses 4 and 5 on the delineation between commercial and non-commercial movement of animals are important. The Opposition very much welcome the provision in clause 4 reducing the number of animals to five per vehicle or three per person. I know that many campaigners, including the Dogs Trust and various charities, wanted that figure to be three per vehicle, based on the surveys that they had done. However, if we think about what has happened with unscrupulous traders picking up foot passengers who potentially have four or five animals with them, five per vehicle in this legislation is a darned sight better than potentially 20 per vehicle. I urge the Minister to keep the limit under review; if there is evidence that anything is being exploited, I am sure that reducing the five down to three would be very much welcome across the sector.
A key point that I want to stress in clause 4 is the difference between commercial and non-commercial transportation. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and animal charities have found that people have been flipping between commercial and non-commercial transportation of animals to get away from the authorities. I urge the Government to keep a watching brief on that issue. If there is evidence that people, because of this legislation, are flipping between the two, the Government must stamp down on what would be an alarming development.
Finally, I briefly turn to amendment 5 to clause 4. I very much understand the methodology and the reasons for tabling it, but the Government, who are supporting and drafting this amendment, need to clarify what is meant by “exceptional or compelling circumstances”. We have heard some examples, but some in the sector, such as the RSPCA, have expressed some reservations that amendment 5, while well intended, might unfortunately create a loophole.
In his summing up, can the Minister give clarity that the Government will keep a watching brief on that issue and be very clear about who we mean by “exceptional and compelling circumstances”? As with any legislation, unintended consequences and loopholes can develop, and we know that in the animal smuggling sector bad people, who are doing bad things to animals, exploit loopholes. I urge the hon. Member for Winchester and the Government to clarify that amendment 5 will be okay.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for all the contributions on this very important part of the Bill, and I will try to address briefly some of the points that have been made. On bringing the numbers down from five per person to a maximum of five per vehicle and three per foot or air passenger, I hear the points made by both the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole.
The Government strongly support the reduction, but a limit of five pets per vehicle gives flexibility for individuals travelling with assistance dogs alongside their other pets, as well as family and friends travelling together, as the hon. Member for Winchester explained in his introductory comments, while also significantly reducing the risk that non-commercial pet travel rules will be abused. Clearly, we will always monitor the way in which this works and act accordingly. The limit of five pets per vehicle and three per air or foot passenger was recommended by the EFRA Committee back in April 2024.
In passing, I will also reference the Veterinary Surgeons Act. We are well aware of the need to update it, and it will be in the programme in future—it is a question of finding legislative time, but we are very keen to proceed. The Government also strongly support the Bill’s introduction of a requirement for pets and their owners to travel within five days of each other—that is really important. It will link a pet’s movement to their owner’s, closing a loophole that we know is exploited by unscrupulous traders.
As explained by the hon. Member for Winchester, amendment 14 is a clarificatory change to make it clear that the existing definition of pet animal is not affected by the measures in the Bill; some of these finer points are really quite important to ensure that we do not introduce unintended consequences. The amendment seeks to maintain the status quo by clarifying that the Bill is not changing the definition of pet animal, to avoid any unintended consequences that may impact the operation of the pet travel regime. I urge Members to support that amendment.
Turning now to amendments 4 to 8, we all recognise the importance of the measures in clause 4 to prevent abuse of the pet travel rules and to close existing loopholes. However, to address the point raised by the shadow Minister, sometimes exceptional circumstances arise where strict adherence to those rules may be impractical or negatively impact individuals, such as those—but not only those—with protected characteristics. In our view, an intentional and tightly controlled exemption is entirely appropriate, but I give an absolute assurance that it will be in very limited circumstances. The Government will be able to grant exemptions on a case-by-case basis to ensure that groups such as those with protected characteristics are not adversely impacted, but there has to be sufficient justification for an exemption.
The purpose of the amendments is to give us flexibility and to allow the objective of introducing tighter restrictions on pet travel to be balanced with the need to ensure that genuine pet owners are not penalised in emergency situations, and that those with protected characteristics can, as the hon. Member for Winchester outlined, travel together. We are trying to get the balance right, and obviously we will see how it plays out in practice. I genuinely believe that the exemption upholds our commitment to ending puppy smuggling while offering flexibility, providing that individuals can demonstrate that their movements are genuinely non-commercial. The exemption would not create any blanket exceptions from the rules, and its application would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
My officials will be working with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to develop clear operational guidance outlining exactly what circumstances might justify an exemption and what evidence would be necessary. That will be communicated to the public ahead of the measure coming into force. For those reasons, I urge all hon. Members to support the amendments.
Amendment 14 agreed to.
Amendments made: 4, in clause 4, page 6, line 8, after “to” insert “a movement of”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 6, line 12, at end insert—
“(ba) after paragraph 3 insert—
‘3A Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of pet animals if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if the relevant maximum is exceeded; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.’”
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the limit on the number of animals that can be brought in under the rules applicable to non-commercial movements, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 6, line 13, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) In paragraph 4, for the words from the beginning to ‘those pet animals’ substitute ‘Where paragraph 1 applies and the relevant maximum is exceeded, the pet animals in question’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 7, in clause 4, page 6, line 23, leave out “the movement” and insert “a movement”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 8.
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
“2 Paragraph 1 does not apply to a movement of a pet animal if—
(a) the appropriate authority determines that there are exceptional or compelling circumstances that justify the movement’s being treated as a non-commercial movement even if—
(i) the animal is not accompanied by the owner, and
(ii) one or both of the conditions in paragraph 1(a) and (b) are not met; and
(b) the movement meets any conditions attached to the determination.”—(Dr Chambers.)
This amendment allows for the appropriate authority to disapply the requirement that an animal’s movement be within 5 days of the owner’s, where justified in the particular circumstances of the case.
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Consequential provision
Dr Chambers
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 6, page 8, line 14, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment removes the power to make provision in regulations that is consequential on clause 4 or 5.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 10, in clause 7, page 8, line 18, leave out “sections 1 and 6(3)” and insert “section 1”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 11, in clause 7, page 8, line 23, leave out “or 6(3)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 12, in clause 7, page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 9, line 28, leave out “this Act” and insert “section 1”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Clause 7 stand part.
Motion to transfer subsection 7(1).
Motion to transfer clause 7.
Clause 8 stand part.
Dr Chambers
I have speaking notes for clauses 7 and 8, but I feel that they are very technical and probably do not add much to the debate. Unless Members particularly want me to read out those notes, I am happy to move on without discussing them.
The Chair
That is entirely a matter for the hon. Gentleman. He does not have to read them out if he does not wish to.
Dr Hudson
I rise to support clause 6 and the subsequent clauses within the Bill. I will be very brief; I just want to say that we are a nation of animal lovers. We have the highest standard of animal welfare in the world, and with legislation like this, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. Animal welfare, as we have seen today, unites us in humanity across the House, and it is so important that we support such legislation.
I thank everyone involved with this Bill: the DEFRA team, the Clerks, Hansard, the Bill Committee, the Doorkeepers, and the public for coming, watching and engaging with this process. I thank my friend and veterinary colleague, the hon. Member for Winchester, for introducing this important legislation. I welcome the Bill as a Member of Parliament, as a shadow Minister, as a co-sponsor of the Bill and as a veterinary surgeon. It has my full support.
Daniel Zeichner
I echo the comments from the shadow Minister. This is a very important piece of legislation and I am very pleased that it is finally happening. It builds on the recommendations from the EFRA Committee, it addresses multiple concerns raised by stakeholders about the current pet travel rules, and it supports the delivery of the Government’s manifesto commitment to end puppy smuggling. I am delighted that we are making good progress, and I am very much looking forward to seeing it continue to progress through its remaining parliamentary stages.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Regulations
Amendments made: 10, in clause 7, page 8, line 18, leave out “sections 1 and 6(3)” and insert “section 1”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 11, in clause 7, page 8, line 23, leave out “or 6(3)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 12, in clause 7, page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 9, line 28, leave out “this Act” and insert “section 1”.—(Dr Chambers.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered,
That subsection (1) of clause 7 be transferred to the end of line 7 on page 4.—(Dr Chambers.)
Ordered,
That clause 7 be transferred to the end of line 21 on page 5.—(Dr Chambers.)
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Dr Chambers
I appreciate your chairmanship throughout our proceedings, Sir Jeremy, and I want to thank everyone who was involved. I will thank my team in Winchester, again. I am so effusive in my thanks because, for a brand-new MP, trying to learn how to set up an office and then negotiate the complexities of a private Member’s Bill, this has been a huge amount of work, and my team—Sophie Hammond, who is currently on maternity leave, and Tom Wood and Hayley Puddefoot, who took over from her on this—have now become experts in animal movement.
There has been a lot of work from everyone, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs staff. I was a member of the British Veterinary Association policy committee more than 10 years ago, and we campaigned on this issue. I know that applies to so many other organisations: the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, FOUR PAWS and Blue Cross. I was at Battersea yesterday, with my friend the hon. Member for Epping Forest. So many organisations have been working on this issue for so long, and I think I can speak on behalf of the veterinary profession when I thank every Member who is here today to make this legislation happen, because it is seismic for animal welfare. The veterinary profession has wanted it for years and it will have a huge impact on animal welfare and on those who work with animals every day.
We know that the Bill will put an end to the sight of dogs with cropped ears. Whether they are imported from abroad or whether the procedure occurs in the UK, there will no longer be an excuse to own a dog with cropped ears, and that will be something we can all celebrate, because it is a very cruel procedure. It is not the only mutilation that we see; it is not the only unnecessary mutilation that we see, but it is so common. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest said earlier, so many of the public are not even aware that it is a mutilation. I think many believe they are seeing normal anatomy, and that is a huge problem in itself.
On that note, and although this is not part of the Bill, I look forward to working with the Government—along with other vets in Parliament—to ensure that we deal with other animal welfare issues where the public simply do not understand that they are causing cruelty. A very good example is flat-faced—brachycephalic—dogs. They shot up in popularity by over 300% between 2010 and 2020. Some of these dogs are bred to such an extent that they need surgery even to be able to breathe. Again, it is not a niche issue. More French bulldogs were registered in the UK than labradors, so this is a very common problem, and we need to work together to both educate the public and, potentially, legislate as we are doing today to prevent unnecessary animal suffering, even if it is caused by well-meaning people who do not understand the amount of suffering that they are causing.
Dr Hudson
I am grateful that the hon. Member has brought up the issue of brachycephalic animals. Again, it highlights the situation in popular culture and the fact that we need to educate people and try to stop advertising companies using these flat-faced animals as part of their “cute” advertising campaigns. Does the hon. Member agree that it is a question of educating the public, but also we need to inform the debate around popular culture for these animals?
The Chair
Order. I point out, before the hon. Member for Winchester responds, that we seem to be moving on to his next private Member’s Bill, so let us deal with this one first.
Dr Chambers
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Epping Forest and as someone who helped to draw up the British Veterinary Association advertising policies for use of animals in adverts, I certainly urge all companies to read that before they produce adverts.
In relation to this Bill specifically—the hon. Member has touched on this already—we are mindful that we will need to review with the Government how effective our biosecurity is. This legislation should help hugely in lowering the risk of rabies, Brucella canis and other diseases that can affect humans, but other steps may need to be taken, perhaps through other Departments or other legislation, to ensure that we have rigorous public health safety when we have a large number of animals moving between countries. We also need to ensure that people are not inadvertently affected by this measure. Many organisations and individual constituents have contacted me with concerns, and we will have to keep an eye on how we can improve things for individuals with secondary legislation.
I thank everyone who has worked on this measure for many years, in whatever capacity and both outside and inside Parliament. I am fully aware that it was part of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill initially. It was then brought forward by the former Member for North Devon in the last Parliament and with a lot of help from the hon. Member for Epping Forest. I am so proud to have finally got it over the line, but I am also very mindful that it was not me on my own. This has been a huge discussion for many years by a lot of people, on a cross-party basis, and I am very thankful for all the work that has been put in, so thank you.
The Chair
I add my thanks to the hon. Gentleman and all other members of the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting)
Wednesday 14th May 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 May 2025 - (14 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 73, in clause 47, page 66, line 8, after “describe” insert
“(subject to the conditions in subsection (5A))”.
Amendment 17, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert “;
(c) a specific density of housing development which ensures effective use of land and which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”.
This amendment requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.
Amendment 35, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(c) the particular features or characteristics of communities or areas covered by the strategy which new development must have regard to in order to support and develop a sense of belonging and sense of place;
(d) a design style to which development taking place in part or all of the area covered by the strategy must have regard;
(e) any natural landmarks or features to which development should be sympathetic.”.
Amendment 74, in clause 47, page 66, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a spatial development strategy specifies or describes an amount or distribution of housing, the strategy must not—
(a) increase the number of homes to be developed in any part of the strategy area by more than 20%, or
(b) reduce the required number of homes to be developed by more than 20% in area part of a strategy area which is an urban area,
when compared to the previous spatial development strategy or the amount of housing currently provided in the relevant area.
(5B) In subsection (5A) ‘urban area’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”.
This amendment would place limits on changes to housing targets in a spatial development strategy.
Amendment 94, in clause 47, page 67, line 11, leave out from “means” to the end of line 14 and insert
“housing which is to be let as social rent housing.
(15) For the purposes of this section, ‘social rent housing’ has the meaning given by paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”.
This amendment would define affordable housing, for the purposes of spatial development strategies, as social rent housing, as defined in the Directions on Rent Standards.
Amendment 85, in clause 47, page 67, line 13, after “2008,” insert—
“(aa) housing provided by an almshouse charity,”.
Good afternoon and thank you all for coming to this afternoon’s line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I apologise to the Minister and anybody who felt that I was going so quickly through the agenda yesterday morning that they felt interrupted—that was not my intention. I think everybody has understood that the agenda is very long. I will try to make sure that I do not interrupt anybody today, but please remember that we need to move through at pace.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 47, page 66, line 1, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would create a requirement that spatial development strategies specify infrastructure of strategic importance for the purposes set out in subsection (4).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 89, in clause 47, page 66, line 5, leave out first “or” and insert “and”.
This amendment would create a requirement that infrastructure of strategic importance specified in a spatial development strategy have the purposes both of mitigating and adapting to climate change.
Amendment 79, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, after “area” insert
“, including through the provision of social infrastructure.
(4A) For the purposes of this section, ‘social infrastructure’ means the framework of institutions and physical spaces that support shared civic life.”.
Amendment 123, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘infrastructure and public services’ must include—
(a) primary and secondary healthcare provision, including mental health provision;
(b) social care provision;
(c) education, skills and training provision;
(d) infrastructure for active travel and public transport;
(e) sufficient road capacity;
(f) access to such commercial amenities, including shops, as the strategic planning authority deems necessary to support residents of the strategy area; and
(g) recreational and leisure facilities;
(h) publicly accessible green spaces.
(4B) A spatial development strategy must include targets for the provision of strategically important infrastructure and public services which are—
(a) considered to be appropriate by the relevant planning authorities and delivery bodies;
(b) periodically amended to account for changes in population size or dynamic within the strategy area;
(c) annually reported against with regard to the strategic planning authority’s performance.”.
This amendment would clarify the meaning of strategically important infrastructure and public services, require targets for such provision to be set, and for performance against such targets to be annually reported.
Gideon Amos
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to speak to amendments 88 and 89, which together relate to spatial development strategies and their content. The important point is that spatial development strategies should provide properly for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Currently, the Bill says that they “may” provide for those matters. From the Liberal Democrats’ point of view, spatial development strategies must provide for tackling climate change.
Amendment 89 seeks to change the Bill’s current wording so that instead of saying that spatial development strategies may consider mitigation “or” adaptation, it says that they must consider mitigation “and” adaptation. It seems perverse that it should be one or the other. That may not be the intention, and no doubt the Minister will have a lengthy explanation as to why the Bill is drafted as it is, but our position is that climate change must be tackled in spatial development strategies. It is not an either/or in terms of adaptation and mitigation: it needs to be both.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I speak in support of the amendments tabled by my colleague, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, and also in support of amendment 79, on social infrastructure.
Amendment 79 is a probing amendment, emphasising the importance of social infrastructure such as parks, libraries, community hubs and sports facilities. These elements of the public realm are so important for community cohesion and strong communities. There are many communities that are doubly disadvantaged: they are economically disadvantaged and they lack the social infrastructure that is a key catalyst for development, social cohesion and wellbeing locally. We have a real opportunity in the Bill to specify the importance of social infrastructure—the elements of public space that enable people to come together to make connections and strengthen communities, and that act as the springboard for prosperity.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Hobhouse. On your comments about the speed with which you handled things yesterday, that is to your credit as a Chair, rather than the other way around.
I rise to speak to Lib Dem amendments 89 and 123. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. Climate change mitigation and adaption are needed. Mitigation is about preventing climate change and adaptation is about dealing with the effects of climate change that we have not been able to prevent.
Amendment 123 relates to our earlier amendment on infrastructure delivery plans, and is intended to achieve something similar. House building is essential, as the Committee has discussed, to provide the homes that people need, but there are significant problems with our current approach to planning. We have targets for building homes, but we do not have the same targets or focus for all the things that come alongside housing.
My Oxfordshire constituency of Didcot and Wantage has seen population growth of 35% in 20 years, which is why the boundaries of the predecessor constituency of Wantage shrunk considerably ahead of the 2024 general election. The single biggest issue I hear on the doorstep is that our services are struggling to cope. People cannot get doctor’s appointments, their children cannot access vital special educational needs and disabilities services, roads are often at a standstill and residents are not happy with the amount of amenities provided.
We must invest more in local infrastructure, particularly where there has been considerable housing and population growth, and support our local authorities to deliver it. Local authorities often do not have the powers or funding to deliver some of the most important infrastructure, particularly in respect of health, which is administered at a more regional level, and major transport schemes, as I will to illustrate. Nor does anyone within local authorities have the power to hold the bodies responsible to account—at least not fully.
For example, a new housing estate in my constituency has a bare patch of land designated to be a GP surgery. There is money from the developer in the section 106 agreement, to put towards the build, but the body responsible for delivering healthcare is the regional integrated care board, and although the development has been finished for a number of years, the land for the GP surgery still sits undeveloped. Fortunately, the district council is working with the ICB, and the GP surgery now has planning permission. But if the ICB had chosen, it may not have been delivered at all—there are no targets as part of the planning process that say the ICB has to deliver it. I am sure that is not the only case and that the same thing is replicated across the country.
Another example from my constituency is that of a new railway station at Grove to support the enormous population growth we have seen at Wantage and Grove. Local authorities do not have the power to insist that funding is allocated to that station on the Great Western main line, and are dealing with significant problems in accessing facilities in Oxford, as well as access to London and beyond. By not delivering the services that people need, we are undermining public support for housing growth, which is essential, as the Committee has discussed.
Gideon Amos
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister’s supportive comments about the delivery of infrastructure, how it will unlock housing and how it needs to come forward to do so mean that he must be lending his support to the reopening of Wellington station in my constituency, which would unlock several thousand new homes? It was ready and construction was starting when it hit the review in July, when the Chancellor had said that such stations would go ahead.
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend makes the case persuasively for a new station at Wellington. I note that it is not responsibility of the Minister’s Department, but I hope he is aware that railway and station re-openings in recent years have seen vastly more use than even the most optimistic forecasts and models predicted.
Without delivering the services that people need, we are undermining public support for the housing that we all know we need. The issue of housing targets not being supported by accompanying targets for—and commensurate investment in and focus on—infrastructure, amenities and public services needs to be rectified. That is essential for happy and well-functioning communities, and for ensuring that there continues to be public support and consent for more housing.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Let me take each of the amendments in turn, beginning with amendment 88. I fully agree that it is essential to consider and identify infrastructure needs when planning for new development, including through spatial development strategies. I do not agree, however, that amendment 88 is needed to achieve that outcome, as the Government intend to set a strong expectation in national policy that key strategic infrastructure needs should be addressed in spatial development strategies. Furthermore, the Bill grants powers to the Secretary of State to intervene where she considers that spatial development strategies are inconsistent with national policies, as we discussed in relation to previous amendments.
On amendment 89, although I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for clarity on the matter, I do not agree that any changes are needed to clarify the provision. Proposed new section 12D(4)(b) already enables spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for both mitigating and adapting to climate change. It does not need to be one or the other.
Gideon Amos
I appreciate that the Minister is hoping that spatial development strategies will make provision for that, but does he accept that the wording in the Bill is that they will provide for either mitigation or adaptation? That is the wording on the face of the Bill, is it not?
Matthew Pennycook
No, I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. As I have said, proposed new section 12D(4)(b), as drafted, enables spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for both mitigation and adaptation. The Government are very clear that we need to have concern for both. As I have said, it does not need to be one or the other. I am more than happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with further detail—in writing, if he wishes—as to the operation of that subsection.
On amendment 79, I recognise that the provision of social infrastructure is also an important consideration. Proposed new section 12D(4)(c) already allows spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for the purposes of promoting or improving the social wellbeing of the area. I therefore do not consider that additional provision is needed in order to enable SDSs to describe social infrastructure.
On amendment 123, I agree that, as we have discussed in relation to previous clauses, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage noted, sufficient provision of health and education facilities, and other forms of essential infrastructure listed in the amendment, is critical in supporting and facilitating new development, and in ensuring that the needs of existing communities are met. I hope that I gave the hon. Gentleman, in relation to a previous clause, some reassurance about the Government’s intent in this policy area. I also recognise that in some cases, for a variety of issues, it can be related to whether sufficient developer contributions have been secured and so on, but in many cases there is an issue of co-ordination with bodies like ICBs. I think the Government could potentially do more in this area.
I note the plea from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for his local railway station, which I will ensure is passed on to the relevant Minister in the Department for Transport but, in terms of amendment 123, I do not agree that it is necessary to enable spatial development strategies to contribute to such an outcome. Proposed new section 12D(4), as drafted, already gives strategic planning authorities the scope to specify in their strategies a wide range of infrastructure types, including those listed in the amendment.
On the issue of specifying infrastructure targets, I do not think it is appropriate for spatial development strategies themselves to set infrastructure targets. Again, that is because SDSs will not allocate specific sites, and therefore they are not likely to give sufficient certainty about the precise level of infrastructure needed at that stage. That is a role for subsequent local plans, which will need to consider infrastructure needs at a more granular level when sites are allocated and, as I have said before, need to be in general conformity with other plans. Spatial development strategies will, however, be able to specify the key infrastructure needs for the development that they identify.
For the reasons that I have outlined, and because we do not want to fetter the production and development of spatial development strategies—it is for the areas that bring them forward to have a measure of discretion about their infrastructure and housing tenure needs—we do not think the amendments are necessary, and I request that hon. Members withdraw them.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but I remain concerned. The Bill states:
“A spatial development strategy may specify or describe infrastructure the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance”.
Particularly if the Government will not accept the amendment discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, on the provision of infrastructure, surely spatial development strategies must specify or describe that sort of infrastructure.
Matthew Pennycook
On that I point, as I have said, the Bill sets out that SDSs
“must be designed to secure that the use and development of land in the strategy area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.”
We could spend many hours debating the implications of “and”, “or”, “may” or “must”—I have spent many an hour in Bill Committees doing that, when we were trying to string out the Bill for various reasons. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and reflect on the point he makes about the wording and whether further clarity would help.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 123, in clause 47, page 66, line 7, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘infrastructure and public services’ must include—
(a) primary and secondary healthcare provision, including mental health provision;
(b) social care provision;
(c) education, skills and training provision;
(d) infrastructure for active travel and public transport;
(e) sufficient road capacity;
(f) access to such commercial amenities, including shops, as the strategic planning authority deems necessary to support residents of the strategy area; and
(g) recreational and leisure facilities;
(h) publicly accessible green spaces.
(4B) A spatial development strategy must include targets for the provision of strategically important infrastructure and public services which are—
(a) considered to be appropriate by the relevant planning authorities and delivery bodies;
(b) periodically amended to account for changes in population size or dynamic within the strategy area;
(c) annually reported against with regard to the strategic planning authority’s performance.”—(Olly Glover.)
This amendment would clarify the meaning of strategically important infrastructure and public services, require targets for such provision to be set, and for performance against such targets to be annually reported.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) A spatial development strategy must—
(a) list any chalk streams identified in the strategy area;
(b) identify the measures to be taken to protect any identified chalk streams from pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage; and
(c) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection and enhancement of chalk stream habitats.”
This amendment would require a special development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 30, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a strategy area includes a chalk stream, the spatial development strategy must include policies on permissible activities within the area of the stream for the purposes of preventing harm or damage to the stream or its surrounding area.”
This amendment would ensure spatial development strategies include policies to protect chalk streams.
Amendment 28, in clause 47, page 66, line 41, at end insert—
“(11A) A spatial development strategy must—
(a) take account of Local Wildlife Sites in or relating to the strategy area, and
(b) avoid development or land use change which would adversely affect or hinder the protection or recovery of nature in a Local Wildlife Site.”
This amendment would ensure that spatial development strategies take account of Local Wildlife Sites.
Ellie Chowns
I am delighted to move amendment 1 on chalk streams, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff).
Clause 47 introduces spatial development strategies to provide a new strategic layer to the planning system. That creates a real opportunity to create new planning protections for strategic but threatened natural resources, such as chalk streams. We have talked about these matters in the Chamber throughout my time here, so I think we all know that the south and east of England are home to fresh waters that rise on chalk soils, whose filtration qualities result in crystal-clear, mineral-rich waters teeming with aquatic life. They are truly beautiful.
A handful of chalk streams occur in northern France and Denmark, but the majority are found in England, so this globally rare ecosystem is largely restricted to our shores. We have a huge responsibly to protect it, and a huge opportunity with the Bill. Sadly, however, we are currently failing to look after this natural treasure adequately for the world. These rare habitats are threatened like never before due to development and other pressures. Some 37% of chalk water bodies do not meet the criteria for good ecological status, due in large part to over-abstraction of water to serve development in inappropriate locations. This spring is the driest since 1956, and there is a risk that some vulnerable chalk streams will dry up altogether, which would be terrible.
Amendment 1 would equip the Bill to address those risks and reduce the impact of development on chalk streams. It would direct the Secretary of State to create new protections for chalk streams and require spatial development authorities covering areas with chalk streams to use those protections to protect and enhance them within the SDS. The affixing of chalk stream responsibility to spatial development strategies would allow the protections to be applied strategically and effectively across entire regions where chalk streams flow. Water bodies, rivers and streams do not respect our administrative boundaries, so we need cross-boundary co-operation to ensure effective protection in the whole catchment. That would also allow the protection requirements to be fairly balanced with development objectives, furthering the wins for both nature and development that Ministers say they are so keen to see from this Bill.
Successive Governments have failed to bring forward the planning reforms needed to address the development pressures that are eroding some of England’s natural crown jewels, and chalk streams are absolutely in that category. There is significant cross-party support for this amendment and for action—I have heard many Members speak about this matter in the Chamber—so I hope the Minister listens, accepts the amendment and delivers a timely new protection for one of our most threatened habitats.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship Mrs Hobhouse. I do not agree that this is the right place to make such an amendment to the Bill, but I agree with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about chalk streams and I want to put on my record my appreciation for those rare and irreplaceable habitats.
In Basingstoke and Hampshire, we are blessed with the River Loddon and the River Test. During the election campaign, I enjoyed—or was subject to, depending on your point of view—a sermon from Feargal Sharkey about chalk streams, and I learned much. As the hon. Lady says, they are very rare and irreplaceable, and they mean a lot to many people.
Although I do not believe this is the place to put this amendment into legislation, I would be grateful if the Minister can set out the Government’s position on how to protect these rare and special habitats. I also pay tribute to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, Natural Basingstoke and Greener Basingstoke for their outstanding work and campaigning to protect these much-loved rare habitats.
Gideon Amos
I rise to support amendment 1 and speak to amendment 30, which my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage will talk about, and amendment 28, in my name, which relates to local wildlife sites.
Amendment 28 would require spatial development strategies to take account of local wildlife sites and include policies that would avoid development on them. Local wildlife sites are some of the country’s most valuable and important spaces for nature. They are selected locally using robust scientific criteria. Those critical sites for biodiversity create wildlife corridors that join up other nationally and internationally designated sites, improving ecological coherence and connectivity. It is a misconception to think that all the best sites for nature conservation are designated sites of special scientific interest—that is not true. SSSIs cover only a representative sample of particular habitats, which means that only a certain number of sites are covered by the national selection. Local wildlife sites, in contrast, operate by a more comprehensive approach, and all sites that meet the criteria are selected. Consequently, some local wildlife sites are of equal biodiversity value to SSSIs.
Where there is little SSSI coverage, local wildlife sites are often the principal wildlife resource for the area, as well as an important place for communities to access nature on their doorstep. In my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, there are 213 local wildlife sites covering almost 23.5 sq km, compared with 16 sq km of land designated as sites of special scientific interest.
In the interest of time, I will cut short my remarks, but it is important to say that the current protection for local wildlife sites in the national planning policy framework is not strong enough, and 2% of sites have been lost or damaged in recent years. My amendment would improve the recognition of local wildlife sites and provide clarity to allow plan makers and decision makers to make the appropriate provision to protect and enhance local wildlife sites within spatial development strategies.
Olly Glover
I rise to support amendments 30, 28 and 1. Chalk streams, such as Letcombe brook in my Didcot and Wantage constituency, are a precious habitat, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire eloquently articulated. The Letcombe Brook Project, set up in April 2003, has done a huge amount of work—mostly through volunteers—to enhance and protect its natural beauty. It is important that the Bill is amended to specifically protect chalk streams and local wildlife sites. That is not just my opinion as a humble Liberal Democrat Back Bencher; in the oral evidence sessions and the written evidence we heard from organisations such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link, the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and Butterfly Conservation, who are all gravely concerned that the Bill does not include enough safeguards.
In addition to the Letcombe Brook Project in my constituency, in Oxfordshire, organisations such as the Earth Trust have, in just 40 years, created precious wildlife sites that are useful for training and educating local people and children. It is important to protect those sites, which is why these amendments have been tabled, and the Bill does not go far enough.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse, and echo the comments about your chairing yesterday being absolutely excellent. I am sure that, as the afternoon goes on, the Government Whip will be looking for you to be as stern as you were yesterday.
I rise to speak briefly in favour of amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, on the importance of chalk streams. I know about this issue personally, as I spent five years as the Member of Parliament for Eastleigh, which had another chalk stream in the River Itchen. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke mentioned, Hampshire has a unique ecosystem and a huge array of chalk streams.
I also pay tribute to the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, which is vociferous in making sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Hampshire constituencies know about the importance of chalk streams. I will refer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North as well, because she is a very welcome part of our Hampshire family—even if many of my constituents would not accept that Portsmouth exists. She also knows how much the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust does in the local area and for us as parliamentarians.
It is important for chalk streams to be protected. We support this well intentioned amendment, because it does no harm to have guidance to make sure that spatial development strategies refer to the unique and important ecosystems that need to be protected. I do not think it is anti-development or that it would harm or hinder activating development if needed. It is a useful step and guideline to make sure that developers take into account the areas that need to be protected.
The River Hamble, which is not a chalk stream, runs through the middle of my constituency. In that river, too, we are seeing the adverse effects of development in the parameter of the river, with water run-off and the pollution that is naturally created by the building process. The current regulatory framework is not doing enough to protect those rivers.
We are seeing our river ecosystems die. That was a heavily political subject at the last general election, and we need to do more on that issue. There are provisions in the Environment Act 2021 that give chalk streams some protection, but even though I am a Conservative who does not believe in over-regulation, I do believe that having that guidance for local authority decision makers would be helpful, which is why we support amendment 1.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank members of the Committee for so eloquently outlining the intent of these amendments. I will first deal with amendments 1 and 30. I very much accept the positive intent of these proposals and would like to stress that the Government are fully committed to restoring and improving the nation’s chalk streams. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made clear, 85% of the world’s chalk streams are found in England. They are unique water bodies, not only vital ecosystems, but a symbol of our national heritage. This Government are committed to restoring them. We are undertaking a comprehensive set of actions outside the Bill to protect our chalk streams; in the interests of time, it is probably worthwhile for me to write to the Committee to set those out in detail.
We do not believe it is necessary to include amendment 1 in the legislation, as existing policy and legislation will already achieve the intended effect. Local nature recovery strategies are a more suitable place to map out chalk streams and identify measures to protect them. Proposed new section 12D(11) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 already requires spatial development strategies to
“take account of any local nature recovery strategy”
that relates to a strategy area.
Strategic planning authorities will also be required to undertake habitats regulations assessments, subject to a Government amendment to the Bill. That places a further requirement on them to assess any adverse effects of the strategy on protected sites, which, in many cases, will include chalk streams. The point I am trying to convey to hon. Members is that strategic planning authorities will already have responsibilities in relation to their protection.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
This is an important and much debated issue. I would be grateful if the Minister could share with the Committee whether he has given consideration to bringing this issue within the remit of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, specifically in respect of species that are unique to those particular habitats. This is very much an area of cross-party interest; I am conscious of my own constituents, who have the Colne Valley, which has a chalk stream. I work closely with my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), whose constituencies this affects as well.
This issue often goes significantly beyond the scope of a local nature recovery strategy, simply because pollution discharge or run-off in one part of a river ecosystem results in a problem elsewhere. While I am sure the Minister will say he welcomes the measures that we passed in the Environment Act during the previous Parliament—which, for the first time, introduced comprehensive monitoring for issues such as sewage discharges—I believe there is still an opportunity to do a bit more to protect these unique habitats.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that point. We will come on to discuss our approach to development and the environment more generally when we reach part 3 of the Bill. In response to his specific question, it is probably best dealt with in the letter I will send to the Committee on this matter, where I can pull together a range of points. The important point I am trying to stress, for the purposes of amendment 1, is that if a strategic planning authority considers the identification and protection of chalk streams to be a matter that should be included in its SDS, proposed new section 12D(1) already makes clear that an SDS must include policies relating to the
“development and use of land in the strategy area, which are of strategic importance to that area”
so that it can be taken into account. There is nothing to prevent strategic planning authorities from including such policies in their spatial development strategies if they consider them to be of strategic importance.
As I said, we have an ongoing debate about when centralisation is appropriate or not; I assume the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will tell me that it is, in this instance, in her view. But for those reasons, we do not consider these amendments necessary to achieve the desired effect.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is absolutely right on this occasion. I just want to probe his comment. He outlined perfectly how, under the proposals he is bringing forward, spatial development strategies can include and incorporate the protection of chalk streams—I perfectly accept that. However, does he not accept that there is a risk that, if any of the decisions arising from the SDS are later challenged under the appeals procedure, without the national guidance that the amendments might provide, those protections might not have the full weight that they would if national regulation ensured the protection of the site? I hope he gets my gist.
Matthew Pennycook
I think I do, and I am happy to expand on the point. What I have been trying to convey is that local nature recovery strategies are a new system of spatial strategies for nature and the environment, which will map out the most valuable areas for nature, including chalk streams, and identify measures to protect them. Proposed new subsection 12D(11) requires spatial development strategies to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to any part of the strategy area.
For the reasons I have given—I am more than happy to expand on these points in writing—I think that the well-founded concerns, which I understand, are unfounded in that respect. We believe that the amendments are not necessary to achieve the desired effect that the hon. Lady has argued for.
I turn to amendment 28. As outlined previously, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary as existing provisions in this legislation will already achieve the desired effect. Again, proposed new subsection 12D(11) already requires spatial development strategies to take account of any local nature recovery strategies that relate to any part of the strategy area. Local nature recovery strategies are required to identify areas of particular importance for biodiversity, and statutory guidance published by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs is clear that they should include all existing local wildlife sites. Strategic planning authorities are therefore already required to take account of local wildlife sites in relation to the strategy area.
Similarly, existing policy already affords protection from development that would adversely affect local wildlife sites. The current national planning policy framework is clear that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should reject applications where significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided, mitigated or compensated for. We therefore do not consider the amendments to be necessary.
Ellie Chowns
Although I take the Minister’s point that there is nothing to prevent strategic planning authorities from making provision for protecting chalk streams, there is not anything to ensure that all the strategic planning authorities in which chalk streams exist will definitely take those measures.
I am going to be tabling further amendments later about irreplaceable habitats. I am not in the habit of proposing amendments about every single specific ecosystem, but chalk streams specifically have global significance and are cross-border in nature, and the spatial planning strategies offer a huge opportunity to tackle the issue head-on.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a spatial development strategy includes a Smoke Control Area or an Air Quality Management Area, the strategy must—
(a) identify measures to reduce air pollution resulting from the development and use of land in that area, and
(b) outline the responsibilities of strategic planning authorities in relation to the management of air quality.”
This amendment would require spatial development strategies which cover Smoke Control Areas or Air Quality Management Areas to consider air pollution and air quality.
This amendment would require that, where a spatial development strategy includes a smoke control area or an air quality management area, the strategy must identify specific measures to reduce air pollution from the development and use of land, and must outline the responsibilities of strategic planning authorities in managing air quality.
Currently, over 10 million people in the UK live in smoke control areas: zones where restrictions are placed on burning certain fuels or using specific appliances to reduce particular emissions. Likewise, more than 400 air quality management areas have been declared by local authorities under the Environment Act 1995 in locations where air pollution exceeds national air quality objectives. These are places where we are really not doing well enough on air pollution. Despite the formal recognition of these zones, they are often not meaningfully integrated into spatial development strategies, so this legislation gives us an opportunity to ensure that new housing, transport and infrastructure projects, when approved, must fully account for their cumulative impacts on already poor air quality.
Construction and land development are direct contributors to air pollution through increased traffic volume, emissions from building activity and the removal of green space that helps to filter pollutants. In many cases, strategic planning authorities are not required to take those factors into account when drafting or approving development strategies. The amendment would close that gap by ensuring that air quality is treated not as a secondary consideration, but a fundamental part of sustainable planning. Perhaps I should declare an interest as an asthmatic, like huge numbers of people in the UK.
The amendment also strengthens the accountability of strategic planning authorities, by requiring them not just to assess air quality impacts, but to work out what they are going to do—to define their roles—in addressing them. That would help to prevent the recurring issue where the responsibility for mitigating air pollution falls between Departments or different levels of government, central and local. It would ensure that development strategies are consistent with the UK’s broader legal commitments to air quality, including the targets that we set under the Environment Act 2021 and the national air quality strategy.
From a public health perspective, the case for the amendment is clear. Air pollution is linked to an estimated 43,000 premature deaths annually in the UK. That is a huge number and contributes to a range of serious health conditions, particularly among children, older adults and those living in deprived areas. The economic cost of air pollution, including its impact on the NHS, is estimated at a whopping £20 billion a year. Embedding air quality considerations directly into spatial planning is a proactive and cost-effective way to address the crisis before further harm is done to human health.
I believe that the amendment provides a clear, proportionate mechanism for ensuring that planning strategies support our clean air objectives. I strongly urge the Minister to consider warmly the amendment.
Gideon Amos
I very much sympathise with the amendment. Indeed, I have air quality management areas in my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, including two that breach the lawful limits of air pollution. We desperately need the bypass for Thornfalcon and Henlade, which would solve that particular issue.
In brief, I feel that the approach in amendment 93 is not quite right, because it would be better directed at local plans. As I understand it, spatial development strategies are not site-specific or area-specific in their proposals. We do not feel that the amendment is quite the right approach, but we are very sympathetic to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire’s motivation for tabling it.
Matthew Pennycook
Once again, I understand the positive intent of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire’s amendment. Of course, improving air quality is a highly important issue in many parts of the country, not least in my own south-east London constituency. It is part of the reason why, many moons ago now, I established the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. It is a public health issue and a social justice issue, and the Government are committed to improving air quality across the country. Amendment 93, however, is another example of trying to ask SDSs to do things that they are not designed for, and replicating existing duties and requirements that bear down on authorities in an SDS.
Ellie Chowns
Does the Minister not recognise that the fact that we have such huge problems with air pollution means that existing regulation is not working well enough?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy, in the interests of time, to set out what the Government are doing on this agenda through ministerial colleagues, but I return to this fundamental point: what are we introducing spatial development strategies for? They are high-level plans for infrastructure investment for housing growth. They need not replicate every existing duty and requirement in national policy.
Local authorities are already required to review and assess air quality in the area regularly, setting air quality management areas where national objectives are not being met. National planning policy is clear that opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impact should be identified at the plan-making stage to ensure a strategic approach. Again, I make the point that SDSs have to ensure that local plans are in general conformity with them. Planning decisions should ensure that any development in air quality management areas and clean air zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan.
Placing responsibilities—this is the fundamental point, which also applies to other amendment—on strategic planning authorities in relation to air quality management would replicate existing duties, and we therefore do not think the amendment is necessary. The hon. Lady may feel strongly and wish to press it to a vote. However, although it is entirely laudable that hon. Members with amendments are taking an opportunity to make points about the value of existing national duties and requirements, or the ways those may need to change, I hope that I have clearly outlined why the provisions on introducing an effective layer of strategic planning across England are not the place to have those debates.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister for his response. We will have to agree to somewhat disagree on this matter, but in the interests of time—and because I can count—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 47, page 69, line 37, leave out from “must” to the end of line 4 on page 70 and insert “consult—
(a) residents of the relevant area;
(b) businesses located in the relevant area; and
(c) representatives of those that the authority considers may have an interest in any relevant area.”
This amendment would change the existing requirement in the Bill for a strategic planning authority to notify specified parties to a requirement to consult local residents, businesses, and representative organisations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 90, in clause 47, page 70, line 2, leave out “and”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 91.
Amendment 91, in clause 47, page 70, line 4, at end insert “, and
(e) persons who experience disability.”
This amendment would require strategic planning authorities to consider notifying disabled people about the publication of a draft spatial development strategy.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to have been promoted to shadow Secretary of State, Mrs Hobhouse, but as soon as my colleagues and leader find out, I am bound to be sacked.
This important amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner; we have pushed the Minister on this issue on Second Reading and other occasions. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Minister has made clear his strength of feeling about the measures and the amendments that he has tabled on the planning system, and about the radical reforming zeal that they will deliver to people across the country, through a centralised national approach to amending our planning system.
However, the Minister does not want the scrutiny for local people that goes with that. Proposed new section 12H(3) states that
“the strategic planning authority must consider notifying (at least) the following about the publication of the draft spatial development strategy—
(a) voluntary bodies some or all of whose activities benefit the whole or part of the strategy area”,
as well as a number of other organisations. We agree with the Minister that the development strategies will be wide-ranging in their impact on local communities, but if the Minister believes that, he should also believe that the people affected by them should be consulted. He should believe that those people should have their say on whether the development strategies have been drawn up in the right way, whether they contain what they should contain and whether they perhaps contain too much.
We just discussed the importance of chalk streams, and the Minister said that there is nothing to stop authorities from putting protections for chalk streams in a strategy. However, the Bill states that these organisations “at least” have to be notified—there are people who do not have to be notified. We believe that there should at least be some consultation exercise on the detail of the draft spatial development strategy put forward by the strategic planning authority. Something as important as that should be consulted on.
In discussing chapter 2, the Minister has outlined that local people are important and that spatial development strategies are vital to ensuring that development and planning are delivered in a radical, efficient and much more concrete way. That is why we tabled this amendment. We believe that the Minister should be bold. If he thinks that the measures in the Bill are as radical as he says and that they will wholeheartedly deliver on the infrastructure and the local base-led planning system he so wants, he should be confident in allowing the people that the Bill affects to have their say and be able to share and bask in the glory of the radical agenda he is bringing through. We believe that consultation is a good thing and, as we have said on previous amendments, constituents and local people should be able to shape what they want and do not want within them.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The shadow Minister is making important points about how we consult the public, but we heard clearly from him this morning that that was the role of local councillors. I refer him to new section 12I to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which provides that any spatial development strategy must be examined by the public. Another layer of consultation would be an unnecessary addition when there is already in-built public consultation in the Bill.
Paul Holmes
I genuinely thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She has clearly examined the Bill, which is such a big piece of legislation—in the right way. I simply say that an examination of and consultation on the creation of a spatial development strategy would not always have what people want in it, or do not want in it, as its ultimate end goal once the draft has been put together. When a draft spatial strategy has been put together, people should be able to have their say on it.
The hon. Lady will know from her previous career, as I do from mine, that when people want to have their say on something in a consultation that an authority proposes, some will be happy—maybe they are getting what they want from it—but some will never be happy. They will always want to grumble; we have all had a few of those in our inboxes. However, we believe it is right that once something as key and new as these strategies is brought together, local people should be able to have their say.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a requirement on strategic planning authorities to consult prior and during. We are saying that once the draft strategy is put forward, it is crucial that local people have their chance to have a say. If a strategic planning authority is confident that it has made the right decision on a local development based on the consultations it has already done, it should not be scared or hindered by a consultation to see what happens in respect of the finished product.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The shadow Minister is making some eloquent points. Does he agree that if the Government are intent on bringing in a national scheme of delegation, and changing the role of the planning committee and how councillors interact with the planning process, even more consultation should be done at the stages he is describing so that we can ensure that residents still get their say over development in their area?
Paul Holmes
Yes. We had a significant debate yesterday on what I said was the Government’s centralising zeal in taking powers away from locally elected politicians. Many Opposition Members agree with me. The Opposition tabled an amendment that would not have allowed to go ahead something as large-scale being put together by a strategic planning authority, created by the Government, but the Minister won. We believe people should be consulted.
As I said to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, it is vital that when there is a democratic deficit—we fundamentally believe that one is being created by other aspects of the Bill—local people should have the right to be consulted on the end product. That is why I say this to the Minister, slightly cheekily, but with a serious undertone. As I said in a Westminster Hall debate, he is the forward-looking planner of our time, and I know he gets embarrassed about these things—he is blushing—but nobody in the House of Commons is more deserving of the role of Housing Minister. He worked hard on the role in opposition, and he comes from a space of wanting to reform the system. We accept that, but sometimes his reforms have consequences, and if those reforms are so good, he should not be afraid to allow the people who elected him to his place and the Government to their place to have their say on something as radical as this change.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to amendments 90 and 91—hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I will be brief. We have significant concerns about community involvement in consultation and about many of the points that have just been made. I have more to say on all that for the next group, in which we have tabled an amendment to make those points.
Amendments 90 and 91 would simply ensure that disabled people are consulted in the preparation of spatial development strategies. The Equality Act 2010 includes a public sector equality duty: a duty on public authorities to advance equality and eliminate discrimination. That implies that disabled people should be consulted on spatial development strategies in any case. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s report on disabled people in the housing sector said:
“Despite the cross-government effort to ‘ensure disability inclusion is a priority’…we have found little evidence that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is treating disabled people’s needs as a priority in housing policy.”
We need to make sure that the voices of disabled people are heard in the preparation of spatial development strategies.
Ellie Chowns
I rise, briefly, to support the substantive point about the necessity of public consultation on something as important as a spatial planning strategy. As new section 12H of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is entitled “Consultation and representations”, it is disappointing that there is actually no provision for consultation. There is provision only for the consideration of notification, which is inadequate for strategies that will be as important as these. I urge the Minister to consider going away and aligning the text of his clause with the title of his clause.
David Simmonds
When we were drafting amendment 78, we gave a good deal of consideration to the direction of travel set out by the Government. The concerns that underlay the drafting were reinforced in the evidence sessions, where the Committee heard from a cross-party panel of local government leaders that the consultation process in planning was an opportunity to get things right, and for a public conversation about the impact of any proposed development, large or small, in order to forestall, through the planning process, objections that might later arise, by designing a development that would meet those concerns.
We have heard today a number of examples from Members that fall within that category. We have heard cross-party concerns about the impact on chalk streams, where consultation would allow effective parties with an interest to bring forward their views—for example, on the impact of run-off. A developer would therefore have the opportunity to build those concerns into the design of their proposed scheme to mitigate the impact and address the concerns.
We heard about the impact of air pollution on asthmatics—including, for the record, me. If a developer says they are planning to use biomass or wood burning as the heat source for a development, and the stoves are on the DEFRA exempt list—that is, if the Government consider that they produce little or no environmental pollution—that might be acceptable to people with that concern. However, if it will simply be up to the developer to install whatever they wish, that will have a significant negative impact and there is no opportunity for mitigation. The consultation is therefore critical.
There is a direction of travel: it feels very much that the Government’s view is that consultation and democracy are a hindrance to getting new units built. It is very clear from the views expressed by many Members—from all parties, in fairness, but certainly in the Opposition amendments that have been put forward—that we are keen to retain a sufficient element of local democracy and local voice to ensure that the kinds of concerns I have described are properly addressed. I invite the Minister to consider accepting the amendment, which would not in any way derail the intentions that he sets out in the Bill, but would achieve the opportunity for consultation, which is critical.
Matthew Pennycook
I take on board the strength of feeling that has been expressed. As with all the debates we are having, I will reflect on the arguments that hon. Members have made. However, we do not think the amendments are necessary. As I have sought to reassure the Committee on previous occasions, each SDS will have to undergo public consultation and then be examined by a planning inspector. Once a draft SDS is published, it is open for anyone to make representations about that SDS. For those reasons, I hope that, in dealing with the specific amendments, I can reassure the Committee that they are unnecessary.
Turning first to amendment 78—
Ellie Chowns
I have been reading the clauses very carefully. As I read the Bill, it provides that a draft SDS can be produced without any public consultation whatsoever—in other words, a draft SDS can be produced by somebody in a cupboard with access to the internet. New section 12H, which deals with consultation and representations, provides an opportunity for consultation on the draft, preparatory to the examination and then the finalisation.
The problem is that new section 12H does not provide for consultation; it provides only for the consideration of notifying various local bodies. According to the Bill, it provides that
“the authority must also publish or make available a statement inviting representations to be made to the authority”.
Without any clarity on what that involves, an authority can just put something on a website that says, “If you’re interested in this, send us an email,” and nobody in the local area would have a clue that it was happening. The point of consultation is that it is an active process of engagement with those who have a legitimate interest in the matter. I think the Bill’s drafting does not reflect that.
Matthew Pennycook
May I press the hon. Lady, so that I understand her carefully made point? A draft SDS will be published and it will be a requirement, under clause 12H, that the strategic planning authority either notifies or consults, and that will then be open for comment or representations. I want to understand the hon. Lady’s point, because I will go away and reflect on it. In what way does she think that is different from the consultation process on, for example, a local development plan?
Ellie Chowns
New section 12H(3) says that the authority
“must consider notifying…the following”,
so there is no specification that it must notify; it must only consider notifying. The person in the cupboard could consider notifying them and decide, “No, I’m not going to notify them.” The only hard requirement is that
“the authority must…publish…a statement inviting representations”.
As I have just outlined, that is not the same as consultation. I taught this subject at university: according to Arnstein’s ladder of participation, consultation is at a higher level than notification. Will the Minister take that away and consider improving the provisions for consultation?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady cut me off early in my remarks, so let me develop them somewhat and deal with the specific point that, by our reading, the amendment deals with. The list of public bodies detailed in new section 12H(3) sets out that strategic planning authorities must consider notifying community and interest groups that a draft of their spatial development strategy has been published. In subsection (3), it is very clear who the strategic planning authority must consider notifying—I have it in front me. That list is by no means exhaustive or exclusive. Indeed, new section 12H(4) requires strategic planning authorities to invite representations, as I have said, about their draft strategy. That invitation is open to all, including residents and businesses within the strategy area.
The purpose of new section 12H(3) is to ensure that strategic planning authorities consider a broad range of opinion when they consult on their draft strategy. There is nothing in the Bill, or elsewhere, to prevent residents or businesses from participating in the consultation, or to prevent strategic planning authorities from notifying them of the consultation specifically. For those reasons, we do not think—
Matthew Pennycook
In the interests of making progress, let me say that I have understood the hon. Lady’s point, and will happily go away and reflect on it, but we do not think the amendment is necessary. For the reasons I have set out, we will resist the amendment if she presses it to a vote. As I said, I am more than happy to reflect on her point; she has made it very clearly and it has been understood.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is being very clear in his position on the amendments, but I have extreme sympathy for, and agreement with, the hon. Member for Hereford north.
Paul Holmes
I am sorry about that. I am not very good at geography; I did not teach it at university.
I hope the Minister takes these concerns in the spirit in which they are intended. I say that a lot, but there is genuinely a huge concern about the difference between notifying and consulting, and about what he has said in Committee today. The minimum wording in the Bill—I guarantee that strategic planning authorities will look at it and follow it to the letter, given the work they have to do—is that the strategic planning authority
“must consider notifying (at least) the following about the publication of the draft spatial development strategy”.
New section 12H(4) outlines that the planning authorities should publish the draft spatial strategy
“as required by subsection (1)(a)”,
or make
“such a strategy available for inspection”,
but there is a vast difference between “notifying (at least)” and consulting.
Paul Holmes
I will, but then I want to ask the Minister a question to see whether he will answer, in which case we might not press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
Can I make sure that this is a speech and not an intervention on the Minister? Minister, had you sat down and made all the points you wanted to make to all the amendments being debated?
Matthew Pennycook
I sat down because I saw the hon. Member for Hamble Valley rising. We do have another amendment to respond to, if he wants me to.
The Chair
I would like the Minister to speak to the three amendments we are debating, including amendments 90 and 91. I will then invite the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to respond and he can take an intervention from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth.
Matthew Pennycook
In the interests of brevity, Mrs Hobhouse, I will make one final comment, then I will go away and reflect and we can return to the matter on Report, where there will be time for consideration.
Again—it has felt like this a lot today—I think we are conflating different things. The process for an SDS is different from the process for the development of a local development plan. They are different things.
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister says he knows, but in a sense the legislative underpinning that we have looked at for this measure, and the most obvious and comparable example, is the London plan. Broadly similar provisions exist in the London plan, and when it is put out to consultation it gets tens of thousands of responses to the notification, which are taken into account. I say gently that I do not think we are talking about an arrangement here much different from what applies there. To make the point again, this is a very different strategy that we are asking strategic authorities, or boards in those cases, to bring forward.
David Simmonds
One question that frequently arises when there is a challenge to a development through the process of judicial review is about whether the processes of consultation have been correctly followed. Removing a requirement for consultation and replacing it with a discretion to notify dramatically lowers the ability of people who are very concerned that developments are brought forward within their strategic plans that would not have been acceptable and would have failed to meet the proper consultation standard—for example, on issues such as air quality or environmental impact. In fact, it would be in the interests of the development industry for proper consultation to take place, rather than its being forestalled in this way.
Matthew Pennycook
I come back to the point I have made several times now: SDSs cannot allocate sites. There is a role for local plans underneath SDSs, which must be in general conformity with them. We would have failed if we simply ensured that SDSs were big local plans with the level of detail required on site allocation for a local plan. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that SDSs will not opine on whether a particular development on a particular plot of land is acceptable. They may outline the areas of general housing growth that the strategic authority or constituent member authorities want to be brought forward in that sub-region.
Again, I am more than happy to go away and set out in chapter and verse the way we think the clause might operate—if we ever get to clause stand part, I might be able to outline it in a little bit more detail—but I think that when hon. Members grasp the full detail of what we want these strategies to do and how we think they should be prepared and developed, they may be reassured. If not, we can come back to the matter on Report.
Rachel Taylor
This really is a semantic point about language. I fully appreciate that there is a massive difference between notification and consultation, but new section 12H(5) is very clear that that notification is also required to contain an invitation to the relevant person to make representations. Surely an invitation to somebody to make a representation is a consultation?
Matthew Pennycook
I did not teach the subject, so I do not know. I am content to be schooled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on the philosophical meaning of a consultation versus notification. As I read it, the relevant strategic planning authority has a duty to produce and then publish a draft SDS, and they are required to notify all the groups under subsection (2). It is not exhaustive; they can add additional groups if they want to consult further. They must include, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth rightly says, an invitation to those persons to make representations, which will be considered.
Strategic planning authorities have the discretion to go further. There is nothing stopping relevant authorities undertaking wider or different forms of consultation if they wish to inform their strategy. I think what we are talking about is somewhat a semantic difference. I will leave it there. I have spoken enough about this and the reasons why the Government do not think the amendment is necessary. If hon. Members feel strongly enough, they can either press it to a vote in Committee or we can return to it on Report.
The Chair
I call the shadow Minister to respond, but I also would like to know whether he wishes to press his amendment to a vote.
Paul Holmes
I cannot yet tell you that, Mrs Hobhouse, because I want first to respond to what the Minister has said, and then hear his response in an intervention I will invite him to make. The Minister and I are obviously fairly jaded about the length of time that this is taking. I feel exactly the same as he does, but this is a serious concern from all parties, as he has accepted. He outlined his belief that the wording in the Bill is substantive enough to ensure that there is an invitation to make representations.
The process established by the Bill says that the authority must “consider notifying”—that could be, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, in a very small advert on a distinct web page that is not very accessible somewhere—“(at least) the following” people. It then publishes a strategy and asks for representations, which must be in a prescribed form and manner and within a prescribed period. That is fine, but nowhere in the Bill does it outline what happens to those representations once they are received. There is no obligation on the development organisation to look at those representations.
Paul Holmes
The Minister can make that face, but that is true. Nowhere does it say that the authority has to look at the representations, give any feedback on them or do anything about them. All we are saying in amendment 78—it was addressed in other Members’ speeches as well—is that local people should be consulted on what they think about the proposals.
The Minister is, as I have said repeatedly on this Committee, a man of integrity and he has listened to our case, but nowhere under proposed new section 12H, particularly in subsections (3) and (4), does it require authorities to do anything with the representations. There is nowhere where those representations could feasibly make the proposals and draft plan better or fundamentally change their contents. I will invite the Minister to intervene—
Paul Holmes
—when I have posed this question. We are seriously concerned about this element of the Bill. The Minister said in Committee yesterday that they have the numbers. We accept that, and we can look at this on Report. We will look at this on Report, because it is a substantial area in which the Bill falls short.
If the Minister commits to meeting all interested parties and look actively at how, in subsection (3), we can remove “consider notifying (at least)” and include not just notifying, but consulting, and we get a clear, proper commitment to that in Committee this afternoon, then we will consider not pressing the amendment to a vote. I know the Minister has the numbers, but I hope, in the spirit in which our amendment is intended, he understands that people who will be impacted by these decisions will want to have that consultation. I ask the Minister to intervene to hear if he is willing to do that. If he is not, we will press this amendment to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I will intervene in the interest of trying to bring this discussion to a close, because I feel I have outlined the Government’s position in quite some detail. I have understood the points that Opposition Members have made. I have committed to reflecting on them.
I have also committed to writing to the Committee, which I will do, and it might be useful for the debates on Report if I outline, because I have made reference to the London plan, as the prime example of an existing spatial development strategy, how consultation works under that plan; how generally, in terms of the principles of good plan making, consultation operates across the system; and how we think the approach outlined in clause 47 in reference to spatial development strategies will operate. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley is more than welcome to press the amendment to a vote—I do not mind in any sense—but if I give hon. Members that detail and they still feel strongly enough on Report, we can continue the debate then.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful to the Minister and I know he is doing his best in this regard. I am challenging not to be obtuse or difficult, but because, as I have said, there is clear concern about the wording in the Bill, and his interpretation, which is the really important thing, is an interpretation of language in the Bill that we just do not feel is tight enough. I know he has committed to writing to the Committee, and we would like him to do that. I did ask whether he would consider looking at the consultation element in relation to proposed new section 12H(3).
On his reference to the London plan, that is fine—we can compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges—but let us look at the fact that this is a provision in legislation that will be new. I think that he should be looking at this afresh, aside from what happened before. Just because something has happened before does not mean it is correct or right, and we want the language in the Bill tightened up as much as possible. I really regret to say to the Minister—
Ellie Chowns
I plead with the hon. Member not to press the amendment to a vote, in the interests of time and also because I cannot vote for his amendment proactively, because I think it is even more poorly written than the text it is trying to replace, so can we—[Laughter.]
Paul Holmes
After I was so kind to the hon. Lady! Actually, we agree on this issue, and it is not my amendment; it was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, so it is his fault. But whether she thinks it is poorly worded or not has no bearing on my inclination to press the amendment to a vote or not, because I think the principle is what matters. I think we both have a principled stance on what we want to achieve in the Bill, which is consultation.
Whether the hon. Lady thinks that the amendment is worded wrongly or not—I say that with all due respect, genuine respect, to the hon Lady—what I was saying to the Minister was that he has made a number of commitments, but I fear that coming back to this on Report and not—[Interruption.] I am coming to a close, Mrs Hobhouse, but other people have had their say on this and it is important that we have our say on our amendment. The Minister has been very clear on what he wants to do, but I do not think he has gone far enough, so we will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 120, in clause 47, page 70, leave out line 40 and insert—
“(5) A strategic planning authority must prepare and consult on a statement of community involvement which provides for persons affected by the strategy to have a right to be heard at an examination.”
I want to discuss participation in and consultation on spatial development strategies. I appreciate that this will be a long day as we are going on until 7 pm, but this is a really important part of the Bill, and the level of public involvement that is allowed in spatial development strategies is really important. It is vital that the Bill gets that right.
The amendment provides that strategic authorities would have to prepare a statement of community involvement, which would set out the people who had a right to be heard on a spatial development strategy. That approach recognises that spatial development strategies are different from local plans. This debate was had, probably in this room, during debates on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Labour Government did not intend to include any right to be heard in local development plans, but they changed their mind and accepted the wisdom of the arguments that were put forward. A right to be heard on local development plans was enshrined in that Act.
I recognise that spatial development strategies are different, that a right to be heard is more challenging in a strategic context, and that the London plan does not have a right to be heard. However, the provisions on spatial development strategies in this Bill do not even go as far as those in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which set out the London spatial development strategy. That Act has a duty to take account of consultation, and there is no such duty in this Bill.
I have some sympathy for the amendment that the shadow Minister proposed—the points made were valid—but we did not feel the drafting was quite right. Picking out particular businesses and interest groups was not how we would do it. We propose that strategic authorities should develop their own statement of community involvement. After all, that is what local councils are expected to do on their local plans, so why should a mayoral authority not be required to do that on a much more overarching, much more strategic and much more powerful document that would follow as a result?
In another respect, the Bill provides for even less consultation than there is on nationally significant infrastructure projects in the Planning Act 2008. In that Act, there is a statutory duty to take account of consultation—I believe it is in section 50, if memory serves me correctly. In this Bill, there is no duty to take account of consultation. There is a difference between considering notifying parties and consulting them and being required to take their views into account.
Matthew Pennycook
This is an important point, and perhaps some of the confusion arises from the stages of the process. Let me draw his attention to proposed new section 12K(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. That makes it very clear:
“The strategic planning authority must…consider any representations received in accordance with regulations under section 12H(7)”—
which we have just discussed—
“and decide whether to make any modifications as a result”.
A strategic planning authority cannot, as I think the shadow Minister asserted, bin all the representations that it receives in a cupboard—I think that was how the hon. Member for North Herefordshire phrased it. It does have to have regard to them. I just address that point, in terms of the examination, about what is required to come via submission to the Secretary of State before adoption.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for correcting me on that point. He is absolutely right that there is a provision stating that consultation responses must be taken into account, but there is no duty to consult and no requirement, and it is the same for community involvement. In fact, the Bill explicitly states that there will not be a right to be heard in the examination in public.
We should be clear that what is called a public examination of the strategy does not mean that the public are allowed to take part. They are allowed to watch and listen to it—that is what it means—but they are not allowed to take part. A clause specifically states that there should not be a right to be heard, so those affected—members of the public, landowners, businesses and so on—will not have a right to take part in that examination. There is effectively no right to take part in any of the process.
We propose a modest approach that is less onerous than what is required of local planning authorities: a statement of community involvement, in which mayoral authorities would establish for themselves what categories of persons have the right to be heard in examinations of their plans. I believe that is a sensible measure that would provide a different level of involvement, which is appropriate given that a strategic authority obviously covers many more people and it would be difficult to provide a right to be heard to every member of the public. A provision to allow mayoral authorities to set out their own consultation and involvement standards seems eminently sensible to us, and that is why we have tabled the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for clearly setting out his intent. Again, I preface my remarks by saying that, given the strength of feeling that has been expressed this afternoon, I will certainly reflect. As a point of principle—I will repeat this clearly, so that it is on the record—the Government of course want local communities to be actively involved in the production of a spatial development strategy for their area. All persons have the right to make representations on a draft SDS. However, we do not think it is necessary to be overly prescriptive about how strategic planning authorities should go about seeking the views of their communities, or to require them to demonstrate how they are doing so.
As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, following the implementation of changes made in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, local planning authorities will no longer be required to produce a statement of community involvement setting out how they are engaging with their community. I do not think it would be appropriate to place a similar requirement on strategic planning authorities.
Similarly, I do not think it is necessary to give people the right to be heard at examination. It is true that, unlike for local plans, there is no formal right for persons to appear and be heard at the examination of a spatial development strategy. As I have said several times, it is the Government’s intention that spatial development strategies should act as high-level documents that set the context for subsequent local plans that must be in general conformance with them. Notably, unlike local plans, spatial development strategies do not allocate specific sites for development. Therefore, it is more appropriate for people to have the right to appear at local plan examinations and for examinations of spatial development strategies to be kept proportionate to their specific role.
I say that having heard very clearly the hon. Gentleman accept and understand the difference between what the Government are trying to achieve via SDSs vis-à-vis local development plans, for example. Experience shows that planning inspectors go to lengths to ensure that a broad range of relevant interests and views are heard at examinations of the London plan, which, while not identical in legislative underpinning, is the most comparable SDS that is out there. For reference, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows given his background and experience, the most recent spatial development strategy examination—that of the London plan in 2019—took place over 12 weeks and the list of participants ran to 27 pages.
For those reasons, we do not think the amendment is necessary, and I kindly ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Gideon Amos
We wish to press the amendment to a vote, because we believe in the right to be heard and, in general, we are highly concerned about the potential erosion of the democratic planning system by the Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 124, in clause 47, page 74, line 10, leave out “from time to time” and insert “annually”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 48.
Schedule 3.
Gideon Amos
The Committee will be delighted to hear that I will be extremely brief on this topic. Simply put, there is no provision for how often a spatial development strategy should be reviewed, and our amendment proposes that it be done annually. It may be that annually is not be the appropriate timeframe, but there should be regular reviews. That is the spirit of the amendment, although I will not seek a vote, to enable the Committee to make progress.
Matthew Pennycook
I will start by responding to amendment 124 moved by the hon Member for Taunton and Wellington. I will then speak to clause 47 stand part, Government amendment 48 and schedule 3.
In reference to amendment 124, it is true that, unlike local plans, which must be reviewed at least every five years, there is no set timescale in which spatial development strategies must be reviewed or replaced. Spatial development strategies are intended to be long-term strategies that provide greater certainty for investment and development decisions. The areas producing them will vary greatly in their size, the scale of development that they require and the changes over time which they must respond to. This light-touch review requirement gives strategic planning authorities greater discretion to review their strategy as and when they feel it necessary to do so.
By way of comparison, the London plan, which has the same review requirement, has been fully replaced twice, and another version is now under way; it has also undergone several interim reviews and updates. I hope that strategic planning authorities will exhibit similar diligence in maintaining their SDSs. In the event that a strategic planning authority fails to adequately keep its strategy under review, the Secretary of State will have the power under the Bill to direct the authority to review all or part of its strategy. For those reasons we do not think that this amendment is required.
The Government firmly believe that housing and infrastructure needs cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger than local scale, and that new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning are essential. A nationally consistent system will underpin the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament, help to deliver better infrastructure, and boost economic growth. For those reasons I hope that the hon. Member will understand what we are trying to achieve with this clause and withdraw the amendment.
Government amendment 48 makes consequential changes to regulation 111 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to add spatial development strategies drawn up under the Bill to the definition of “land use plan”, and update the definition of “plan-making authority” and the references to
“giving effect to a land use plan”
to reflect the introduction of the new spatial development strategies. The amendment will bring the new spatial strategies into line with the spatial development strategy for London, along with local and neighbourhood plans. It ensures that strategic planning authorities will also be bound to carry out habitats regulations assessments. A habitats regulations assessment will identify any aspects of the spatial development strategy that may have an adverse effect on special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites. That will ensure that the impacts of development on protected habitat sites are appropriately considered.
Finally, on clause 47 stand part, as we have discussed at some length, the clause reintroduces a system of strategic plan making across England. The recent period has been something of an aberration, as throughout most of the past 50 years, England has had a strategic tier of plan-making. We have had structure plans at county level, regional planning guidance from central Government and regional spatial strategies prepared at regional level. The past 14 years, without any formal planning since the abolition of regional spatial strategies, have been anomalous, and this Government’s firmly held view is that that has led to suboptimal outcomes. Over the last 40 years, development levels have consistently failed to meet the country’s needs, resulting in a housing crisis and significant affordability gaps across the country. Additionally, the number of local plans being adopted or updated has continued to decline, with only about 30% of plans adopted in the last five years.
As is generally accepted by hon. Members, the planning system is in dire need of reform. A system of strategic plans is central to our efforts to get Britain building again. The duty to co-operate introduced by the Localism Act 2011 was intended to replace strategic planning, but it has failed. Instead, it created a bureaucratic system and significant uncertainty, led to numerous local plan failures, and ultimately failed to deliver the kind of joined-up thinking and co-operation across local authority boundaries that was intended. Indeed, the failure of the duty was such that the previous Government legislated for its repeal in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. I can assure the Committee that this Government will honour the previous Government’s intentions and commence the relevant provisions of the 2023 Act to repeal the duty. Our goal is to establish a system of strategic planning that garners support from all sides of the House, and so create a stable and consistent framework for planning the growth that this country so desperately needs.
Gideon Amos
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Section 47: minor and consequential amendments
Amendment made: 48, in schedule 3, page 146, line 4, at end insert—
“Habitats Regulations
11A (1) Regulation 111 of the Habitats Regulations (interpretation of Chapter 8) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1), in the definition of ‘land use plan’—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘(the spatial development strategy)’ substitute ‘(the spatial development strategy for London)’;
(b) after paragraph (a) insert—
‘(aa) a spatial development strategy as provided for in Part 1A of the 2004 Planning Act;
(ab) a spatial development strategy of a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, not being a spatial development strategy within paragraph (aa);
(ac) a spatial development strategy of a combined county authority established under section 9 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, not being a spatial development strategy within paragraph (aa);’.
(3) In paragraph (1), in the definition of ‘plan-making authority’—
(a) in paragraph (a), after ‘replacement’ insert ‘of the spatial development strategy for London’;
(b) after paragraph (a) insert—
‘(aa) a strategic planning authority (within the meaning given in section 12A of the 2004 Planning Act);
(ab) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 when exercising powers in relation to a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ab) of the definition of “land use plan”;
(ac) a combined county authority established under section 9 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 when exercising powers in relation to a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ac) of the definition of “land use plan;”’;
(c) in paragraph (c), before sub-paragraph (ii) insert—
‘(ia) section 12P or 12Q of the 2004 Planning Act (Secretary of State’s powers in relation to spatial development strategy);’.
(4) In paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (c), after ‘strategy’, in both places, insert ‘for London’;
(b) after sub-paragraph (c) insert—
‘(ca) the adoption or approval of a spatial development strategy or of an alteration of such a strategy under Part 1A of the 2004 Planning Act;
(cb) the adoption or alteration of a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ab) of the definition of “land use plan”;
(cc) the adoption or alteration of a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ac) of the definition of “land use plan”;’.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment revises the Habitats Regulations 2017 so that the new kind of spatial development strategy (see clause 47 of the Bill) counts as a “land use plan”. The effect is that an assessment under those Regulations will be required in certain cases before the strategy is adopted.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 48
Overview of EDPs
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 48, page 83, line 2, after “to” insert “significantly”.
This amendment would require that conservation measures undertaken within Environmental Delivery Plans (EDP) should significantly protect environmental features.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 77, in clause 48, page 83, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) An environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document.
(1B) Where an environmental delivery plan is prepared by a local planning authority, references in sections 48 to 60 to Natural England should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.”
Clause stand part.
Clause 49 stand part.
Gideon Amos
I am sure we can hardly contain our excitement about moving on to another clause. Amendment 12 would require that conservation measures undertaken within environmental development plans should “significantly” protect environmental features.
Clause 48 is definitional, introducing the concept of environmental delivery plans and setting out briefly what they should contain. Amendment 12 would strengthen the second of the four main functions of an EDP in subsection (1)(b), which describes the purpose of any conservation measures, including an EDP, as merely to protect the environmental features in question. “To protect” is not adequate or strong enough. The amendment would have the relevant text read, “significantly protect” the features, which would provide stronger protection.
We heard oral evidence from various environmental groups at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill. They rang alarm bells about the level of protection that EDPs would offer and said that it would not be strong enough. This is a specific change to the test of what those environmental measures should deliver, and it would go some way to address the environmental concerns that have been raised.
Paul Holmes
I apologise, Mrs Hobhouse, for the length of my speech on the previous clause; this one will not be as long. I will take your steer and cut my remarks to a more suitable length. [Interruption.] I did not hear what the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said from a sedentary position, but she is making my speech longer.
Amendment 77, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, is an attempt to elaborate on the Opposition’s arguments about Natural England. The Minister will know where this amendment is coming from. He was open to some of the challenge from Members and witnesses in the Committee’s evidence session in which concerns were repeatedly raised about the functionality, ability and readiness of Natural England to play the role expected of it by the Secretary of State and the Minister in the parameters of this legislation.
I was initially concerned about Natural England because I have had involvement with it in my constituency, and some of its response times and ability to react in what I consider to be a satisfactory manner are sometimes compromised. That is by no means a criticism of the chief executive, who I thought gave very honest and able testimony in our evidence session. I will précis her words, as I did not make a note, but essentially she said, “We are going to wait for the spending review, but there is a lot of work that we need to do. We have been assured that the Government are going to resource us, and there are added responsibilities, but we hope, we see, we think.” I am afraid that, when we are looking at such monumental changes to development and nature recovery planning, we need better than that.
The Minister was really open when we cross-examined him in the evidence session. He said that I was tempting him to give an answer ahead of the spending review. I will not do that this afternoon; I know that he is but a small cog among the many Ministers asking the Chancellor for more money to resource their Departments. I understand that, having been through it myself. None the less, we are concerned about Natural England’s ability and whether it is the right organisation to take these responsibilities forward.
Amendment 77 to clause 48 would remove the reference to Natural England and provide that an environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document. The second part of the amendment, proposed subsection (1B), would provide that where an EDP is prepared by a local planning authority, the references to clauses 48 to 60, which essentially outline Natural England’s responsibilities, should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.
We believe that local planning authorities have the wherewithal to develop local environmental delivery plans. They have experience of doing so. I know that there is some challenge, given the resourcing of planning departments, but the Minister’s record on that issue, as well as the actions that he is taking through this legislation, which we wholeheartedly support, make me confident that that challenge will be met.
As I say, I am concerned to ensure that local authorities can develop environmental delivery plans. After my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has spoken, will the Minister elaborate on that in his winding up? I hope that since the evidence session, he has taken a look at some of the legislation and recommendations for Natural England, or discussed them with Natural England to reassure himself that Natural England is resourced for the actions that he and Secretary of State will require it to undertake, although I realise that he will say this is a slow-burn development going through. Those are the parameters of our amendment, and we hope that the Minister will look on it favourably. If he cannot, we hope he can give us some reassurance that Natural England is still the best fit to undertake these responsibilities.
David Simmonds
For the Opposition, support for the recovery of nature and the natural environment is a high priority. Amendment 77 and the arguments we will advance later are about ensuring that the additional capacity the Government are bringing to the process of nature recovery through their changes to the planning system is focused in a way that delivers.
As we have heard, both in evidence and in the general debates around the comparison with the section 106 process, for example, where financial contributions are sought, they are accumulated until the point when the delivery of a plan—for school places, road improvements or whatever it may be—is viable. Clearly, the Government intend environmental delivery plans to work in the same way.
As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has ably set out, during the evidence sessions we heard concerns about the capacity of Natural England, as a further part of this already complex system, to deliver on that objective. In his rebuttal remarks earlier, the Minister relied on the proposed new section on chalk streams, saying that it was an example of something that could be dealt with through a local nature recovery strategy. That is one alternative to Natural England seeking to create a much larger process, but there are many others.
In my constituency, we have the Hertfordshire and Middlesex Wildlife Trust, which might well be able to deliver a very substantial project in this respect. All of those bodies have a very direct relationship with the local authority, which is the planning authority. Rather than create an additional element of complexity, we should streamline the process so that a local authority becomes not only the planning decision maker, but is able, through its direct engagement with the developer and its detailed local knowledge of the environment in which the development is taking place, to take on that responsibility. Should it feel that Natural England is the best delivery partner for that, okay. I am sure we would all accept that, but there will be other options available, especially when the impacts the EDP is intended to mitigate are quite specialist or quite local in their effects. That is the thinking behind the amendment.
I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley in that I do not consider the Minister to be a small cog in this wheel. I am sure that his will be a significant voice in discussions with the Treasury, given the priority given to growth. I hope the Minister will take that into consideration, because this is an opportunity to step away from the previous delays, which were frequently cited in evidence on the role of Natural England, and to ensure that additional capacity goes into the part of the planning system that we know is already delivering at scale—the part that is under the control of local authorities.
Matthew Pennycook
Excellent. I wanted to make sure, given previous confusion on other clauses.
Before I speak to clauses 48 and 49 and respond to the points made, I hope you will indulge me slightly, Mrs Hobhouse, as I take a few moments to set out the Government’s overriding objections to amending this really important part of the Bill, which I know will be subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the Opposition.
As set out in our plan for change, this Government are committed to reforming the planning system to build the homes and critical infrastructure our country needs. The reforms in this Bill are critical to meeting our ambitious targets of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes, and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. However, we have been consistently clear that meeting those objectives need not, and should not, come at the cost of the environment.
By pursuing smart planning reforms, we can unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country, delivering a win-win for development and the environment, and building a future where nature and the economy flourish together. The new approach that the nature restoration fund will facilitate 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, thereby delivering more for nature, not less. The fund will move us away from an unacceptable status quo. I think there is recognition in Committee that not only does the status quo deters and constrains development, but all too often it fails to improve our environment.
David Simmonds
The Minister mentioned moving to a cost recovery basis. Earlier, I mentioned a weakness of section 106: by the time funds are accumulated, maybe over a five or 10-year period, costs have risen and the delivered outcome is significantly less than was envisaged to mitigate the original impact. Could the Minister set out the process for establishing the relevant costs, with reference for example to the much-mocked £115 million HS2 bat tunnel, which came up in the evidence sessions? That has been hugely costly. We could end up with a very substantial bill that the developers and the promoters of the project had never expected in the first place, but that was judged necessary as a result of this process, despite it being entirely out of the view of the planning authority determining the original application.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to come back to me on that point, but we will deal with the mechanism by which fees are set under the EDPs in a later clause. I hope that, at that point, I will provide him with more clarity, but perhaps we could defer that particular discussion, because I think it would be more appropriately dealt with then. For the reasons I have given, I commend these clauses to the Committee and ask for the two amendments to be withdrawn.
Gideon Amos
We are concerned about this issue. Our set of amendments in these areas is small; they are in the spirit of the Bill and of what the Government want to do with environmental delivery plans. They are designed to provide the strengthening that environmental groups are calling for clearly and strongly. We will not push the Committee to a vote, but we remain concerned and we will return to similar points, which are also in the spirit of the Bill, on later amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 77, in clause 48, page 83, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) An environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document.
(1B) Where an environmental delivery plan is prepared by a local planning authority, references in sections 48 to 60 to Natural England should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.”—(Paul Holmes.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 50, page 84, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) An environmental feature identified in an EDP must not be—
(a) an irreplaceable habitat;
(b) ecologically linked to an irreplaceable habitat to the extent that development-related harm to that feature or the surrounding site would negatively affect the irreplaceable habitat.
(2B) For the purposes of this section, ‘irreplaceable habitat’ means—
(a) a habitat identified as irreplaceable under The Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Irreplaceable Habitat) Regulations 2024, or
(b) an ecologically valuable habitat that would be technically very difficult or impossible to restore, create or replace within a reasonable timescale.”
This amendment would mean that an Environmental Delivery Plan cannot be created for irreplaceable habitats, and would maintain existing rules and processes for the protection of irreplaceable habitats, including under the National Planning Policy Framework.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 13, in clause 50, page 84, line 32, leave out “an” and insert “a significant”.
This amendment would require that an improvement made to the conservation status of an identified environmental feature within environmental delivery plans should be significant.
Amendment 33, in clause 50, page 84, line 33, at end insert
“, and deliver new nature-based solutions to flooding and sustainable drainage systems in the area covered by the EDP.”
Amendment 148, clause 50, page 84, line 38, at end insert—
“(4A) Subsection (4) does not apply where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site and is—
(a) a chalk stream;
(b) a blanket bog.”
Government amendments 95 and 96.
Clause stand part.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak in very strong support of amendment 18 to clause 50, which is one of a number of amendments I have tabled to part 3. I have significant concerns about part 3—concerns clearly shared by a wide range of environmental organisations, the Office for Environmental Protection and by many prominent scientists.
Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that irreplaceable habitats, those rare and exceptional ecosystems that, once lost, cannot be recreated, are explicitly excluded from being subjected to environmental delivery plans under the Bill. In simple terms, it provides a critical safeguard for our most ecologically valuable places by ensuring that EDPs, tools designed to offset and manage environmental harm from development, cannot be applied to irreplaceable habitats or to features whose degradation would harm such habitats. It is not possible to offset an irreplaceable habitat; it is, by definition, irreplaceable.
Luke Murphy
I rise to speak to clause 50. The Government and the Minister deserve complete praise for their attempt to thread the needle of building more homes while protecting and restoring nature. We must recognise that the system we inherited was failing on both counts. The innovative approach outlined in this part of the Bill, including in clause 50, is to be applauded.
I have one question for the Minister. In evidence to the Committee, there was a difference of opinion between Natural England and Wildlife and Countryside Link about whether the mitigation hierarchy would still apply under the Bill. As the Minister is aware, the Office for Environmental Protection has also expressed concerns about the undermining of the mitigation hierarchy. Here we have a disagreement between Natural England and the OEP on the loss of the mitigation hierarchy, and whether developers can indeed get away without avoiding harm.
I have also seen written evidence from Arbtech, the leading ecological consultancy in the UK and a major employer in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). In its representations on the issue, it also expressed concerns on behalf of developers about the complexities that could be created for them. I ask the Minister, how can we clear up the discrepancy? It is absolutely clear that the Government want to avoid harm for habitats that cannot be easily replaced, and that the Government want to restore and protect nature and achieve our housing goals. How can we give the OEP and others the confidence that the Government’s intentions will be made a legal reality?
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak in support of amendment 13, which would require that the conservation measures undertaken within environmental delivery plans should significantly protect environmental features. It is one of a number of similar amendments that I will not speak to at length. Together, they would strengthen the thrust and strength of environmental delivery plans.
I say gently to the Government that if none of these strengthening opportunities is taken, we will end up with a Bill that provides environmental delivery plans that do not have the confidence of environmental bodies in this country or those who represent our environment. I hope that the Minister will consider that as we debate these amendments, which may seem to concern minor matters of wording but could really strengthen the structure of EDPs.
We look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about amendment 18, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. We are concerned about irreplaceable habitats, and we look for some reassurance on that topic before considering how we respond to that amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
Before I start, let me make a point that I think has been well conveyed, but that I will make again for the sake of clarity: I hope that Opposition Members who have dealt with me in the past know this, but when I say that I am reflecting and listening, I am. I will take all the comments about these clauses away. As I said in respect of the opinions that have been shared with us by the Office for Environmental Protection, we are already thinking about how we might respond to allay some of those concerns.
Environmental delivery plans will ensure that the environmental impact of development is addressed through the delivery of effective, strategic conservation measures. The conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to provide a positive contribution to overall environmental improvement, delivering the win-win that we have spoken about.
Clause 50 is central to establishing the new approach that I have outlined. It introduces requirements for the environmental delivery plan to identify and set out information on three of the key concepts that it deals with. The first is the environmental features that are likely to be negatively affected: either a specific protected feature of a protected site, or a protected species. Those protections stem from the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. I will come back to that point, which is relevant to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.
The second concept is the relevant environmental impact of development, and the third is the conservation measures that will be put in place to address the negative impacts and contribute to an overall improvement in the environmental feature. For example, where an environmental feature is a type of plant that is a notified feature of a protected watercourse, and the environmental impact is nutrient pollution from housing development, the conservation measures will address the nutrient pollution from the housing development but will go further to improve the conservation status of that type of plant in that watercourse.
In designing conservation measures, Natural England will consider the lifespan of the development and the period over which conservation measures need to be secured and managed. EDPs will be able to include back-up conservation measures that could be deployed, if needed, to secure the desired environmental outcomes. That is not only important for nature, but part of ensuring that the Secretary of State can be confident that EDPs will deliver conservation measures that outweigh the impact of development. This shift from the status quo towards active restoration is a key feature of the nature restoration fund.
A draft environmental delivery plan will also contain information on the expected cost of conservation measures to ensure that conservation measures are adequately funded. The cost of the measures will be relevant to making sure that the levy is set at a reasonable level for development, while allowing us to be confident that the conservation measures will be delivered.
As well as setting out further detail as to what an environmental delivery plan will contain, clause 50—with clarification from Government amendment 96—establishes the ability of Natural England to request that a planning condition be imposed on development as a conservation measure. Those pro forma conditions will allow avoidance and reduction measures to be secured up front, alongside wider conservation measures. It could be, for example, that as part of an environmental delivery plan dealing with the impact of water scarcity, a planning condition requires development to achieve a certain standard of water efficiency.
Although it has always been the case that those conservation measures would be maintained, Government amendment 95 introduces a requirement that an environmental delivery plan sets out how they are to be maintained and over what period, such as through conservation covenants or land agreements. I commend the clause and the Government amendments to the Committee.
I turn to the amendments tabled and spoken to by Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire set out, amendment 18 seeks to prevent irreplaceable habitats, or habitats linked to irreplaceable habitats, from being included in environmental delivery plans. I should first set out clearly that the provisions in the Bill will not reduce protections for irreplaceable habitats.
Existing protections for irreplaceable habitats under the national planning policy framework will continue to apply. Those protections provide that where development results in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, development should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. That policy is set out in the NPPF and applies to those particular habitats.
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Lady wants to intervene, she is more than welcome to.
The Chair
Order. Does the hon. Lady want to intervene, or shall I call her to speak at the end?
Ellie Chowns
I want to say something further, but not specifically as an intervention.
The Chair
The shadow Minister would like to speak to that amendment. Can I call him first?
Paul Holmes
I apologise to the Minister and to you, Mrs Hobhouse, because I did not register that amendment 148 was in this group—that is my fault.
Paul Holmes
It is getting late, and I have been thinking about chalk streams all day. I will speak briefly to amendment 148, which is in the name of the shadow Environment Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). Clause 50(4) states:
“Where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site, the EDP may, if Natural England considers it appropriate, set out conservation measures that do not directly address the environmental impact of development on that feature at that site but instead seek to improve the conservation status of the same feature elsewhere.”
The amendment would add two important carve-outs through an extra subsection (4A), whereby subsection (4) does not apply where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site and is a chalk stream or a blanket bog—[Laughter.] The Minister was laughing. We have carved out those two things in the amendment—well, the shadow Environment Secretary thought it was very important, obviously, and I have researched what a blanket bog is—because of what we discussed earlier.
In particular, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined perfectly that our chalk streams in this country are exceptionally special, are unique ecosystems and are unique in most ways to the UK, particularly Hampshire and certain other parts of the country. Therefore, we think there is scope to create subsection (4A) to exempt those two specific protected characteristics from subsection (4).
That is the reason why we tabled amendment 148: chalk streams obviously cannot be moved—I am not being facetious; I promise the Minister that we are not at that stage of the day—and they are incredibly rare, so it would not be appropriate to try to create that environmental protection elsewhere. We could do it from one chalk stream to another, but chalk streams are so rare that we would not want to harm, inadvertently or purposefully, the country’s chalk streams.
I hope the Minister sees that those very small additions to the text of clause 50 would strengthen the Bill. I commend the amendment, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
Just to clarify, for Hansard more than anything, I laughed only at the shadow Minister’s delivery of the term “blanket bog”. I was not in any way questioning the importance of that type of peatland.
David Simmonds
For the edification of the Committee, they are also known as featherbed bogs.
Matthew Pennycook
Indeed. I look forward to seeing how Hansard tidies up that exchange.
As the shadow Minister said, amendment 148 would prevent chalk streams and blanket bogs from being an environmental feature for which conservation measures can be put in place that address the harm from development at a different location from the impacted site. Where the feature to which an EDP relates is an irreplaceable habitat, such as a blanket bog, it would not be possible for impacts on that feature to be compensated for elsewhere. That is the nature of their being irreplaceable.
The Bill is clear that impacts must be adequately addressed for an environmental delivery plan to be made by the Secretary of State. Moreover, as I just set out in relation to a previous amendment, both chalk streams and blanket bogs are protected by the national planning policy framework. They are not environmental obligations that can be discharged through the nature restoration fund, so they would not be the focus of an environmental delivery plan.
The NPPF makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections will continue to apply. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister will not press the amendment.
Due to the slightly muddled way in which we have debated these amendments, I have not had the chance to respond to amendment 13, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, so I will do so now. As he set out, it would require environmental delivery plans to go further than the current requirement to contribute to an “improvement” in the conservation status of an environmental feature to contributing to a “significant improvement”. The Government have always been clear that they would legislate only where we could secure better outcomes for nature, and that is what we have secured through these clauses by moving beyond the current system of offsetting to secure an improvement in environmental outcomes.
Clause 50 requires that an environmental delivery plan must set out not only how conservation measures will address the environmental impact of development, but how they will contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature in question. That reflects the commitment that EDPs will go beyond neutrality and secure more positive environmental results.
That commitment ties into the crucial safeguard in clause 55(4), which ensures that an EDP can be put in place only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the delivery of conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That means that environmental delivery plans will already be going further than simply offsetting the impact of development.
However, requiring environmental delivery plans to go even further, in the way that the amendment proposes, risks placing a disproportionate burden on developers to contribute more than their fair share. In effect, I am arguing that EDPs already go beyond the status quo. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment, not least because we will discuss these issues in more detail in the debate on clause 55.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister and other hon. Members for their comments; I would like to push the amendment to a vote. I agree with the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on the importance of including the word “significant”, but as the Minister says, we will come on to that later. I recognise the importance of chalk streams and blanket bogs, but they are not the only habitats that should be protected, which is why I think my amendment is clearer and more comprehensive. It incorporates the issues that were raised by the hon. Member.
The Minister argued that my amendment is not required because there are existing protections for irreplaceable habitats, but he indicated that there could be some grey areas, for example where certain features of irreplaceable habitats, such as particular creatures or aspects, are considered as part of EDPs. That creates an unhelpful greyness and is concerning.
The Minister mentioned the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection. That advice has caused me considerable concern. The OEP is worried by several aspects of the Bill and states:
“In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law”,
so it would undermine protections that are currently in place. The OEP states:
“As drafted, the provisions are a regression. This is particularly so for England’s most important wildlife—those habitats and species protected under the Habitats Regulations.”
That says very clearly that changes are urgently needed to part 3 of the Bill. If we cannot amend part 3 to protect irreplaceable habitats, what hope do we have of tackling other issues? This is very important, and I would like to push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
For clarification, there was no further debate on amendment 148 because amendment 18 was the lead amendment in that particular group.
Amendments made: 95, in clause 50, page 85, line 4, leave out from “cost” to “likely” in line 5 and insert “, and
(b) how the conservation measures are to be maintained,
over the period covered by the EDP or, if longer, the period for which the conservation measures are”.
This amendment additionally requires an EDP to state how the conservation measures will be maintained, such as through conservation covenants or land agreements.
Amendment 96: in clause 50, page 85, line 7, leave out
“requirement for Natural England to request”
and insert “request, by Natural England,”.—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment makes a minor drafting change to remove the reference to “a requirement for Natural England” which is unnecessary.
Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Nature restoration levy: charging schedules
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 52, page 86, line 12, at end insert—
“(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results.
(11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused.
(12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”
This amendment 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 specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage.
Clause 52 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
In establishing this new approach, we recognise the need to ensure that developers have clarity around the required levels of contributions to benefit from an environmental delivery plan. This transparency will ensure that developers can factor in the cost of the levy, should they choose to use the EDP.
Clause 51 establishes clear, understandable charging schedules with each environmental delivery plan, including one or more charging schedule. These schedules will set out how much developers will be required to pay to discharge their environmental obligations through the EDP and will reflect the environmental impact that the EDP is seeking to address. This may vary depending on the nature and size of the development, with the charging schedules being bespoke to each particular environmental delivery plan. In addition, the charging schedule will be regulated in accordance with clauses 62 to 69, which will allow regulations to be made setting out requirements for how these rates will be determined.
I think this is probably the appropriate point to respond to the shadow Minister’s previous point. Those regulations would allow for fees to be index-linked to account for inflation, which is part of what he raised, but he mentioned build costs as well. Those regulations allow that scope.
David Simmonds
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. There is a combination of indexation, which is always the relevant consideration. For example, we have been through the recent experience of covid, which unleashed a huge wave of construction inflation. If the EDP were to be negotiated at a certain point, the envisaged outcome of that might be a substantial investment in, for example, a chalk stream environment or the creation of a new habitat.
There might be significant construction inflation between the point at which that EDP is first negotiated, the point at which sufficient contributions have been accumulated from the various parties that might have been involved in the development—which gives rise to the need for it—and the point at which that money is available to be spent. How will the level of the EDP be appropriately calculated so that we do not end up with what we already see in the section 106 system, whereby a contribution is secured from a developer, but by the time it comes to be spent, it is insufficient to pay for the mitigations that were necessary when it was negotiated?
Matthew Pennycook
I understand the shadow Minister’s point, and I will offer to write to him. His point about the sequencing of an EDP and the conservation measures that it would give rise to is valid. How can we essentially, through the fee and charging schedule process, ensure that those measures can be carried out on the basis of that fee? I will write to the shadow Minister with more detail on how we envisage that particular part of the Bill working. While later clauses set out further detail on the framework governing charging schedules, EDPs cannot function without them, and this clause ensures their inclusion and proper regulation.
Let me turn to clause 52. As well as clear charging schedules, it is important that EDPs include a range of other matters. Clause 52 supplements clauses 50 and 51 in setting out further detail on the information that Natural England must include in an EDP, ensuring that EDPs are transparent and robust.
As with all environmental matters, it is vital to understand the underlying environmental condition, which is why an EDP must describe the current conservation status of each identified environmental feature. This is crucial to set the baseline against which improvements can be measured. Flowing from that baseline, Natural England must set out why it considers the conservation measures to be appropriate, including details of alternatives considered and why they were not pursued, as well as listing the plans and strategies to which Natural England had regard in preparing the EDP in question. Like the assessment of the baseline, the consideration of alternatives is an important step that ensures that the best approach is taken forward and justified.
The EDP must also include an overview of other measures being implemented, or likely to be implemented, by Natural England or another public body to improve the conservation status of the environmental feature. This will provide confidence that the EDP is properly targeted and that the conservation measures are additional to other ongoing actions to support the relevant environmental features.
To ensure clarity in respect of protected species, EDPs must also specify the terms of any licences that will be granted to a developer or to Natural England. A further important element of the clause is that Natural England must set out how the effects of an EDP will be monitored, which will be critical to ensuring that further action can be taken, if necessary, across the life of an EDP. Natural England is under a duty to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in doing that.
The clause also provides a power for the Secretary of State to stipulate further information that must be included in an EDP. It may be used for various purposes, for example, to require an EDP relating to a protected species to set out how relevant licensing tests are met. For those reasons, I commend both clauses to the Committee.
I would like a chance to respond to amendment 3 if it is spoken to in due course.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak to amendment 3, a crucial amendment relating to timing. The current wording in clause 52 opens the door to conservation measures in EDPs coming long after the environmental features that they relate to having been damaged. Such a delay could be fatal to some habitats and species that have already suffered decline, so the mitigation could come too late. That is what the amendment aims to address. The absence of direction on the timing of EDP measures has been highlighted by the Office for Environmental Protection as one of its key concerns about part 3. The OEP’s advice to the Secretary of State observed:
“The bill is silent as to when conservation measures must be implemented and by when they must be effective. This gives rise to the possibility of significant impacts on the conservation status of protected species or sites arising before the successful implementation of conservation measures.”
That is the exact concern at the heart of amendment 3.
I want to illustrate the point with the example of the hazel dormouse. This rare, beautiful species has declined in number in England by 70%. Populations have become extinct in Hertfordshire, Staffordshire and Northumberland in the last few years. In places where they are clinging on, EDPs could be the final nail in the coffin. Hazel dormice are reliant on woodlands, travel corridors, established hedgerows and scrub. If an EDP permitted the destruction of those habitats on the basis of replacement habitats being provided some years down the road, it could be too late. It takes seven to eight years for hedgerows and scrub and significantly longer for woodland to become established, but a dormouse’s life span is three to five years, so there are several generations of dormice that could be affected by the destruction of habitat. Without their home, the populations would quickly die off, causing irreversible damage to the species before the replacement habitat came into effect.
Amendment 3 would deliver on the OEP recommendation to rectify that part of clause 52 and prevent such harm before mitigation, which is not intentional, I hope, but could arise accidentally if we do not adopt amendment 3. It would require Natural England, when setting the content of an EDP, to set a timetable for the delivery of conservation measures, guided by the principle that gains for nature should come in advance of harm from development. When Natural England is of the opinion that harms to an environmental feature are irreversible, it would have to ensure through the timetable that a boost to conservation status had been achieved before harm from development occurs.
I stress that the irreversible harm element would likely only apply in a small minority of cases when the most threatened habitats or species populations face possible destruction from harm coming before mitigation. In most cases, the amendment would simply mean that Natural England would be required to show careful consideration of how it would be ecologically best to sequence conservation measures when drawing up an EDP, prioritising up-front environmental gains. In sum, the amendment is a constructive effort to resolve a key threat to nature identified by the OEP itself. I very much hope the Minister will accept it.
Matthew Pennycook
I recognise that the amendment is a constructive attempt to highlight an issue that the OEP highlighted to us. I make the broad point again: we are carefully considering the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection and will continue to work with the sector and parliamentarians to deliver on the intent of the Bill in this area. We have been very clear on the intent of this part.
The amendment seeks, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has just outlined, to require Natural England to produce a timetable for the delivery of conservation measures and additional requirements to secure environmental improvement in advance of development coming forward. While recognising the good intentions behind the amendment, the Government are confident that the legislation strikes the right balance in securing sufficient flexibility around the delivery of conservation measures, alongside safeguards that ensure conservation measures deliver an overall improvement for nature.
Ellie Chowns
How can the Government have that confidence when the OEP says that they should not?
Matthew Pennycook
It is worth reading the OEP’s letter in full. It broadly welcomes the overall thrust of the Bill in this area. We will reflect on and respond to the concerns it has highlighted. We want to ensure there is confidence that this part of the Bill can deliver on those objectives—that win-win for nature. If the hon. Lady will let me set out how different elements of the Bill might provide reassurance in this area, she is more than welcome to follow up and intervene.
The legislation is clear—we will come on to debate this—that the Secretary of State can make an EDP only when they are satisfied that the conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That test would not allow irreversible or irreparable impact to a protected site or species. It would allow Natural England, the conservation body for England, to determine what the appropriate measures are for bringing forward an EDP and how best to bring them forward over the period of the delivery plan.
We will come later to Government amendment 97, which in part deals with this issue by introducing a timeframe to the overall improvement test. It would mean that in applying that test, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the negative effects of development will be outweighed by the conservation measures by the end date of the EDP.
Ellie Chowns
The Minister has tabled amendments 95 and 97, but is that the sum total of the Minister’s response to the OEP’s advice? Those amendments do not, by any means, address the thrust and specifics of that advice. What further response does the Minister intend to make in response to and recognition of the OEP’s advice?
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think I could have been any clearer that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s letter and the points it has set out. I will not issue the Government response to that letter today in Committee; I am setting out the Government’s position on the Bill as it stands, but we will reflect on those concerns. If we feel that any changes need to be made to the Bill, we will, of course, notify the House at the appropriate point and table any changes. We are reflecting on whether they are needed to ensure that the intent of this part of the Bill, which we have been very clear must deliver both for the environment and for development, is met.
I will finish by making a couple of more points, because there are other provisions of the Bill that pertain to this area. There is already a requirement in clause 57 for Natural England to publish reports at least twice over the environmental delivery plan period, which will ensure transparency on how conservation measures are being delivered. That requirement is a minimum, and it may publish reports at any other time as needed. The reports will ensure that Natural England can monitor the impact of conservation measures to date to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to deliver the improved outcomes.
In establishing an alternative to the existing system, the Bill intentionally provides flexibility to diverge from a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy. We will come on to that again in clause 55. That, however, will only be where Natural England considers it to be appropriate and where it would deliver better outcomes for nature over the course of the EDP. The status quo is not working, and we have to find a smarter way to ensure there is that win-win. The alternative is to say that the status quo remains as it is, and we do not get those more positive outcomes for nature, but as I have said, we are reflecting on the OEP’s letter.
Luke Murphy
The Committee should hear exactly what the Minister has said: he and the Government are reflecting on what the OEP has said. It is only seven working days since the OEP sent its letter, so to rush forward with a full response now would be foolhardy. It is right that the Government reflect on it and we should accept the Minister at his word, given that he has strongly made clear that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s advice.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is only seven days. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire might expect Government to move quicker than they do, but they do not. It is right that we take time to reflect properly on whether the Government agree that some of the points the OEP has made are valid—we are allowed to have a difference of opinion—and that we should respond in an appropriate way, or whether the Bill as drafted on the particular points made is sufficient. We are reflecting on those points.
Ellie Chowns
I have seen comments from a number of environmental NGOs that were upset with how their previous comments had been taken out of context and used to indicate support for the Bill in a part of it that they do not feel so strongly supportive of. I have also heard feedback from environmental and nature protection NGOs that are frustrated with the fact that there was not a huge amount of consultation, or the formality of consultation that there could have been.
I genuinely do not want to get into a “He said, she said” debate or anything like that. I encourage the Minister gently to recognise the seriousness of the critique and the concerns that have been expressed. The Minister has said that the status quo is not working and that we need to change it. Amendment 3 proposes a further improvement; it is not a wholesale chucking out of absolutely everything in the Bill. A genuine attempt to strengthen this particular aspect of the Bill is being proposed in respect of the timing of measures under EDPs, recognising that given how nature works, it is important that the improvement comes before the destruction. That is all the amendment is about.
Matthew Pennycook
I say it once again for the record: I have understood the hon. Lady’s point. I will reflect on it, in the spirit of this Committee as a whole. I have sought to take points away when they are well made, and to give them further consideration.
Gideon Amos
The Minister is being characteristically generous with his time; I wish we had more. There are genuine concerns about the timetabling of the measures. I invite him to confirm that the Government are considering how to tackle the issue of ensuring that measures are taken in a timely fashion. That appears to be what he is saying, and I am encouraging him.
Matthew Pennycook
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am not going to provide the Committee with a running commentary on the Government’s internal deliberations in response to the OEP’s letter. I will not do that today. I totally understand why hon. Members are trying to draw me on the point, but I am not going to do that. I have set out the Government’s position, and I have made it very clear that we will reflect on the letter and on the points made today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Other requirements for an EDP
Amendment proposed: 3, in clause 52, page 86, line 12, at end insert—
“(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results.
(11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused.
(12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”—(Ellie Chowns.)
This amendment 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 specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I am conscious that the Government have asked to extend the sitting beyond 5 o’clock, and we have already reached that point. I am also conscious that there will be votes in the main Chamber. Since you have been sitting here for three hours, I am minded to give you a short break. The votes are coming at about 6.20 pm, so I suggest a 10-minute break. Come back here for 5.15 pm.