16:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 254 / Noes: 135 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 264 / Noes: 125 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 255 / Noes: 128 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 268 / Noes: 78 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 257 / Noes: 128 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:08 - The House divided: - Ayes: 254 / Noes: 129 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 252 / Noes: 130 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 250 / Noes: 133 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 244 / Noes: 132 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2.
Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 31, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 32, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 33, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 37, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 38, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 39, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 40, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 4 to 30, 34 to 36, and 41 to 117.
Matthew Pennycook
Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity our country needs and the higher living standards working people deserve. That is why it has always been this Government’s No. 1 mission. This landmark Bill, which will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, is integral to the success of that mission, and it will play a vital part in delivering the Government’s plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. The Government are therefore determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible, and I am pleased that the House has an opportunity today to renew its commitment to this vital legislation and express its firm opposition to attempts to undermine its core principles.
Before I turn to the amendments before us, let me put on record once again my heartfelt thanks to Baroness Taylor for her prodigious efforts in guiding the Bill through the other place, and my gratitude to peers collectively for the comprehensive and rigorous scrutiny to which they subjected it. The Government made a number of important changes to the Bill in the other place, with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended, that its full potential in respect of unlocking economic growth is realised, and to provide further reassurance that a number of its key provisions will achieve the beneficial outcomes that we expect. In the interests of time, I will update the House briefly on the two most significant areas of change.
The first concerns the package of measures we introduced last month to maximise the growth potential of the Bill. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill’s impact assessment estimates that it could benefit the UK economy by up to £7.5 billion over the next 10 years. That is an assessment, it should be noted, that was made prior to the incorporation into the Bill of several important pro-growth measures, including the removal of the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for nationally significant infrastructure project applications—a change that could result in cost savings of over £1 billion across the pipeline of projects in this Parliament. The package introduced last month further bolsters the growth impact of the Bill. It included provisions that further streamline the consenting of reservoirs, clarify Natural England’s strategic advisory role, and facilitate the deployment of up to three additional gigawatts of onshore wind and secure the billions of pounds’ worth of investment into UK services that come with that.
The second area of change concerns the package of amendments we tabled in July in respect of part 3 of the Bill, which directly addressed a range of issues that were highlighted in the advice the Government received from the Office for Environmental Protection on the new nature restoration fund. They provided for a number of additional safeguards, strengthened and made more explicit those that were already in the Bill on its introduction, and further clarified how the NRF will operate going forward. I emphasise that none of the changes made will affect the process by which house builders interact with an environmental delivery plan, namely by paying a levy to discharge specific environmental obligations through it, and nor do they undermine the strategic approach that underpins the model.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The housing market is absolutely flat and we desperately need to build more housing. What is stopping all this new building, people moving and creating a healthy housing market? It is the appalling stamp duty that everybody acknowledges is the worst tax. The Minister is not the Chancellor, but will he approach his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the autumn statement and see whether she can steal our clothes and promise to abolish stamp duty?
Matthew Pennycook
The Chancellor will set out her decisions on the Budget in fairly short order and the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that. I am going to be quite strict in sticking to the contents of the Bill and what is in scope, rather than ranging more widely, as he tempts me to do.
The amendments we tabled in the summer package provided greater confidence that the NRF delivers the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. I take the opportunity to thank all the hon. Members who engaged in constructive discussions with the Government about the NRF during Commons stages, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for his thoughtful participation in Committee, which helped shape my thinking about the package of amendments in question.
I should also make clear that the Government tabled further technical amendments in the other place to ensure that the NRF works effectively across borders, as well as ensuring it is able to operate in the marine environment. Those amendments also ensure that the NRF can be used to support the impact of development on Ramsar sites. In addition, the Government supported an amendment tabled by Lord Banner in the other place to ensure that the NRF can accommodate the development processes associated with large strategic housing sites that are phased.
Turning to the amendments made by peers in the other place, I want to make clear that the Government welcomed the scrutiny and challenge provided, and that we are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. However, I am afraid that most of the amendments sent back to this place seek to undermine the core principles of the Bill, and for that reason we cannot accept them. Let me make clear precisely why, in each instance where that is the case.
Lords amendment 1 would prevent the removal of existing parliamentary requirements that serve to delay material policy amendments to national policy statements. In short, it is a wrecking amendment designed to frustrate the Government’s intention to streamline the process for incorporating into NPSs changes that have already received public and parliamentary scrutiny. Let me emphasise once again that the intent of clause 2 is not to erode parliamentary scrutiny; it is simply about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the four categories of changes the clause covers. That said, I have always recognised the sincere arguments made by various hon. and right hon. Members, as well as by noble Lords, about the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny in respect of NPSs. That is precisely why I provided the Chair of the Liaison Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) with a number of assurances on Report.
For the purposes of clarity, let me repeat those assurances. When the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to an NPS, a statement will be laid before Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak to that Committee and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period. Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. In other words, Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted.
To assuage further the concerns that some hon. Members might have about a reduction in scrutiny as a result of the clause, I am happy to provide a further commitment today: when a statement is laid in Parliament announcing a review, it will include how the proposed change or changes fall within the four categories of changes to which clause 2 applies. I cannot, however, accept Lords amendment 1 for the reasons I have set out, and I urge the House to reject it.
Turning next to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Lords amendment 2 enables faster consenting of major water infrastructure projects. Crucially, it allows third party providers, appointed by water undertakers, to apply to deliver such projects through the streamlined development consent order route.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Apologies, but I want to go back to the point the Minister was making about Lords amendment 1. As Chair of the Transport Committee, I am slightly concerned that we will get less opportunity and time to scrutinise major infrastructure projects. Had these proposals been law when High Speed 2 was first being considered, instead of a hybrid Bill, it is likely that HS2 would have come under them, and the third runway at Heathrow, plus the national infrastructure network, will do so. Does he not agree that this House and its Committees should have sufficient chance, not just to wait for the Minister’s convenience—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady will know that that is a very long intervention.
Matthew Pennycook
I recognise the point my hon. Friend makes, but I do not agree that the change will mean Select Committees do not have the opportunity to feed their views into Government. As I said, what we are trying to do with the clause is ensure that the scrutiny provided is proportionate to the changes being made. These are, in most cases, minor and reflective changes. They do not entail the full amendment of a national policy statement; that would have to come via the normal route. I hope my comments on what we expect of Minister’s attendance at Select Committees and in other areas provides her with reassurance.
Matthew Pennycook
No, I will not give way again. I will make some progress on the next set of amendments, which I need to get to, as I know many Members wish to speak.
As I was saying on Lords amendment 2, the Government support the intent of the amendment. However, subsections (7) and (8) of the new clause would require consents for listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites to be obtained separately from the application for development consent for dams or reservoirs. We cannot support those subsections.
Lords amendment 3 is also problematic. It introduces additional notification and representation processes into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime when 20 or more residences are to be demolished in constructing dam or reservoir projects, despite such matters already being addressed by the Planning Act 2008. Both amendments are contrary to the intention of the NSIP regime, which introduced a streamlined “one- stop shop” approach to obtaining consents. It is the Government’s considered view that the regime already provides ample opportunity for those issues to be considered before the relevant Secretary of State makes their decision. Numerous adequate heritage safeguards and opportunities for communities and interested parties to have their say about dam and reservoir projects are already in place.
In respect of heritage concerns in particular, the national policy statement for water resources contains explicit policy on preserving the historical environment. When deciding whether to grant consent, the Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to have regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building, conservation area or scheduled monument where applications affect these assets. In respect of the demolition of homes, again, the Planning Act already provides sufficient safeguards for the compulsory acquisition of land. For those reasons, I urge the House to support an amendment to remove subsections (7) and (8) from Lords amendment 2 and to reject Lords amendment 3 in its entirety.
Turning to Lords amendment 31, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the Government are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is not in his place, made a strong case on Report for greater accessibility requirements for electric vehicle charge points. As he knows, I made a personal commitment to him to give further consideration to the arguments he made. The objective he sought is echoed in Lords amendment 31, which seeks to amend the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to enable the mandating of accessibility requirements for public charge points through regulations.
As the House will know, the Government are already working closely with the sector to update the current accessibility standards for public charge points. However, I have been convinced that we should use the Bill to provide further certainty in respect of this matter, and we have therefore tabled an amendment in lieu that is faithful to the original amendment agreed in the other place, with some minor changes designed to ensure that the powers cover all relevant aspects of accessibility for public charge points and that requirements can be placed on all relevant parties that play a role in delivering them. The Government will of course consult before producing and laying the relevant regulations. The Department for Transport looks forward to working with both the Scottish and Welsh Governments on these matters. On that basis, I hope the House will support our amendment in lieu.
Lords amendment 32 would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of current regulation on low-hazard reservoirs and to set out proposals for deregulation of such reservoirs within six months of enactment. An assessment of the impact of current reservoir safety regulation has already been published on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ science search website. Furthermore, the Government already intend to set out proposals for the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I also commit to clarifying planning practice guidance for the permitted development right that grants planning permission for the development of on-farm reservoirs, giving clarity to farmers about when this permitted development right can be used. Given that the Government have fulfilled one aspect of the amendment already, and I have committed to fulfilling the rest today, we are clear that there is no need to legislate on the matter. I therefore urge the House to reject this amendment.
Lords amendment 33 seeks to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise concerns about the use of the negative procedure in respect of these regulations. We have already consulted on detailed proposals to help inform the regulations, and the clause itself imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to consult again on the draft regulations before they are brought into force. This consultation duty will apply not only to the first set of regulations, but for any subsequent changes to those regulations. In the light of the two rounds of consultation planned before those regulations are laid, I urge the House to reject this amendment.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
Just this week at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the new Secretary of State outlined that the Government will not be urging national development management policies to be non-statutory. That almost seems at odds with the Government’s direction of travel, which is towards speeding up the national scheme of delegation. Will the Minister explain why the Government are taking the approach of making the guidance non-statutory?
Matthew Pennycook
I am afraid that my hon. Friend is conflating two entirely separate issues. We are committed to introducing a new suite of national policies for development management. We will consult on those before the end of the year. The Secretary of State provided a bit more detail at the Select Committee the other day. This particular amendment—Lords amendment 33—refers to the powers in the Bill to bring forward a national scheme of delegation, and I am making it clear that the sufficient consultation already built into the system does not require it to be taken forward via the affirmative procedure. I hope that reassures her.
Lords amendment 37 would exempt assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under part 11 of the general permitted development order. I have reflected on this amendment and agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and we think there are justifiable arguments for removing demolition of ACVs from permitted development rights. However, PDRs are established via secondary legislation, and it would not be appropriate to use this Bill to change particular development rights without consultation. As such, while we cannot support this exact amendment, I am happy to make a commitment today that we will consult on this change to the permitted development right for demolition at the first available opportunity. We hope that with this assurance, and a view to future opportunity for consultation on the matter, the House will reject Lords amendment 37.
Lords amendment 38 would require a spatial 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. While I appreciate fully the positive intent of the amendment and reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to restoring and improving the nation’s chalk streams, I do not believe that it is a necessary or advisable means of protecting those vital ecosystems.
While strategic planning authorities will be expected to work closely with arm’s length bodies like the Environment Agency, they themselves will not have responsibility for regulatory systems governing water abstraction or pollution in catchment areas. The SDSs that they will be required to produce will be high-level frameworks for housing growth and infrastructure investment; they will not allocate specific sites. Importantly, as locally-led spatial exercises, local nature recovery strategies, drawing on river basin management plans, will be able to map out chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them, and SDSs will already be required to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to the strategy area. SDSs will also obviously be tested by an independent examiner against those requirements.
It remains the Government’s view that the protection and enhancement of chalk streams through the planning system is best achieved through the proper application of national planning policy. As I made clear on Report in the Commons, the measures in the Bill will not weaken existing protections enjoyed by those precious habitats, which are already recognised by decision makers in the planning system as valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value that should be identified and safeguarded through local plans.
That said, we have been giving this matter careful consideration given the strength of feeling expressed by the Commons on Report, and in the context of ongoing reforms to national planning policy. I am happy to make it clear to the House that I am minded to include explicit recognition of chalk streams in the new suite of national policies for decision making, which I referred to in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi)—and, as I said, we intend to consult on those before the end of this year. On the basis of that assurance, I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 38.
Lords amendment 39 seeks to prioritise development on brownfield land, increase urban densities and minimise travel distances. The Government have a brownfield-first approach to development. Through the revisions made to the NPPF on 12 December 2024, we broadened the definition of brownfield land, set a strengthened expectation that applications on brownfield land will be approved, and made it clear that plans should promote an uplift in density in urban areas.
In September last year, the Government published a brownfield passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land. Again, we intend to take forward those proposals in the new suite of national policies for decision making that I referred to a moment ago.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister is addressing the brownfield-first approach inherent to the amendment. He opened his remarks by mentioning the Government’s target of building 1.5 million homes. The Campaign to Protect Rural England, a very respected independent charity, has identified enough brownfield land in England alone for 1.4 million homes, so why do the Government persist in rejecting their Lordships’ amendments on this matter, against the advice of the CPRE?
Matthew Pennycook
I will come to why we cannot accept Lords amendment 39. I respectfully disagree with the CPRE on this matter—and on a number of others, as it happens. There is not enough land on brownfield registers—certainly not enough that is in the right location or viable to meet housing need across England. That is why we have a brownfield-first, not brownfield-only, approach to development.
Brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable. That is why consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at the local level, through policy, where a balance of considerations can be weighed up. A legislative requirement for increasing densities does not allow for the consideration of local issues or circumstances, and would risk opening up the possibility of legal challenges to any or every spatial development strategy, which I am sure was not their noble Lords’ intent. On that basis, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 39.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. He is talking about local pressures for housing delivery and the brownfield-first approach. As he will know, a number of sports grounds in my constituency are increasingly subject to interest from would-be developers. Can he confirm that these proposals will include protections for much-needed sports grounds so that they are not open to that sort of speculative development?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that question—it is an apt and fair one. Such protections are already in place in the national planning policy framework. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about the matter he refers to, but nothing in the Bill specifically targets the release of sports fields for development and the protections in national policy still apply.
Finally, Lords amendment 40 seeks to restrict the environmental impacts that could be addressed through an environmental delivery plan. Before I explain why the Government cannot accept the amendment, let me remind the House of why part 3 of the Bill is so important. The current approach to discharging environmental obligations too often delays and deters development, and places unnecessary burdens on house builders and local authorities. It requires house builders to pay for localised and often costly mitigation measures, only to maintain the environmental status quo. By not taking a holistic view across larger geographies, mitigation measures often fail to secure the best outcomes for the environment. In short, as we have consistently argued, when it comes to development and the environment, the status quo too often sees sustainable house building, and nature recovery and restoration, stall.
The nature restoration fund will end that sub-optimal arrangement. By facilitating a more strategic approach to the discharge of environmental obligations, and enabling the use of funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, it will streamline the delivery of new homes and infrastructure, and result in the more efficient delivery of improved environmental outcomes.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Minister is a very thoughtful individual, and he has a wide view of what is happening in the country. Housing is imperative, but in my constituency there was a proposal for 3,000 houses on what was effectively virgin land, and we established that the habitat of 32 rare and protected species would be irrevocably damaged. Does he agree that biodiversity has to be a central plank of the Government’s intentions, and will he assure the House that, if Lords amendment 40 is disagreed to, future Governments—who might be less caring about the environment—will not be able to use the law to damage habitats such as those I am describing?
Matthew Pennycook
I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual planning applications, but the Government have been consistently clear that meeting our ambitious development targets need not and should not come at the expense of the environment. Part 3 unlocks a win-win for nature and the economy. Although I cannot commit future Governments to anything, we are confident that the nature restoration fund and environmental delivery plans that part 3 facilitates will result in the delivery of more homes and infrastructure in a more timely manner, as well as improved environmental outcomes.
In respect of Lords amendment 40, I would simply say that there is no convincing rationale for arbitrarily limiting the application of EDPs to strategic landscape matters and thereby preventing their use in supporting the recovery of protected sites and species where appropriate. I remind hon. Members that the Bill is now explicit that the Secretary of State can only approve an EDP where the effect of the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the conservation status of each identified environmental feature. Moreover, both Natural England and the Secretary of State will have to take account of the best available scientific evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP, and EDPs will be subject to robust scrutiny.
On Third Reading in the other place, we amended the Bill to allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out how EDPs would prioritise addressing the negative effect of developments. Lords amendment 40 would undermine one of the core principles of the Bill —namely, that the alternative approach provided for by the NRF can apply to both sites and species. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not, I am afraid, as I am bringing my remarks to a close, but I am happy to respond to any points when winding up the debate.
I appreciate the leave you have given me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to set out the Government’s position on the large number of amendments before us. I urge the House to support the Government’s position, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.
Gideon Amos
The Liberal Democrats welcome a number of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, but it is disappointing that my noble Friend Baroness Pinnock’s proposal, which was aimed at ensuring that all unsafe residential blocks are fully remediated, and my noble Friend Lord Foster’s proposal on curbing the proliferation of betting shops were not adopted in the other place, where unfortunately the Conservatives were unwilling to support them. It is also disappointing that having removed all pre-application regulations for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the Government have not seen fit to plug the gap with a standard requirement to ensure that communities are properly consulted, as we proposed in Committee. Simply sweeping away consultation requirements is not acceptable.
That said, today we are here to debate those amendments that made it through from the other place, and I want first to acknowledge where the Government have listened and made welcome improvements and concessions. Lords amendment 53, a concession secured by my noble Friend Baroness Parminter, imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out how Natural England should prioritise different approaches to addressing the negative impacts of development on environmental features, which we argued for in this House. I hope that when the regulations are brought forward, the Government will see the sense of referring to the mitigation hierarchy as the accepted standard approach. I remain confused as to why those words were not included in the amendments. We will continue to push the Government to recognise the mitigation hierarchy as a key environmental principle and development that should be enshrined in environmental delivery plans.
I am also pleased to see Lords amendment 29, and that the Government have listened to the points by Historic England and Heritage Alliance that I raised in Committee. That means that heritage protections remain in transport and works projects. However, there remain amendments that the Government wish to reject that we strongly believe the House should accept, particularly with regard to nature and environmental protection, and the role of communities and their local councillors. Lords amendment 40 would limit the application of environmental delivery plans to issues where approaches at a strategic landscape scale will be effective. I am sure colleagues have received many emails about that amendment from constituents, and for good reason. Indeed, the amendment is essential because it ensures that EDPs are used where they can deliver environmental benefits and address problems effectively on a strategic scale.
In Somerset and my Taunton and Wellington constituency, we see only too well the massive issues caused by phosphates, and an EDP approach for phosphates would genuinely be welcome. That problem operates at a catchment or regional level, and site-by-site solutions are not enough. Protected species and biodiversity are rooted in their habitats, and in particular place and sites, and a simple strategic approach is not enough. We cannot save a protected species from going extinct in one location by creating a habitat hundreds of miles away and expect the same outcome.
Matthew Pennycook
May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to district-level licensing schemes for great crested newts, as an example of where a strategic approach can benefit a species population? I am not sure it stands—has he reflected on the situation where the type of intervention that underpins EDPs is already in existence and is having benefits for nature?
Gideon Amos
I accept what the Minister is saying and that elements of species protection may require strategic approaches. However, the fundamental point for the Liberal Democrats is that if the Government made a commitment to stronger protections within EDPs from the outset, in terms of the mitigation hierarchy and the protection of species on site, then we would be more open to supporting their position, but they have not made that commitment, so we cannot give our support and Lords amendment 40 needs to remain.
Lords amendment 38, proposed by the Bishop of Norwich and supported by Liberal Democrat peers, is equally important. It would ensure that the new spatial development strategies include protections for our incredibly rare and valuable chalk streams. Shockingly, there is currently a lack of protection for these rare and incredible habitats. Around 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England. They are as rare globally as rainforests, and yet they do not have the required designation as irreplaceable habitats. [Interruption.] I do not know where that voice came from, but I am happy to give way.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I do not wish to detain the House terribly long; I just want to cover three matters, if I may. The first is Lords amendment 38, which deals with chalk streams. As the Minister knows, because I have told him before, my constituency is chalk stream central—as is yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, as my constituency neighbour. The River Test, the most celebrated of chalk streams, rises in the north of my constituency. We also have the Anton, which flows through Andover, and most famously the Bourne rivulet—about which books have been written, such is its beauty and importance. I know the Minister appreciates the importance of these incredibly rare ecological environments, which are almost unique to southern England.
I heard what the Minister had to say about the appropriateness of spatial development strategies for protecting chalk streams, but he will know that those of us who are concerned about this issue have been disappointed by the seeming reduction of enthusiasm for protection of chalk streams since this Government came to power. Obviously, the chalk stream recovery pack, which had been hard-won in negotiations with the previous Government, was abandoned. In May, amendments to this Bill that sought to protect chalk streams further were voted down. The Minister is a good chap—he and I get on well—and at every stage he has reassured the House that he wants to do more for chalk streams, but we have yet to see the beef. Even today in his opening remarks, he said that he is minded to take further steps elsewhere to protect chalk streams. Given the Government’s record over the past 12 months or so, I am afraid that that is not terribly reassuring, so when he sums up, I would be very grateful if he could be a little more detailed about what exactly he intends to do.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
The right hon. Member will know from his own constituency that there are some fantastic campaigners trying to protect chalk streams. In my patch, I have the River Chess Association, the Mend the Misbourne project, and the Chiltern Society. Does he agree that it should not be down to committed campaigners to protect these chalk streams, and that it needs a statutory underpinning?
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. In my constituency, I have groups of volunteers who work very hard, including on the Anton river in Andover, and do a fantastic job. In fact, that river flows through part of the town centre, but gets lost, and it is about to be opened up with a new riverside park running down Western Avenue. I am pleased to say that I played a small part in that scheme obtaining a levelling-up grant from the previous Government.
People in my constituency value these chalk streams almost as if they are members of their family. They are part of the identity of towns such as Whitchurch, Overton, Andover and other villages in my patch and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. They would take the protection of those chalk streams almost as seriously as the protection of their children. Many Members—not just me—have campaigned for such statutory protection, and I would be interested in what the Minister has to say. I do not entirely accept his argument that spatial development strategies are completely inappropriate. As he knows, they can flag up areas of planning constraint and discuss corridors and green infrastructure. If there is a green infrastructure corridor, it is a chalk stream. Certainly in my part of the world, they are treasured such that a new mayor—if we have one next year—would be required to look at them as protected corridors and say as much in their plan.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member and support everything he has said about chalk streams and nature corridors. Does he think it would be helpful if the Bill went a bit further in trying to reinvigorate the natural world in densely populated urban areas? Since he has an enormous knowledge of London, does he not think that London would be so much improved if some of the unfortunately now underground rivers could be opened up, so as to give people a sense of what their natural world is really like?
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Interestingly, he may or may not recall that when I was a Westminster councillor, we had a project in Westminster called “Hidden Rivers”, which signposted where those rivers were. If any Members find themselves on the platform at Sloane Square station, for example—just a couple of stops away—and look upwards, they will see a socking great big pipe going across the top of the platforms carrying the River Tyburn. It rises at Marble Arch, where Tyburn convent is, and where the Tyburn tree used to stand for hanging people. It flows down, across the platform and into the Thames. The same is true, I think in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, where the Fleet flows down towards Fleet Street and into the Thames. People value and treasure such rivers, and they should be protected. I want to hear a little more on that from the Minister.
For those of us who would support new settlements, for example, SDSs might be important for the protection of chalk streams, because they can point towards the areas where new settlements should be and protect such things as river catchments. For chalk downland constituencies like mine, that is key. While I accept that the Minister will get his way and get his party to vote for the second time against protection for chalk streams in this Bill, I would like to hear a bit more detail on what he is minded to do—I take him at his word—how firm that mindedness is, and when we can expect some of the protection to come forward, because this is an urgent matter on which many of us have campaigned for many years.
The second thing I lament about the Bill, and ask the Minister to clarify, is its impact on neighbourhood plans. I have asked him this question in the past, particularly in the light of new housing targets. Both my borough councils, Basingstoke and Deane, and Test Valley, have had significant increases to their housing targets. I do not mind that necessarily, but the question is where those houses go. I have encouraged villagers and communities across my constituency to take advantage of neighbourhood plans and to put them in place. The significant alarm now is that some of the local plan implications from the new housing targets that are flowing through are riding roughshod over those neighbourhood plans, some of which took years to put in place.
The Minister has given me an undertaking in the past that extant neighbourhood plans would not have to be varied in the light of those new housing targets, until they came up for refresh, and that constraints, such as protected landscape, would pertain. I would be pleased if he could reassure us on that point when he sums up.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about the impacts on neighbourhood development plans of the new housing targets. In my constituency, those plans were blown out of the water by the new targets. In the Cotswold district, 80% is protected landscape and of the remaining 20%, half is floodplain. Does he therefore share my disappointment that the Government are opposing Lords amendment 39, which would have forced developers to prioritise brownfield sites and save our countryside?
Kit Malthouse
I sort of agree. We should be pushing developers towards brownfield—that is absolutely right. Brownfield first was the policy of the previous Government, and it makes lots of sense. The key thing, which I am sure the Minister accepts, is that if we are to overcome this problem with the generational contract—that we who are housed will build houses for those who are not—there has to be a compromise. For me, that compromise has always been neighbourhood planning. Far too often in my constituency, villages and towns feel as if planning is something that is done to them. They dread the land promoter showing up to ram some inappropriate planning through. Some of that compromise can be about beauty, and I lament the fact that the design standards were taken out of the NPPF and that that word is not used. [Interruption.] I welcome the Minister’s nodding—that is great.
I have often said that in my constituency—for Members who do not know, it is 220 square miles of beautiful chalk downland—if developers would build thatched cottages, we would have thousands of them. People would be more than happy for developers to build villages such as St Mary Bourne all over the place, if they look beautiful and fit in. Unfortunately, we get the same ersatz development that everybody else gets around the country. We need to crack that. The other thing is putting planning in the hands of local people, and I hope the Minister will try to preserve that principle in the Bill.
My third point, briefly, is about an omission in the Bill that the Minister and I have discussed before, which is the problem of undeveloped consents. My concern is that the Bill will stimulate the land promotion industry and stimulate lots of applications. However, as the shadow Minister pointed out, when the housing market is flat, stamp duty is at penal rates, when interest rates remain stubbornly high because of Government borrowing, and when the development industry is crippled by taxes, we will not get the level of development that the Minister aspires to—certainly not towards the 300,000 a year target and 1.5 million by the end of the Parliament. Instead, we will see a stacking up of consents, as we have seen in some parts of the country already, where there are thousands and thousands of undeveloped consents. The industry will bank them. In the absence of a market into which it can sell, it will occupy itself by banking the land for times when hopefully things will come good.
Similarly, I am afraid that we will see some of the large infrastructure projects going through the process—the Minister and I are keen to see them accelerated—but people waiting for more propitious economic times to bring them forward, notwithstanding the lack, therefore, of the facility to the British public. I urge him to consider, as he looks to the next stage of his planning reforms, what he will do on undeveloped consents. I think I have said to him before that the Government should force local plans to have a 10-year housing supply that also takes into account granted consents. Then, developers can see a 10-year horizon, as can local authorities, but they also can see that if they want a life beyond 10 years, they will have to start developing that which they already have. If we deal with that issue, we will also deal with quite a lot of the resentment people feel when they see particularly large-scale planning applications coming forward. They ask, “We’ve already got 400 down the road that haven’t been built. Why do we have to take another 400?” Of course, the local council has to put huge amounts of work into the local plan, notwithstanding the fact that it might already have a five-year supply that has been consented but does not count toward the future target.
This is a problem that Governments, including my own, have struggled with for some time, and it is one I struggled with when I was Housing Minister, but I hope the Minister will give some thought to at least giving councils the option of having a 10-year supply in which granted consents count. He might well find that he gets a lot more houses built.
John McDonnell
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for leaving the Chamber for a period. I had to chair a meeting upstairs that had been planned for a number of months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) mentioned the 4 Cs. I will add a fifth: confidence. One problem that we have as a Government —on this issue and on a number of others—is that we need to instil confidence in the general population that not only are our objectives sound but the methods that we are about to use will be effective. I want to stick to the Bill, but let me use a general example. There has been a trend in Government over the past 17 months of policies being introduced that have not maintained the confidence of the general public or of a number of Members. Having destroyed that confidence, we have then gone through a process of reversing the policies and, as a result, not gaining any benefit from them. We just require a bit more political nous as we consider things, issue by issue.
In this field in particular, I do not think that we have taken people with us. What has undermined confidence for people like me is that when Members honestly expressed their views, concerns and expertise, and moved amendments, they lost the Whip. Then, at a later date—within weeks—the Government adopted those amendments as part of the process in the Lords.
John McDonnell
I am happy to take an intervention if the Minister so wishes.
Matthew Pennycook
I am happy to intervene just to make clear that we did not adopt the amendments that were pressed on Report. There are very crucial differences between the package that we submitted and those amendments.
John McDonnell
The Government did not accept the amendments on Report, but the reality is that they had to negotiate with the other House and introduce amendments that were in the spirit of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff)—it is as simple as that. We need to be honest about that and admit when we make mistakes.
That is why I worry about this. If we introduce legislation of this sort, we need to take people with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South referred, in a derogatory tone, to the well-funded environmental groups. I have been working with those groups for nearly 50 years. I have never seen a breadth of unanimity across them on an issue such as this. Some of them cannot be described as anything other than mainstream. What they are asking for, in some of these amendments, is relatively limited, so it behoves us, as a listening Government, to go that one step further and see whether compromises can be reached. I congratulate the Government on doing that for clause 3, in which compromises have been reached. For some reason, however, people are digging their heels in, particularly in relation to Lords amendment 40.
Let me deal with Lords amendment 1 on national policy statements. As I said earlier, confidence must be built when dealing with huge developments. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has mentioned the third runway at Heathrow. The proposal to build a third runway will never have my constituents’ confidence because, as I said earlier, 15,000 of them will lose their homes, whole villages will be wiped off the face of the earth, and 2 million more people in London will suffer from noise and air pollution —so we will not be able to convince them, to be honest. However, on more general topics, including major infrastructure projects, the role of Select Committees has been critical, as they are able to examine those issues in depth, have Ministers before them and present reports to the House, which we can debate.
In many instances, Select Committee reports and the work those Committees have done has been of such a quality that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) demonstrated in his description of the work his Select Committee does—they have influenced Government, enabled policies to be changed and, as a result, built up confidence in the general public. I am concerned about any lessening of the role of Select Committees in this whole process. The Minister has given us some assurances, and we will see how that works out in practice, but we interfere with that democratic process of this House at our peril when we are in government, because this is how mistakes get made.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am pleased to speak today in full support of Lords amendments 38 and 40. I would also like to take the opportunity to press the Minister on the Government’s response in the other place to Lords amendment 32, which I will come to shortly.
First, on Lords amendment 40, I am pleased that the Lords altered the uses of environmental delivery plans to better protect species. North Norfolk is proudly biodiverse, and it must be protected. We should all see the shocking decline in our rare swallowtail butterflies—an icon of the Norfolk broads—as an indicator of the nature emergency we face. Protections for wildlife and biodiversity are crucial, and I hope the Government will retain this amendment.
On Lords amendment 38, I welcome the Minister’s statement of future intent, but I am nevertheless in full support of protecting North Norfolk’s chalk streams. I thank my local bishop, the Bishop of Norwich, for tabling that amendment in the other place and for his admirable support for and defence of chalk streams in Norfolk and across the country. He is a great champion for the environment and I thank him for it. Over the summer I went to Letheringsett in my constituency, with volunteers from the River Glaven Conservation Group. The Glaven is a much loved chalk stream locally, and one of many in North Norfolk that we hold dear. As one local councillor told me, in North Norfolk, “we cherish our chalkies.”
I saw the work undertaken to renew and revitalise the river and its floodplain, made as part of the Norfolk Wildlife Trust’s nine chalk rivers project. A 1.2 km man-made channel was dug to reconnect the river to its original path and restore its natural flow after years of human interference. A new wetland near Glandford ford has also been created, generating a vital new habitat for the native crayfish and water vole that can be found there. I also heard of the challenges, from construction silt run-off to sewage discharges. Allowing a unique and precious natural environment to be treated this way in recent years is nothing short of scandalous.
Sadly, this is the situation not only for the Glaven or even Norfolk’s chalk streams; we have heard shameful tales of those historic habitats across the country being trashed and abused by profiteering water companies, without a shred of care for the environment that they are damaging. That is why I believe that Lords amendment 38 is a perfectly sensible and much-needed addition to the Bill. Of course those of us with chalk streams in our local areas want spatial development strategies to take account of them and ensure their ongoing protection. I am yet to hear a convincing argument from the Government as to why this amendment is being so strongly opposed.
Clearly, the status quo is not working, and we cannot embark on a new age of development and infrastructure building without making sure that those aspects of our environment that are already being failed are not damaged beyond saving. There has been a lot of talk in recent months about national pride and the St George’s cross. Well, I am proud that the St George’s cross flies over 85% of the world’s chalk streams. Out of only 200 in the world, the majority are right here in England. We are the custodians and guardians of the vast majority of this special habitat. We have to take that responsibility seriously, and Lords amendment 38 is an important step towards proving that we will.
I have been critical of much of what is included in the Bill, but almost equal amounts of criticism can be levelled against it because of what it lacks. Today we can plug one more gap in it by agreeing with the Lords in their amendment.
I said that I wanted to press the Minister on Lords amendment 32, which may have been unfortunately worded with a slightly predetermined outcome when it was tabled in the other place. In North Norfolk, we have real issues with water abstraction licences. Food processors and farmers need water, and attenuation is the answer. The current permitted development regulation is clearly not working. The Government responded in the other place by saying that they needed to look at PDRs and would return to them. I wonder if I can press the Minister to indicate a few more steps and some timelines.
Steff Aquarone
I am getting an indication that he will not do so, which is a shame.
I support the development of more homes in North Norfolk; there are 2,400 households on our housing waiting list who demand that provision. I am delighted that new residents in Walcott and Bacton will be moving into dozens of new affordable homes in the coming months, supported by our Lib Dem-led council. I want everyone living in North Norfolk, though—in new homes or in old—to be able to cherish our ancient chalk streams for the decades and centuries to come, and I urge colleagues across the House to vote to protect them.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. In opening the debate, I set out at some length the reasons why the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place. In the interests of time, I do not intend to reiterate at any great length the points I have made previously. I will instead focus my remarks on expanding the Government’s arguments in key respects, and on addressing any points raised in the debate that I did not cover in my opening remarks.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially so early in his remarks. I apologise to him and to the House for not being here for his opening remarks, which he has just mentioned. In them, he talked a little about Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 31. I am grateful to him for the concession that the Government are making and for the moves they intend to make. However, can I make just two criticisms of Government amendments (a) and (b)? The first is very minor; Government amendment (a) refers to the
“Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2028”.
That should, of course, be 2018. I know that the Minister will be able to correct that error in due course.
The more substantive criticism is about data collection. The Minister will know that is the only substantive difference left between the Government’s proposal and the one that I made on Report in this place and that Lord Borwick made in the other place. When we seek to improve access for people with disabilities to charging infrastructure, we should be able to keep track of progress. If the Minister is not minded to do that in the context of this Bill, will he consider other ways in which we can be sure that progress is being made in the direction that he and I both want to see?
Matthew Pennycook
I will of course pick up the drafting error that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has identified and rectify that. I am more than happy to take the data point away and reflect further. With the amendment in lieu that we have proposed, there is obviously a process around the regulations that come forward with further opportunities to feed in. I very much appreciate his recognition that the amendment in lieu goes a long way to addressing the points that he raised.
I will pick up a number of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate, starting with those relating to Lords amendment 1. For the purposes of clarity, I will lay out again the reassurances I have given to the House, both on Report and today. Where the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to a national policy statement, a statement will be laid in Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak at that Committee. On Report, I talked about that being wherever practicable to account for the usual scheduling challenges that all Ministers face, but I hope it is noted that I withdrew those comments. We expect Ministers to make themselves available to the relevant Committee in all instances, and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period.
Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days. That is 21 sitting days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change proposed through the reflective route should be enacted.
On who makes the decisions, it is the relevant Secretary of State who will decide whether a change falls into one of the four categories, but the categories are closely defined. They include: relevant published Government policy, a change to legislation and a decision of the court. The intent of the relevant clause is not to evade parliamentary scrutiny, but to address the fact that, on average, the Select Committee inquiry process adds around five months to the process of updating a national policy statement. That is as things stand. We want to ensure that Select Committees are engaged and that we have regular and timely updates. I can happily confirm, as I have made clear, that where a Select Committee returns recommendations during that consultation period, they will be taken into account. However, we need this change to make reflective amendments to the NPS to ensure that things can be kept up to date.
Airports are a good example of where a full NPS review would have to take place. That would not be allowed to take place through the reflective amendment process, and that is not the intention of the Secretary of State for Transport. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must lay the proposed amended national policy statement in full before Parliament and specify a relevant period. If within that relevant period, either House passes a resolution or a Committee makes recommendations on the proposed amendment, the Secretary of State must respond, and that response must be laid before Parliament. There are two different processes.
Turning to chalk streams, we have to be clear about the intent of Lords amendment 38. It is not a broad blanket statutory protection for chalk streams; it implies specific requirements on chalk streams in spatial development strategies brought forward by the relevant authorities. We think there are important practical reasons why those authorities are not the relevant bodies to bring such protections forward.
In his contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) referenced a number of cases where other legislation or other Government agencies are ultimately responsible for addressing some of the problems in question, not the spatial authorities that will bring forward SDSs. We therefore do not think that Lords amendment 38 is the right way to proceed. National policy is the way to proceed in the Government’s view. While I accept that chalk streams are not currently mentioned explicitly in national policy, the NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value, and local plans should:
“Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks”.
In addition, when determining planning applications local planning authorities should apply the principle that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, in the last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused. The application of these protections extends beyond strategic plans, to all types of plan and, crucially, to decisions on planning applications. As I said, the Government acknowledge the case for giving explicit recognition to chalk streams in national planning policy, although I cannot go further than the commitment I gave at the Dispatch Box today that we will lay out and consult on proposals to include that explicit recognition and in so doing make clear, unambiguously, our expectations for how plan makers and decision makers should treat chalk streams. That will be part of the consultation.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Minister knows that, across this House and the other place, there is wide recognition of how unique and precious our chalk streams are. He clearly recognises that, as well. Given their importance and the fact that most of them are in the UK, why have the Government not yet brought forward an amendment to reflect the cross-party concerns expressed in both Houses? I know him to be a serious and sincere man, but the Minister is, in effect, asking the House to rely on his good will to do something at some point, and we have no idea what it is.
Matthew Pennycook
I think that is a slightly unfair précis of what I said. I take very seriously the commitments I make from this Dispatch Box. I have committed, in a consultation that will take place before the end of this year, to include in proposed changes to national planning policy explicit recognition of chalk streams and how they will be treated. The full details will be open to consultation. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. We could have a much wider debate about policy versus statute, but we think that in the planning system there are very good reasons to put things in policy, where they can be amended or updated if necessary, rather than in statute. Chalk streams are a good example of where that argument applies.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk made a compelling case for many of the things we are doing outside planning policy to safeguard chalk streams. There are mechanisms to deliver chalk stream conservation, including through our plans to reform the water industry, under which water companies plan to spend more than £2 billion over the next five years to develop targeted actions on chalk streams; through biodiversity net gain, which requires like-for-like compensation or enhancement where development impacts on these areas; and through the system we intend to introduce of environmental outcomes reports, which specifically reference these bodies of water.
Kit Malthouse
I understand the undertaking the Minister is giving, but he will recognise that all of this is guidance; it does not preclude planning decisions that will impact on chalk streams. Given that he is set on his course, which we understand, and his appreciation of the fact that the amendment was proposed in the spirit of addressing the lack of any other sort of protection for chalk streams, will he reassure us that the intention in the planning guidance is to give chalk streams the same sort of protection as was put in place for, for example, veteran trees, which are deemed to be irreplaceable? That is the highest level of protection in planning guidance—I think I introduced this as Planning Minister. In that way, only in very exceptional circumstances could permission be granted for development that would impinge on chalk streams.
Matthew Pennycook
I cannot go beyond what I set out earlier. We will put the proposals out to full consultation before the end of the year. I will address the subject of irreplaceable habitats in this winding-up speech.
In his speech, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of other issues, including the absorption constraint dilemma, viability, housing delivery targets and local plans. Perhaps we should sit down outside the Chamber and have a coffee, as I think I would benefit from his insights, but I shall certainly give further thought to the many points he made.
On neighbourhood plans, they are not referenced in the Bill, other than in relation to an amendment we made specifically in connection with Ramsar sites. Again, I am more than happy to have a wider conversation with him about this Government’s view of the place of neighbourhood plans in the planning system.
On irreplaceable habitats, the national planning policy framework makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of such habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections continue to apply; nothing in the Bill bypasses them. Fundamentally, an EDP that would lead to irreversible harm to or the loss of an irreplaceable environmental feature could not be approved by a Secretary of State, as this would fail to secure overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant feature.
I want to briefly mention the mitigation hierarchy, which was raised by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when it develops an EDP. That is an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. The requirements for the environmental principles policy statement include the prevention and rectification-at-source principles, which are key to the mitigation hierarchy. The Secretary of State must have due regard to the EPPS when making policy, and will therefore do so when making an EDP. We recognise, however, that we need to provide further reassurance. On Third Reading in the other place, as the hon. Gentleman referenced, we amended the Bill to allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out how EDPs would prioritise addressing the negative effect of development, providing greater clarity about how the principles of the existing mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the new system.
I will briefly touch on two further issues. On Lords amendment 40, as I said, we do not believe there is any compelling case for limiting the application of EDPs just to the issues that are covered by the amendment: nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. I think the challenge made by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), was that applying EDPs to species will somehow cause harm. That is not the case.
Limiting the environmental impacts that can be covered is unnecessary because the overall improvement test that I have mentioned ensures that an EDP can be made only where it will have an overall positive impact on the environmental feature. I mentioned district-level licensing of great crested newts, which is an example of where a strategic approach can lead to better outcomes for nature, and that is the approach we are taking forward in this Bill.
Lastly, I must reference the constituency issue raised by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) regarding the Eskdalemuir seismic array. We recognise the interference that onshore wind turbines can cause to seismological monitoring stations and the subsequent safeguarding concerns that operators of seismological arrays can have. We are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to bring forward a resolution to this issue via the working group, which I know he is aware of. We are clear that the array is a key piece of defence infrastructure that is part of international monitoring networks, and that any updated approach to managing onshore wind deployment near the array will not compromise its detection capabilities.
Under a new proposed approach, the Ministry of Defence needs onshore wind proposals to submit specific information and comply with the seismic impact limit, and for determining authorities—the decision makers—to be bound not to approve applications if those limits are breached. I hope that provides the right hon. Gentleman with some further reassurance, but, again, I am more than happy to engage with him further.
To conclude, this Government were elected on a promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this landmark Bill, we will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. Let me bring the House back to what is at the heart of this Bill: we need new homes and we need new critical infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) made that point compellingly. The need for those across the country is pressing. This Bill needs to receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.
To that end, we have shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to compelling arguments, but we are not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles. I look forward to continuing constructive conversations with peers, alongside Baroness Taylor, to secure agreement across both Houses in the near future. I commend the Government’s position to the House.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.