Commons Chamber

Thursday 13th November 2025

(began 3 weeks, 2 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:34
09:35
09:35
09:36
09:36
09:36
None Portrait Q2. What steps she has taken to improve access to nature. (906281)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Speaker. Question that the government is delivering on our manifesto commitments to improve access to
09:36
09:37
09:38
09:38
09:39
09:39
09:40
09:40
None Portrait Q3. What her planned timeline is for moving away from the use of farrowing crates and cages in farming. (906282)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We remain firmly committed to maintaining and improving animal welfare and will work closely with
09:40
09:40
09:41
09:42
09:42
09:42
09:43
09:43
09:44
09:44
09:45
09:45
09:46
09:46
09:47
09:47
09:48
09:48
09:49
09:49
09:49
09:50
09:50
09:51
09:51
None Portrait Q7. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential impact of solar farms on food security. (906288)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Only 0.1% of land is used for solar and half of the agricultural land generating solar power is still
09:51
09:51
09:52
09:52
09:53
09:54
09:54
09:54
09:55
09:55
09:56
09:56
09:56
09:57
09:57
09:57
None Portrait Q11. What steps her Department is taking to help reduce levels of food waste. (906292)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

So many questions. We are committed to tackling food waste and ensuring food reaches those in
09:57
09:58
09:58
09:59
09:59
10:00
10:00
10:01
10:01
10:01
10:02
10:02
10:02
10:02
10:04
10:04
10:05
10:06
10:06
10:07
10:07
10:08
10:08
10:08
10:09
10:09
10:09
10:10
10:10
10:11
10:11
10:11
10:12
10:12
10:12
10:13
10:13
10:13
None Portrait Oral questions: Attorney General’s Office
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Solicitor General. Mr. speaker, since April 2020,
10:13
None Portrait Q1. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Serious Fraud Office's work in tackling serious economic crime. (906305)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, since April 2020, the SFO has recovered over £550 million from criminals for the UK
10:14
10:14
10:14
10:15
10:15
10:16
10:16
10:16
10:17
10:18
10:18
10:19
10:20
10:20
10:21
10:21
10:22
10:23
10:24
10:24
10:25
10:25
10:25
10:26
10:27
10:28
10:28
10:29
None Portrait Q4. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates in cases of violence against women and girls. (906309)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions
10:29
10:30
10:30
10:31
10:31
10:32
10:32
10:33
10:33
10:34
10:34
10:35
10:35
10:36
Helen Grant Portrait Helen Grant MP (Maidstone and Malling, Conservative)
-
-
welcome the right hon. Lady to her place. She is indeed my third Solicitor General in the last 12 months, and I also look forward to working with her constructively where we can and having healthy debate in this chamber in the weeks and months to come. I would also like to associate myself with her remarks on the sad passing of Baroness Newlove. I had the honour of working with her when I was the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

victim's Minister. She was a great champion of victims and she will be very, very sadly missed. You.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You. Mr. Speaker. Violence against women and girls is a scourge. It women and girls is a scourge. It wrecks families and it ruins lives. And one of the most sickening aspects of it is cruelty and abuse aspects of it is cruelty and abuse to children. Currently, there is no national mechanism to track down national mechanism to track down and monitor serious child cruelty offenders after service of their offenders after service of their sentences. Her ministerial colleague, the Member for Rother colleague, the Member for Rother Valley, at Report stage of the sentencing bill, said this and I quote A problem in the system has been identified and we are determined to fix it.

It simply determined to fix it. It simply cannot be right that some horrific child abusers can have access to child abusers can have access to children, live with children and work with children at the end of work with children at the end of their sentences without any system of monitoring or notification. The of monitoring or notification. The Minister went on to welcome the offer of cross-party talks. He also promised to work at speed to establish a child cruelty register. So can the Solicitor General please update the House on what concrete steps have been taken since then?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. chairman. I thank the hon. Member for that
10:38
10:38
10:39
10:40
10:40
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
Jurisdiction Bill. Tuesday, the 18th of November, Second Reading of 18th of November, Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. Wednesday the 19th of November. Consideration of Lords amendments Consideration of Lords amendments to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, followed by Committee of the whole House and Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Property Digital Assets Bill, Thursday the 20th of November debate on a motion on the subject of International Men's Day, followed by a debate on a motion on an Injury in Service Award.

The subject for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee. On Backbench Business Committee. On Friday, the 21st of November. The House will not be sitting the provisional business for the week commencing the 24th of November include Monday, the 24th of November. Remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Day one Tuesday, Empowerment Bill. Day one Tuesday, the 25th of November. Remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Day and Community Empowerment Bill. Day two Wednesday the 26th of November.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver her budget statement Thursday, the 27th of November. Continuation of the of November. Continuation of the budget debate Friday the 28th of November. The House will not be sitting Monday, the 1st of December. Continuation of the budget debate and Tuesday the 2nd of December. Conclusion of the budget debate. Jesse Norman. Mr. speaker, I am
10:42
Jesse Norman Portrait Rt Hon Jesse Norman MP (Hereford and South Herefordshire, Conservative)
-
-
sure I speak for many members when I thank you and the whole of the speaker's office for the work you have put in to make this past week of remembrance so memorable. The Gardens of Remembrance, the projection of images from the projection of images from the Second World War onto the Elizabeth Tower, the wreath laying in Westminster Hall and much else. All Westminster Hall and much else. All these things I know took a huge amount of organisation, coordination and hard work.

So coordination and hard work. So thank you to you and your office. I would also draw the attention of colleagues to the launch of the colleagues to the launch of the project to build the remembrance clock at the National Arboretum, clock at the National Arboretum, and I hope that they, in turn, will dig deep to support that. Mr. speaker, in the spirit of speaker, in the spirit of exchanging news stories that the leader and I have developed over the past 2 or 3 weeks, let me give the past 2 or 3 weeks, let me give you a raft, if I may, of intriguing items.

Nine former four star items. Nine former four star generals who condemned the government's treatment of veterans on Remembrance Day, 1 million more on Remembrance Day, 1 million more people are now claiming Universal Credit than a year ago, without any need to have to look for a job. The Chancellor gave an unexpected early press conference, apparently to prepare people for major tax rises. And the Prime Minister has acknowledged yesterday the rise in national insurance. Junior doctors have announced a five day strike starting tomorrow in pursuit of a 26% pay rise, on top of the woefully inadequate, as they would see it, 29% received last year.

Number ten Downing Street has insisted that the Prime Minister has full confidence in Morgan McSweeney and that he, or perhaps it's Mr. McSweeney, will still be Prime Minister at the next election. Mr. speaker, it has rightly been said that our country has moved from being post-war to being pre-war. In recent weeks, we've seen a marked escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. Russian forces have made gains in and around the city of Pokrovsk, threatening to cut transport routes and displace thousands more civilians.

Missile and drone attacks on energy and transport infrastructure have intensified, with serious consequences for Ukraine's ability to sustain its economy through the winter. These developments follow reports of a significant increase in Russian arms production, and continued circumvention of sanctions through covert oil and gas shipments. The same time, international aid flows have slowed and Ukrainian forces are facing actual or potential shortages of money, ammunition and equipment. All this, I would suggest, underlines the need for Parliament to take stock three years into the conflict.

The nature of the war is shifting and now demands renewed strategic coordination among Ukraine's allies. In this context, I'd like to ask the leader to commit to keeping back December 4th for the backbench debate on Ukraine requested by my brilliant right hon. Colleague, the Member for Harwich. Where is he? Over there and north Essex, and agreed by the backbench Business Committee. By my calculation, we have not had a general debate on Ukraine on the floor of the House since February of this year, and not on a substantial motion since 2023.

This debate would allow the House to review the current worrying state of military preparedness and the humanitarian situation. The position on frozen Russian financial assets held in Europe, the status of occupied territories which Russia claims quite wrongly for itself, the government's approach to long range defensive support and sanctions enforcement. It would allow us to examine the diplomatic context. It would allow us to test government policy and cross-departmental coordination, and to bring the very diverse range of expertise and knowledge across this House to bear on a crucial issue facing the entire continent of Europe.

And above all, it would allow this House of Commons as an institution to brief itself in full and demonstrate that strong sense of unity that exists in this country, on the vital defence of our sovereign ally, Ukraine. The House has been steadfast in its support for Ukraine, and rightly so. But as the conflict evolves, we must ensure our response evolves with it. Now, it is possible that the leader's genius for prognostication and intelligence gathering may have already caused him to form a supportive view of this request, but if not, I ask very much that he have the government make time for this timely and important debate.

On December 4th, leader. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. speaker,
10:46
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
it's very early in the day. Mr. speaker, I can assure. You I thank the Shadow Leader for his remarks, the Shadow Leader for his remarks, and I join with him very much in thanking you, Mr. Speaker, and indeed all House staff, for this indeed all House staff, for this week's work on remembrance events. It's a real opportunity each year It's a real opportunity each year when we come together, not just as a house, but as a nation, to pay a house, but as a nation, to pay tribute to those who served and who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

And I also join with him in drawing And I also join with him in drawing attention of members to the Remembrance Clock at the National Memorial Arboretum, which will Memorial Arboretum, which will serve as a permanent memorial to MPs, peers, journalists and staff MPs, peers, journalists and staff who died in war conflict and because of acts of terrorism. And I know, Mr. Speaker, that you have written to members with this regard. You and the Lord speaker have done so, and I join with the shadow so, and I join with the shadow leader in asking, where possible, colleagues may wish to contribute colleagues may wish to contribute to that fund.

I also, Mr. Speaker. to that fund. I also, Mr. Speaker. Draw attention to the fact that today the government has published its response to the UK Commission its response to the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration, setting out plans to mark this period in our nation's history. My thoughts and those of the government are with the many families who suffered devastating loss of a loved one during this time, and I know a number of the Covid 19 bereaved families are represented here in Parliament today.

We thank them for all that they do to provide support to others in their grief, and the commemorative program will ensure that, as a country, we do not forget, this month also marks a number of important awareness campaigns, Mr. Speaker, and November is Men's Mental Health Month, which raises awareness and tackles stigma surrounding men's mental health and encourages men to seek help and support when they need it. We also recognise Islamophobia Awareness Month. Islamophobia has no place in our society. The government is very clear that we must challenge and eradicate all forms of Islamophobia and ensure that everyone feels safe in their community.

Mr. speaker, I also come to the. I will come to the shadow leaders point in a moment, but I'm sure the whole House will join with me in welcoming the Transport Secretary's announcement yesterday about plans aimed at reducing long waiting lists for driving tests and preventing slots being sold on at inflated prices. This is good news because I know many of our constituents take a keen interest in this, but it's also important to note that many members across the floor have raised this question during business questions and indeed other parliamentary occasions, and it's evidence if we need it.

Mr. speaker, that the government is listening to those concerns and is taking action. Let me turn now to the shadow leaders remarks and to some extent put aside his knockabout, except to point out, of course, that it is true that more people are moving across to Universal Credit because they're moving across to Universal Credit. The system was always planned that people would move across to the new system. So it's not there's no great surprise there. On the more serious point that he raises, though, on the question of Ukraine, we stand firm in our support for Ukraine and its sovereignty.

I'm not just talking about this government, Mr. Speaker. I'm talking about this House. And it's really important that we get an opportunity to discuss these matters. And I will take very seriously his his reasonable request that we have a debate, certainly before the end of this year. And because the government does stand to shoulder with the people of Ukraine, we have, I think, a good record of bringing the matter back to the House, particularly through statements in order that the House is updated on any developments.

But I do want to also give the House an opportunity to debate the matter more fully. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Two families in High Green in my constituency have now waited two years for a scheme of works to years for a scheme of works to their social houses, which was originally estimated to take just 12 weeks. This is completely unacceptable. I visited them last week and saw that work has been week and saw that work has been completed to a substandard, creating damp mould issues and causing damage to property and causing damage to property and personal possessions.

This has left families with a horrific impact on their wellbeing and mental health. their wellbeing and mental health. The Renters Rights Act has now become law. Will the Leader of the
10:51
10:51
10:52
10:52
Bobby Dean Portrait Bobby Dean MP (Carshalton and Wallington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
thanking you and all the staff for their role that they played in organising the remembrance events organising the remembrance events of the past week. Mr. speaker, I too would like to focus on Ukraine this week. The Russias war is is this week. The Russias war is is rumbling on and we're about to enter a long and cold winter where enter a long and cold winter where it looks like temperatures will drop below 20 degrees. And we hear that Vladimir Putin has got a that Vladimir Putin has got a vicious plot to attack the energy infrastructure of Ukraine, threatening the heat supply to the very homes that families are trying very homes that families are trying to survive in.

And as Russia makes these advances, it does feel somewhat that Britain, its allies, somewhat that Britain, its allies, have reached a bit of a stalling point. We are standing around wondering whether or not it's wondering whether or not it's legitimate to seize Russian assets. We are worried about potential future legal claims by the Russian future legal claims by the Russian state, and all the while Putin is pouring petrol into his war machine. pouring petrol into his war machine. Mr. speaker, I feel that the time for deliberation is surely over.

There have been several routes There have been several routes through this legal route proposed. I think the time now is to act. In the meantime, one of the weapons we the meantime, one of the weapons we do have in our armoury is the sanctions against Russia. And it's not only important to impose these sanctions, but to enforce them as well. And so it was quite shocking this week, Mr. Speaker, to learn that the government were unable to explain why over £30 million worth of Russian planes were imported into the UK.

And I note, Mr. Speaker, that the Office of Financial Sanctions implementation is much smaller than its equivalent in the US and the EU. And I wonder whether in this debate that we may have about Ukraine before the end of the year, where we could focus on the role of ofsi, where we can determine whether or not it's adequate and whether it has the resources to properly deal with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scale and importance of the UK sanctions regime today. Mr. speaker, the hon. Gentleman

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. speaker, the hon. Gentleman is right. Addressing Ukraine's financial needs is absolutely vital for ensuring that the Ukrainians for ensuring that the Ukrainians can continue to defend themselves against Russian aggression. He is against Russian aggression. He is also right that the UK is determined, I can confirm, is determined to make progress on this determined to make progress on this issue at pace. But he also understands, I'm sure, that it does involve working with other partners involve working with other partners in this regard.

So there is no intention not to move at pace. But intention not to move at pace. But there are other people involved in this discussion as well. Whether Russia has a plot for a new stage Russia has a plot for a new stage in the campaign or not, we continue to bolster Ukraine's armed forces to bolster Ukraine's armed forces and increase pressure on Russia to come to the negotiating table, because, of course, we all want to
10:54
10:55
10:56
10:56
Martin Vickers Portrait Martin Vickers MP (Brigg and Immingham, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sends his apologies. For his absence today. And I can say that when we met on Tuesday, we say that when we met on Tuesday, we again had great difficulty in allocating the many applications that we are receiving. And the usual plea to the leader, of course, is that we want as much time as possible so that we can accommodate all the various applications. I welcome his acknowledgement of an early debate on Ukraine, which came before the committee on Tuesday via the.

My right hon. Friend from Harwich. In addition to the debates, the leader has said in the chamber next week in the in Westminster Hall, there will be a debate on Tuesday on the 80th anniversary of Unesco, and on Thursday, inequalities faced by unpaid carers and world COPD day. I would urge members who want debates for specific, specific to coincide with specific events to think early because we are now looking at February and March for allocation of time. Mr.

speaker, turning to to my own question for the leader yesterday, I'm sure along with many other members, I attended the drop in session organised by the Samaritans and the centre for Countering Digital Countering Digital Hate, and they showed me the template letters being produced by AI that, in effect, encourage particularly young and vulnerable people to consider suicide. I mean, this is an appalling state of affairs and I recognise that Ministers are looking at all aspects surrounding the digital world and so on.

But it would be, I'm sure, agreed by the whole House if we could take urgent action to combat this and I would hope the leader could perhaps bring the Minister forward to give a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

statement about how we intend approaching this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the on the question of backbench business, he will know that I'm committed to making sure that the
10:58
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
committed to making sure that the Committee has the time that it needs. But he will also know that it is a busy time of the year. There's plenty of legislation, not least coming back from the other place, but also, of course, we're approaching budget season, but I take very seriously the points he makes because inevitably the issues that members want to raise are serious matters. On the second point that he raises, can I thank him not just for raising the question, but for the tone in which he raised it as well.

He's done a lot of work on these matters, and it's incredibly serious matters that he puts before us because they impact our constituents. I'd also like to commend the Samaritans, the Centre Against Digital Hate and all other organisations that support people on these issues, and I will make sure that he gets a he gets a response from the relevant Minister on what we intend to do to combat these matters. And of course, if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it's appropriate to bring forward a statement to the House. Just to help the House, I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to help the House, I'm going to run this till 1145. We have a lot of business there. So if we can speed up the questions and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

answers, hopefully we'll get Neil everybody in Baggy Shanker. But the best example. Thank you very. Much, Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Much, Mr. Speaker. Asgs 100 strong Derby workforce show exactly why we're a proud city of makers, but the Jaguar Land
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:01
11:01
11:02
11:02
11:03
11:03
11:04
11:05
11:05
11:06
11:06
11:07
11:07
11:08
11:08
11:08
11:09
11:09
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:16
11:16
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:19
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
None Portrait Ministerial statement: Police Reform
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sarah Jones Minister of State. With your permission.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With your permission. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on police reform.
11:48
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to begin by expressing my. Sadness at the passing. Of Baroness. commissioner.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

commissioner. She was a champion. For victims and made a huge difference, holding. Government and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

difference, holding. Government and agencies to account. I extend my sympathies. To her. Family and friends, and I. Know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Know. She will be a huge loss to the other place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Last year, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for. Pontefract, Castleford and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her. Intention to bring forward a White Paper on police reform. The White Paper on police reform. The White Paper will outline a programme of wide ranging reforms that will drive quality, consistency and efficiency in policing to ensure that it is set up to deliver for the public ahead of publication. We are today announcing the first of those reforms. Mr. speaker, in order for any institution or organisation to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

perform to the highest standards, it must be underpinned by strong, effective governance. This is. All.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All. The more critical when the service in question is integral to the safe functioning of our society, the safe functioning of our society, as policing undoubtedly is. Police and Crime Commissioners have been in place since November 2012. The in place since November 2012. The model was created to increase accountability and build a greater connection between policing and connection between policing and local communities by having a single public official directly elected by the public, responsible for holding their Chief Constable to account.

Setting the local police budget and agreeing strategic priorities for their strategic priorities for their force through their local police and crime plan. However, whilst the and crime plan. However, whilst the role of PCCs has evolved over time to include responsibility for commissioning services for victims, driving local partnerships and in some areas, responsibilities for fire governance, the model has fire governance, the model has failed to live up to expectations. It has not delivered what it was set up to achieve public understanding of, and engagement with our police and crime commissioners remains low, despite commissioners remains low, despite efforts to raise their profile.

Less than a quarter of voters turned out to vote for them in the turned out to vote for them in the 2024 elections, and 2 in 5 people are unaware PCCs even exist. Home office research conducted during the PCC review in 2020 found that 68% of the public in rural areas claimed they could name their mayor, compared to only 16% of people in PCC areas claiming they could name their PCC on an individual level, PCC is up and down. The country have sought to provide strong oversight and drive crime prevention activity locally, and I would like to place on record my thanks to the individuals and staff in all the offices of Police and Crime Commissioners and at the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners who have done and who will continue to do their best to improve policing for their local communities.

But the reality is that the PCC model has weakened local police accountability and has had perverse impacts on the recruitment of chief constables. They have failed to inspire confidence in local people, in stark contrast to the mayoral model, which has clearly been ultimately more successful. The Theresa May model has not worked. The government announced in our English Devolution White Paper that we will transfer policing functions to elected mayors in England by default, wherever geography is allow. Five mayors now hold policing functions in Greater Manchester, Greater London and across Yorkshire.

In these areas, we have seen the benefits of the mayoral model, including greater collaboration, visible leadership and local innovation. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to create as many strategic authority mayors with policing functions as possible in this Parliament. However, due to the nature of how public services are organised across different areas, the process of establishing mayors across England is a complex one. I can therefore announce today that we will abolish Police and Crime Commissioners at the end of their current term in 2028 and transfer functions to mayors wherever possible in areas where plans do not yet allow for a transfer of policing to a mayor.

This Parliament. We will establish new policing and crime boards to bring council leaders together to oversee the police force in their area, until such time as mayors are in place in England. These boards will replicate the benefits of a mayoralty before the formal transfer can be realised, with in-built local collaboration, public accountability and a greater ability to join up budgets and local services. They will comprise local authority upper tier leaders, co-opted members with appropriate skills and experience, and mayors if they are in the force area.

Preventing crime is everyone's business and giving local leaders these responsibilities will help create thriving town centres, help businesses to succeed, and help people to walk without fear in their communities. We are absolutely clear that these boards will not be a return to the bureaucratic and invisible, committee based oversight of policing that existed before the establishment of PCCs. We will ensure council leaders are empowered to exercise police governance functions. They will be supported by a policing and crime lead, akin to a deputy Mayor for policing and crime, to carry out day to day activities on their behalf.

This will mean that every area will have a visible nominated lead, who will be dedicated to the oversight of policing in their area. Over the coming months, we will work with local government and policing to design new structures to ensure they provide effective oversight of policing. As part of these reforms, we will also work with those in local government and policing to drive down the support costs for policing governance. We will no longer run separate policing elections and we will also abolish police and crime panels.

The current structure that performs scrutiny panels for PCCs. We estimate that at least £100 million will be saved this Parliament, by moving to these new arrangements. Once delivered, the changes are expected to achieve savings to the Home Office of around £20 million a year, enough to fund around 320 extra police constables. Further detail will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper, and we will bring forward the necessary legislation as part of our broader police reform proposals as soon as parliamentary time allows.

There are no plans to create mayors in Wales. We wish to harmonise arrangements across England and Wales as far as possible, and will therefore work with the Welsh Government to ensure new arrangements to replace PCCs, provide strong and effective police governance for Wales. Recognising the unique nature of Welsh arrangements. I also want to clarify that these reforms will not affect governance arrangements for the City of London Police, which is governed by the City Corporation. Mr. speaker, before I conclude, I want to stress that the decision we are announcing today is based on the shortcomings of the PCC model, not the PCCs themselves.

PCCs have done and continue to do important work, and I will engage constructively with all of them until the end of their terms. I want to specifically thank the chairs of the Association for Police and Crime Commissioners, past and present, for their endeavours Nick Alston, the late Sir Tony Lloyd, Mark Burns-williamson, Kate Osborne, Paddy Tipping, Mark Jones, Donna Jones and the current chair Emily Spurrell. We recognise that this is a significant change, especially for the policing and local government sectors, but it is necessary.

As a government, we have a responsibility to do what is right for our communities and if there are steps we can take to improve outcomes for law abiding citizens, we must act because in the end, Mr Speaker whatever police reform measures we pursue, our primary motivation is and will always be to keep the public safe. House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Minister. For advance. Sight of. Her statement.
11:57
Chris Philp Portrait Rt Hon Chris Philp MP (Croydon South, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Her statement. The Minister mentioned at the beginning the government's plans to bring forward a police reform white bring forward a police reform white paper announced from memory about a year ago, but there hasn't been a single sniff of that white paper since then. Perhaps you can tell us when we can expect it, and why the government is so bereft of ideas. It has taken a year or more to publish that white paper. Now, Mr. Speaker. Today's statement about police and crime commissioners represents, in my view, a tinkering around the edges from a government which is failing on crime and policing.

If you like, it is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic because this government is failing. Police numbers are falling. They fell by 1300 during Labour's first year in office on a like for like March to March comparison. And not only are police numbers falling, they are continuing to fall and will drop even more this year. Crime under this government is surging, shoplifting up by 13% in this government's first year to record ever levels, leaving shopkeepers in difficulty.

We have seen theft from the person going up by 5% and sexual offences going up by 9%. And if it isn't enough to see all of these crime sites surging under this Labour government, senior police officers are warning that they face a funding crisis. Indeed, the chief constables of our four largest forces Merseyside, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and the Metropolitan Police all said publicly just a few months ago that they face a funding crisis under this Labour government.

So it's clear, Mr. Speaker, this government is failing on police and crime, falling police numbers, increasing crime and a funding crisis. And yet the police Minister comes to us today with some minor tinkering around the edges. Now they say that they want to transfer PCC powers to mayors where they exist and where the territories are coterminous. And broadly speaking, that is the approach the previous government took. In fact, I recall transferring, I think it was one of the Yorkshire forces into the mayoral model around about a year or so ago.

She does, however, assert that the mayoral model is superior to regular police and crime commissioners. I wonder what evidence she can produce to support that, because the police and the biggest police and crime commissioner in the country, of course, is the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who is also the worst PCC in the country. In my view, knife crime up 86% under Sadiq Khan, the lowest clear up rate of any force in the country, a lamentable 4.7%. He has closed down half the front counters in London and police numbers are plummeting.

So I do. I wonder how she where she gets her assertion from. And then, in terms of the areas that are outside Mayoralties, she proposes essentially abolishing PCCs and replacing them with some kind of committee comprised of local councillors. Will those have the same powers as police and crime commissioners? Impliedly they will. And if that is the case, it won't really save any money other than the election and the police and crime panel, which are very, very small costs. So as far as I can see, this won't really save any money.

But what it will do is remove a directly elected public official, the Police and Crime Commissioner, who is accountable to the public and would certainly be more visible than some kind of faceless committee of local bureaucrats. So I must say to the police Minister, I do think that is a retrograde step. But Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government essentially in their announcement today, is tinkering around the edges. They are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while crimes like shoplifting rocket while police numbers fall and while the police face a funding crisis made in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Home Office. Minister. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm not sure if the Shadow Home Secretary is in favour of this
12:01
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
announcement or not. It's not entirely clear. Perhaps he could come back to us when he's made up his mind. Several questions that he raised, that I am very happy to come back on. He asked when the White Paper on police reform will be coming out. It will be this year. I can assure him of that. We have been working with local police chiefs and with police and crime commissioners and the staff associations on what that reform looks like, and we are making the final changes to what our reform agenda will be.

As a former Minister in the Home Office, the shadow Home Secretary will know that there are many improvements that we need to make around performance, around accountability, around technology and around the structures where we have 86 decision makers across the country who are ensuring, basically that there is huge inefficiencies in the system, whilst performance and productivity is not rising as, as, as fast as it should be. So there will be a significant white paper that we will bring out before the end of the year.

I can assure him of that. We wanted to make the announcement today around police and Crime Commissioner, so that we can continue to work in good faith with those police and crime commissioners as we finalise our reform programme. And it was the right thing to do that. We told them as soon as we could, and I spoke to them this morning at some length and will be speaking to them again, not least at their conference next week. The shadow Home Secretary speaks of crime rates.

I don't have to remind the House of his record and the former government's record. When they were in office, they cut, cut 20,000, police recruited 20,000 police. So we now have a police workforce which is very new. Large quantities of our police workforce have only been in post for a couple of years, with the recruitment that they did in the latter end of their period in government. Prosecution rates didn't improve. The system is so unproductive and so inefficient and so badly managed that we have huge reform that we need to put into place.

We have been making progress since we came into government just a couple of weeks ago. We were able to announce that 18% fall in knife murders, for example, 60,000 knives off the streets since we came to power, 5% fall in knife crime. We are surging our neighbourhood policing capacity, which we know was absolutely decimated under the previous government. We will have 3000 extra police in our neighbourhoods by next April. He asked questions about the evidence on mayoral success. I suggest he talks to the mayors and the deputy deputy mayors responsible for police and crime.

The ability of a structure with a mayoral system and all of the public services underneath it to work together more collaboratively and more effectively is clear to see. So I would encourage him to talk to those mayors and deputy mayors to have a look for himself. He asked if powers will transfer to the new models. They were. The new model will not be a faceless committee of local bureaucrats. They will be seen. They will be the leaders of the councils and a senior police and crime lead who will drive the day to day work.

Accountability will still be there. The statutory responsibilities will still be there. This is now an opportunity for us to work together, across local government and with other partners to make sure we drive the best system that we can, saving £100 million, I think is quite substantial and not tinkering around the edges, as he suggests. But what I would say to him is if he could wait a few more weeks, he will see the reform agenda that the Home Secretary is designing in its totality, and it will put policing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on a much better footing than he left it. Lewis Atkinson. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. What the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. What the. People of Sunderland want is visible and responsive. Policing. And it's no doubt that that's
12:05
12:05
12:06
Ben Maguire Portrait Ben Maguire MP (North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the news that police and crime commissioners are being scrapped, which is something we've been calling for for years and something I personally called for in this House. And one of my first interventions after the PCC election, turnout in Cornwall was abysmally low, at just 18%. This was a failed Tory experiment which cost taxpayers dearly. The Minister is right to point out the countless flaws in the overly politicised PCC model, which has diverted much needed funding away from frontline and community policing.

They cost the public millions in council tax every year, yet the impact on their local communities has been negligible. But Madam Deputy Speaker, transferring this role to mayors is not the answer. It would give even more power to single individuals with dubious democratic mandates and little scrutiny or accountability. The government must learn the lessons of this expensive and failed experiment. Instead, the government should see through plans for these temporary local police and crime boards and instil the powers in these boards on a permanent basis.

They should ensure the money saved from PCCs goes where it's needed most. Getting more officers out on our streets and repairing the damage done by years of conservative mismanagement and underfunding. This is particularly urgent in light of the slow progress that the Home Office has made on their promise to deliver 13,000 new neighbourhood officers. Because, Madam Deputy Speaker, only 200 were added last year, while the number of officers in frontline roles actually went down. So will the Minister commit to investing the money saved from these unnecessary PCCs straight into front line policing and towards proper, effective community policing? Could the Minister outline the safeguards that will be put in place to hold mayors to account with their new policing, newfound policing responsibilities? And finally, could the Minister expand on her estimated 100 million in savings from the scrapping of the PCCs? Has this figure been independently verified? And could she confirm the funds won't just be transferred to the mayor's budget,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but spent on frontline policing? Can I thank the opposition

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the opposition spokesperson for his robust attack on a policy that his own party
12:08
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
introduced as part of the coalition in 2010? I, I also want to to to say I, I actually I actually disagree with him when he said that the impact that our police and crime commissioners have made is negligible. I don't think that's actually true. I think they have done, in many cases, a really good job in quite difficult circumstances. And the, the, the, the innovation that we have seen from Rpcs and the partnerships that they have sought to, to build have been good.

And it is it is not them as individuals and as teams of people that we are criticising today. It is the the structure. He asked about funding the funding from the elections sadly will not be coming to the Home Office, but the election savings that we make obviously and rightly go to where? To the Treasury, the savings that we are making in terms of our police and crime commissioner functions and the efficiencies that we want to drive, are significant at least £20 million, and we want to reinvest that back into policing, which I think is what everybody would want to see.

It talks about safeguards and making sure the right safeguards are in place and the right model is there. Police and crime commissioners will continue for the next two years in the areas where we don't already have a mayoral process in place, so we have good time to work with our colleagues on how the new structures will work. But that said, there is already a process underway of moving police and crime commissioners into the mayoral structures and that is already taking place, and that is already happening, where staff are being moved over into new structures at the moment, just so the House knows, there are 37, I think, police and crime commissioners.

And in 2027, there will be six force areas that will move into the mayoral model. And in 2028, there will be more depending on votes in the in the bill and how that progresses. But but the idea is we see this progress apart from, as I said, in Wales where they have a different

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system and don't have the model. Stella Creasy. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the. Work that. The Minister is doing on reforming how the police can engage with our local communities. All of
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
course, join him in paying tribute to our local police and crime commissioners and Clive and the work that he does. He's absolutely right. There have been challenges. There has been a reduction of the number of years that chiefs are serving. So it's gone from about five years to about two and a half. Something is happening there. There are also fewer people applying for each job as it becomes available. We want like really healthy competition for these roles that are very significant and very important to us.

And where you have large forces and there's only one applicant for the role, you know that something is not working as it should. On the wider question of leadership. He's he's he's he's right to sort of ask these questions. And we could have a whole debate about that. We have. The former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, is doing a review for us on leadership specifically, and how we improve, how we improve that leadership. It needs to be from top to bottom in terms of the policing system.

So our reform agenda, which is looking at performance across the board within policing and the sort of welfare training and support as well that has to go alongside it. We ask a lot of our police and we don't always give them the support that they need. Those two things hand in hand, will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

form quite a major part of our reform programme. Sir Roger Gale. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker, could I first pay tribute to
12:16
12:17
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Just to correct, there are five deputy mayors within the mayoral system that we have already, not just London, already, not just London, Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, North York and North Yorkshire. And that model is working really well. I suggest he talks to someone like Tracy Brabin, who is bringing together all of the different agencies under her, under her model and the system works very well. And the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has done an excellent job working with the police forces across across the capital city to keep us safe.

He asks and I pay tribute to his police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott. He asks what the arrangements will be where there isn't a mayor. The higher tier authority leaders will provide the board and there will be a paid person who is the police and crime lead. In some cases it may be that that is the police and crime commissioner. If local authorities make that decision, but it will be for local authorities, leaders in that board to make the decision. And that is how the funding model

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will work where there aren't mayors. Before I. Call. The next speaker, can I just let members know I plan to run this members know I plan to run this until no later than 1:00? So please can we have short questions and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can we have short questions and short answers. Rachel Hopkins. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, can I welcome the Minister's
12:19
12:19
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
is doing now and will continue to do. As I set out, subject to legislation, of course the police and crime model will be abolished at the end of the existing term of office, which is May 2028. Transition to the new governance arrangements will be overseen by a small program team in the Home Office and myself, and the legal framework to bring about those changes is expected to be included in a second term police reform bill. Second session, I should say police reform bill, subject to course to parliamentary time.

So primary legislation will be needed to make these changes, just to be clear, and we will introduce those as soon as we can. And we will be working very closely over the next period with existing police and crime commissioners, with local authorities, and with, for example, the Ministry of Justice. One of the functions that our police and crime Commissioners fulfil is to commission victim services. For example, an incredibly important function. And we when we transition those functions, we need to make sure we are not dropping any balls and keeping keeping on doing the important work that we need to do.

So I'm very happy to have more conversations with colleagues about how this model would develop over time, and we will make sure that we ensure this doesn't just save money, that it doesn't just introduce a better system, but that we are also communities.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sarah Olney thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my constituency of Richmond Park.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Richmond Park. Our policing. Force has. Been decimated. We used to have three police stations and now we
12:21
12:21
Sarah Jones Portrait Sarah Jones MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Croydon West, Labour)
-
-
enormously important and we are providing our police with real terms funding uplift this year. We are going through the allocation process at the moment, and we'll make announcements in the usual way before the end of the year. I do need to stress that money is incredibly important. We are providing more of it. But if you look at the day to day activities of many of our police officers, they are not productive because they cannot be because of the ancient systems that are in place.

If you download, just as an example, data from a mobile phone, which you need as part of your evidence in a crime that will be given to you in an Excel spreadsheet, you have to do control F to find the things that you need. I mean, it is extraordinarily unreformed as a system. There are pockets of great innovation, but it is not the same across the whole system. So we have to drive efficiencies. That's what officers are crying out to us to, to do, to enable them to do the jobs that we expect them to do.

So yes, money is important. And of course, the mayor of London has put more funding from his own budget into policing much more money. But, but, but we also need to make sure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they're doing the things we want them to be doing and not David Williams. Thank you, Madam Deputy. Speaker

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy. Speaker proposals. Are currently being. Put forward. To. Take our incredibly hard. Working PCSOs.
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:27
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:42
12:42
12:42
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:46
12:47
12:47
12:47
12:48
12:48
12:49
12:49
12:50
12:50
12:51
12:51
12:51
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:54
Rebecca Paul Portrait Rebecca Paul MP (Reigate, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Also recognising the great work that. PCCs. Across the country. And I just want to take.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want to take. Lisa. Townsend, our. Excellent police and crime commissioner in Surrey, and her deputy, Ellie Thompson. And I also just want to mention that we need to be aware that. There are employees that support all of those activities, that now know their roles are going in the next few

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years. So I think it's good to. Put on the record that we thank. Them for everything they've done. But my question is. Can the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But my question is. Can the Minister. Confirm what this action means for Surrey in light of us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moving to a unitary. Model and the government yet to confirm solidly. That we're getting. A mayor?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A mayor? Thank you. Minister. Can I thank her for her question? I join her, of course, in praising I join her, of course, in praising her local team. And she's right to talk about staff. There's about a thousand staff who work across thousand staff who work across police and crime commissioners, and we will work with them to transition where they need to be transition where they need to be transitioned into other into local authorities where they do statutory functions that we need to continue.

functions that we need to continue. So it isn't by any means the case that they are all losing their jobs. And of course, it's it's very important to stress that the important to stress that the function continues for the next two years as well as it is. So we will continue to work with them. But continue to work with them. But she's right to raise staff, and I will be talking to police and crime commissioners about that transition commissioners about that transition a lot.

I suspect she highlights one of the challenges of the move to of the challenges of the move to the mayoral model, where there's legislation going through Parliament at the moment and some decisions are yet to be made. I'm decisions are yet to be made. I'm very happy to work with her on how that works going forward, but we're very clear about the model that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want to introduce. Where there's moving parts will, of course, work as best we can to make sure we get the right outcomes. Tom Hayes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Tom Hayes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, having sat on a police and crime panel, let me say I am thrilled to
12:56
12:57
12:57
12:58
12:58
12:59
12:59
13:00
13:00
13:01
13:01
13:01
13:02
13:02
13:03
Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
-
-
Speaker, 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 number one 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 is therefore determined to ensure 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, I'd like to put on record once again my heartfelt thanks to Baroness Taylor for her prodigious efforts in guiding the Bill through the other place, and also my gratitude to peers collectively for the comprehensive and rigorous scrutiny which they subjected it to.

Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 interest of time, I'll 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 ten years, 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 NSIP applications, a change which itself 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 that clarify Natural England strategic advisory role, and that facilitate the deployment of up to three additional gigawatts of onshore wind and secure the billions of pounds of investment into UK services that come with it. The second area of change concerns the package of amendments we tabled in July in respect of part three of the bill. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, these directly addressed a range of issues which were highlighted in the advice the government received from the office for Environmental Protection in relation to the new Nature Restoration Fund.

They provided for a number of additional safeguards, strengthened and made more explicit those that were already contained in the Bill on introduction, and further clarified how the NRF will operate going forward. I want to emphasise, Madam Deputy Speaker, that none of the changes made will affect the process by which housebuilders interact with an environmental delivery plan, namely by paying a levy to discharge specific environmental obligations through it. Nor do they undermine the strategic approach that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

again. Edward Leigh. The housing market is absolutely flat and we desperately need to flat and we desperately need to build more housing. What's stopping all this new building? People moving, creating a healthy housing moving, creating a healthy housing market? It's the appalling stamp duty which everybody acknowledges duty which everybody acknowledges is the worst tax. Now he's not the Chancellor, but will he approach his right hon. Friend the Chancellor Exchequer, in an autumn statement, and see whether she can steal our clothes and promise to abolish stamp duty?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister? Well, the Chancellor will set out her decisions on the budget in out her decisions on the budget in fairly short order. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to be quite strict in going to be quite strict in sticking to the contents of the bill and what's in scope, rather than ranging more widely as he than ranging more widely as he tempts me to do what those amendments did in the summer package we tabled, Madam Deputy Speaker was to provide greater Speaker was to provide greater confidence that the NRF delivers the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model.

that are at the core of the model. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank all those hon. Members who engaged in constructive discussions with the government about the NRF during Commons stages, not least my during Commons stages, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke for his thoughtful participation during Bill Committee, which helped shape my thinking which helped shape my thinking about the package of amendments in question in relation to part three. Madam Deputy Speaker, I should also make clear that the government tabled further technical amendments in the other place to ensure the NRF works effectively across borders, as well as ensuring it is able to operate in the marine environment.

These amendments also ensure 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. Madam Deputy Speaker, I now turn to the amendments made by peers in the other place. I want to make clear that the government welcome the scrutiny and challenge provided, and that we are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas, but I'm afraid 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, starting with Lords Amendment one, this amendment will prevent the removal of existing parliamentary requirements that serve to delay material policy. Amendments to national policy statements. In short, Madam Deputy Speaker, 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, the intent of clause two of the bill 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, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have always recognised the sincere arguments made by various honourable and right hon. Members, as well as their 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 right hon. Friend, the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, with a number of assurances at Commons Report stage.

For the purposes of clarity, let me repeat them again today, where the government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to an NPS, 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 to that committee, and we will take into account the views of any select Committee report published during the consultation period. Importantly, the NPS has 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. But to further assuage the concerns that some hon. Members might have about a reduction in scrutiny as a result of this clause, I am happy to provide a further commitment today, namely that 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 two applies. But what I cannot do, Madam Deputy Speaker, is to accept Lords Amendment one for the reasons I have set out, and I urge the House to reject it.

Turning next to Lords Amendments two and three, amendment two 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Streamlined Development Consent Order route. I will give way. I apologise, I want to go back

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise, I want to go back to the point he was making about amendment one because as chair of the Transport Select Committee, I am slightly concerned that we will get less opportunity and less and get less opportunity and less and less time to scrutinise major infrastructure. Now, had the infrastructure. Now, had the current the current law come in? When HS2 was first considered When HS2 was first considered instead of a hybrid bill, it's likely that HS2 would have come likely that HS2 would have come under this and runway three at Heathrow will plus national Heathrow will plus national infrastructure network.

So does the member not agree with me that this House and the committees include and have sufficient chance to not and have sufficient chance to not just wait to your the Minister's orders? The hon. Lady will know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

orders? The hon. Lady will know Minister. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I recognise the point intervention. I recognise the point she makes, but I don't agree that the change will provide select committees without the opportunity to feed their views into the government. As I said, what are we trying to do with this clause is to ensure that the scrutiny provided is proportionate to the changes being made. These are, in most cases, minor changes, reflective changes to amendments.

They do not entail the full amendment of an NPS that would have to come via the normal route, but I hope the reassurances I've given her about what we expect in terms of Ministers, attendance and select committees and in other areas provide her with reassurance. Now I won't give way again. I'm going to make some progress on the next set of amendments which I need to get to. I know there are many members that wish to speak. Amendment two. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I was saying, enables faster consent 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. This government supports the intent of this amendment. However, subsection seven and eight of the new clause would require consents for listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites to be obtained separately to the application for development consent for dams or reservoirs. We cannot support those subsections. Amendment three is also problematic. It introduces additional notification and representation processes into the NSIP 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 consent. It is the government's considered view that the regime already provides ample opportunity for these 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 or not 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 provide sufficient safeguards for the compulsory acquisition of land. For these reasons, I urge the House to support an amendment to remove subsections seven and eight from amendment two and reject amendment three in its entirety.

Turning next to Lords Amendment 31, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the government is willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, who I don't believe is in his place, made a strong case at Commons Report stage 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 saw 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 is 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 therefore tabled an amendment in lieu which 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 the relevant regulations. The Department for transport looks forward to working with both the Scottish and Welsh governments on these matters, and on that basis, I hope the House will support our amendment in lieu. Turning next to Lords Amendment 32, this 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 DEFRA Science search website.

Furthermore, the government intends to set out proposals for the deregulation of low hazard reservoirs within six months of this 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 the government has fulfilled one aspect of this amendment already and I've committed to fill the rest today. We are clear that there is no need to legislate on this matter.

I therefore urge the House to reject this amendment. Turning next to Lords Amendment 33, this 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 particular 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 not only apply to the first set of regulations, but also for any subsequent changes to those regulations, in light of the two rounds of consultation planned before these regulations are laid. I urge the House to reject this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. I will give way. I thank the Minister for giving way. Just this week at our way. Just this week at our committee, the new Secretary of State outlined that the government State outlined that the government will not be urging the NMP to be non-statutory. This almost seems at odds with the government's direction of travel, in terms of making sure the national scheme of delegation is is speeded up. Can the Minister explain why the government are going down? This approach of not making them non-statutory guidance?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I'm afraid she's conflating two entirely separate issues. We're committed to introducing a new suite of national policies for development. Management will consult on those Management will consult on those before the end of this year. The Secretary of State provided a bit more detail at the select committee the other day. This particular the other day. This particular amendment refers to the powers that are in the bill to bring forward a national scheme of delegation, and national scheme of delegation, and I'm making clear that I think there is sufficient consultation already built into the system, doesn't require it to be taken forward via the affirmative procedure.

I hope that reassures her on that point. On Lords Amendment 37, Madam Deputy On Lords Amendment 37, Madam Deputy Speaker, this would exempt assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under part 11 of the demolition under part 11 of the General Permitted Development Order. I've reflected on this amendment and agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We're 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, PDAs 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 amendment, I'm 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 with this assurance and a view to future opportunity for consultation on this matter, the House will reject Lords Amendment 37. Turning next to Lords Amendment 38. This 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 this amendment and reiterate the government's firm commitment to restoring and improving the chalk streams, I do not believe that it is a necessary or advisable means of protecting these vital ecosystems. While strategic planning authorities will be expected to work closely with albs like the Environment Agency, they themselves will not have responsibility for regulatory systems governing water abstraction or pollution in catchment areas. The sds's they will be required to produce will be high level frameworks for housing growth and infrastructure investment.

They will not allocate specific sites. Importantly, Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 SDS will already be required to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to the strategy area. SDS will also obviously be tested by an independent examiner against these requirements. It remains the government's view, Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 at Commons report, the measures in the bill will not weaken existing protections enjoyed by these 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 careful consideration to this matter. Given the strength of feeling that was expressed at Commons report and in the context of ongoing reforms to national planning policy, and I'm happy to make clear to the House today that I am minded to include explicit recognition of chalk streams in the new suite of national policies for decision making I just referred to in response to my hon.

Friend's question. And as I said, we intend to consult on those before the end of this year. On the basis of that assurance, I'd urge hon. Members to reject this amendment. Turning next to laws, amendment 39, this seeks to prioritise development on brownfield land, increase urban densities and minimise travel distances. This government has a brownfield first approach to development through the revisions made to the NPPF on the 12th of December last year, we broadened the definition of brownfield land. We set a strengthened expectation that applications on brownfield land will be approved, and made clear that plans should promote an uplift in density in urban areas.

In September last year, I'll just make this point and I'll happily give way. 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. And again, we intend to take forward these proposals in the new suite of national policies for decision making. I referred to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moment ago happy to give way. I'm grateful to the Minister for giving way on this point of brownfield. First, inherent to the amendment he was talking to right now, he opened his remarks with the government's target of 1.5 million homes. Given CPRE, a very respected independent charity, has identified independent charity, has identified enough land in England alone for 1.4 million homes on brownfield 1.4 million homes on brownfield only. Why does the government persist in rejecting what their lordships have sent to us on this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lordships have sent to us on this point, and not go down the route of following the CPRE advice, Minister? Well, I will come on to why we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I will come on to why we can't accept this amendment, but I respectfully disagree with the CPRE on this and a number of other on this and a number of other matters. As it happens, there is not enough land on brownfield registers. Certainly that's not in the right location and that is the right location and that is viable to meet housing need across England. That's why we've got a brownfield process. But it's not a brownfield only approach to brownfield only approach to development.

But in respect of the amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker brownfield land is diverse and may 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, the local level through policy, where a balance of considerations can be weighed up. A legislative requirement for increasing densities doesn't allow for the densities doesn't 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 there.

Noble Lords intent. And on that basis, I urge the House to reject this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give way. I'm grateful. To my hon. Friend and my constituency neighbour, and when constituency neighbour, and when we're talking about local pressures to deliver on the number of houses and he's talking about brownfield and he's talking about brownfield first, there are a number of, as he will know, sports grounds in my constituency that are now becoming the subject of interest for would be developers and particularly just be developers and particularly just confirm that in the proposals that have been put forward going forward, that there will be protections for that there will be protections for much needed sports grounds and that they won't be open to that sort of speculative development.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

speculative development. Well, I think my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that question. It's an apt one. It's a fair one. There are protections fair one. There are protections already in place in the National Planning Policy framework in respect of the matter that he refers to. I'm more than happy to have a conversation with him about it. There's nothing in the bill that specifically targets the release of sports fields for release of sports fields for development, and those protections that are in national policy still apply.

Turning finally, Madam apply. Turning finally, Madam Deputy Speaker to Lords, Amendment 46 seeks to restrict the environmental impacts that could be addressed through an environmental addressed through an environmental delivery plan. Before I detail why the government cannot accept this amendment, let me remind the House why part three of the bill is so important. It is the case that the current approach to discharging environmental obligations is too often delaying and deterring development and placing unnecessary burdens on housebuilders and local authorities. It requires housebuilders to pay for localised and often 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've consistently argued when it comes to development and the environment, the status quo too often sees both sustainable house building and nature recovery and restoration stall. The Nature Restoration Fund will end this suboptimal 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 terms of driving the recovery of protected sites and species.

It will streamline the delivery of new homes and infrastructure and result in improved environmental outcomes being delivered more efficiently. I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For the Ministers are very thoughtful, individual and as a wide view of what's happening in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The country. And in. Addition. Housing is imperative. proposal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

From 3000. Houses on. Effectively virgin land, and we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

established 32 separate rare and protected species. Their environment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will be left irrevocably damaged. Does the Minister agree that biodiversity has to be a central biodiversity has to be a central plank of the government's intentions, and can he give an assurance to the House that without the Lords amendment is referring to that no future government, which is perhaps less caring about the perhaps less caring about the environment, could use that law to begin to damage habitats such as the ones I'm describing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ones I'm describing. Well, I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I can't, and I'm sure he'll appreciate this comment on individual planning applications, on individual planning applications, but the government has been consistently clear that meeting our ambitious development targets need ambitious development targets need not, and should not come at the expense of the environment. Part three unlocks a win win for the three unlocks a win win for the economy and nature. And while I can't commit future governments to anything, we are confident that the anything, we are confident that the Nature Restoration Fund and the environmental delivery plans that it facilitates will result, as I said, in more homes and infrastructure being delivered in a more timely manner, but also improved environmental outcomes as well.

In respect of the amendment itself, Madam Deputy Speaker speaker, I would simply say there is no convincing rationale for arbitrarily limiting the application of EDPs to strategic landscape matters and thereby preventing the use of them to support the recovery of protected sites and species where this is 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, 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 at Third Reading in the other place. We also amended the bill to allow the government to bring forward regulations setting out how our Edp's would prioritise addressing the negative effects of developments. Laws. 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, and for that reason, I urge the House to reject this amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I won't give way. I'm just closing, I'm afraid. I'm happy to respond to any points in responding to the debate. I appreciate that you've given me to set out the government's position on the large number of amendments before us. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

urge the House to support the government's position, and I look debate. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment one. I call the shadow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister David Simmonds. Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. And may I.
13:27
David Simmonds Portrait David Simmonds MP (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Share from the opposition's perspective. The Minister's. Thanks for. The sterling work that's been done by our.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

done by our. Colleagues in the other place. And I also place. On record my thanks. To the Member for Hamble Valley, who's been our shadow Minister and contributed enormously to the debates that took place in committee. I welcome the Minister back to the despatch box for a further discussion on planning and infrastructure, and congratulate him on being the last man standing from the MHCLG team that was appointed in Labour's golden summer of 2024. And as he surveys that bombed out wreckage of that ministerial team and knows that he is the only one not to have succumbed to friendly fire.

I'm sure he shares my sense of disappointment that after a year of debate, a year of discussion, we've not made the progress that the British people expect from us when it comes to the delivery of planning and infrastructure. Now the opposition has three fairly simple tests, Madam Deputy Speaker, that apply in respect of these amendments and of the bill as a whole. The first, does this deliver the level of reform of our administrative state, the planning process, all of those statutory undertakers, the decision makers, all of those who play a part that we require to ensure the swift delivery of homes and infrastructure, does it create the necessary incentives for host communities to support and embrace the opportunities that development offer? And most critically, having undertaken many planning reforms during our time in office, does this get the market building the 1.5 million new homes that already have planning permission in our country? The entirety of the government's parliamentary target, already with consent, with no further loss of green belt, no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further environmental impacts. Of course I Gedling. I appreciate. Him giving way very much. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Him giving way very much. And thank him for it. Can he just give us his assessment then? Because this. Is an issue. That many people are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Concerned about. Why does. He think. That there is all these planning applications that have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

applications that have been approved, were approved problem that existed. Under his party. When they were in government and aren't getting built?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

aren't getting built? is? David Simmonds Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm going to develop my answer to that because of course, answer to that because of course, that is the question that we face as a country. We set ourselves a target in the last parliament of delivering a million homes. We fell just short of that. But when this government set out its commitment to net zero, I don't think they to net zero, I don't think they meant for 23 of the 33 London boroughs to have net zero new boroughs to have net zero new housing starts.

As has been reported by a new Bidwells report on the housing market in London, on the housing market in London, they didn't anticipate a 20% reduction in completions of new reduction in completions of new homes. They didn't anticipate a 55.9% drop in the number of new 55.9% drop in the number of new housing starts here in our capital city. A Labour mayor delivering 4.9% of this government's target set for him despite record levels of funding. And the context, as we saw today, of growth in our country, falling to just 0.1% is a significant clue, I think, as the answer to the hon.

Gentleman's question. So when we assess this bill and these amendments against those tests, what is clear is that whatever lofty ambitions some may have, this bill fails in the eyes of the OBR because it does not generate the level of growth and contribution that the government promised. And that's been reflected in the very hasty implementation of large scale amendments in the Lords that were not even contemplated at the common stages of the bill. It fails in the eyes of home buyers, those many people who aspire to get on the property ladder for the first time.

It fails in the eyes Madam Deputy Speaker of our farmers, who were hoping it would make it easier to create the new infrastructure that would make our farming and food sector more efficient. It fails in the eyes of the developers, who are talking about packing up and taking their investment abroad, because the UK market is so poor at the moment, it fails in the eyes of the builders who see no measures in this bill to address the shortfalls that they all face.

It fails in the eyes of the travelling public who've watched this government cancelling projects like the new expansion of the A12 that was set to support the delivery of thousands more homes. And it fails in the eyes of lovers of nature. In that for all that's been said, there is still a very grave lack of clarity about how the measures in this bill will support the ambitions we all have to balance the delivery of new homes, the delivery of infrastructure with the needs of a nature depleted country to protect the natural environment that we all cherish, and in particular, a government that signalled before it even embarked on this legislation that its intention was to reduce greenbelt protections.

That raises the suspicion that this is not an agenda that is holistic. It is about making it as easy and cheap as possible to build on the greenbelt without that strategic underpinning that delivers the homes and infrastructure that our nation needs. So when we turn to the list of amendments, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker, I think of course. He hasn't actually answered my question. You know, he's talking about the policies of last 15 months. But the problem that he's alluding to there of developers sitting there with planning permissions and not building, been going on for 15 years or more. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going on for 15 years or more. So can you be realistic about what his solution is to actually getting developers to build those planning permissions they've got? David Simmonds.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

David Simmonds. Well, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think as the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister's Questions, we wouldn't start from here. We wouldn't have made the mistakes that this made the mistakes that this government has made that have led to the crash, that have led to the crash in housebuilding that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

crash in housebuilding that I outlined earlier on. Of course. I'd like to. Assist the hon. Gentleman. Isn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Assist the hon. Gentleman. Isn't the answer a use it or lose it? Buying permission that you lose the permission or you lose the land if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you don't build on it. David Simmonds. Thank you, Madam Deputy. That was an issue that I know. We spent was an issue that I know. We spent quite a good amount of time debating the committee stages and use it or lose it. Planning consent. So one option. Application of So one option. Application of council tax around consents at different stages of delivery or another a different approach to another a different approach to section 106, a different approach to CIL, a different approach to the way that local authorities interact with the housing market.

All of those measures which we either considered in government or have been debating, none of which have been taken up, but all of which have the potential to ensure that more of the homes that have that planning consent get delivered. Of course. Desmond Swayne isn't the principal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Difficulty that so many housing developments have. Now become unprofitable, and that's why they're not being proceeded with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they're not being proceeded with. It is the costs that have been months. David Simmonds.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

David Simmonds. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman tempts me to fast hon. Gentleman tempts me to fast forward to a point that I think is going to arise later on, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the end of her budget statement last year that she was wiping the slate clean, and from here on in it was on them. She was absolutely right. And if we look at the measures that were taken and the measures that were taken and the impact that has had on the deliverability of housing and infrastructure, the rising costs of infrastructure, the rising costs of government driven by the colossal borrowing spree that's been embarked upon by this Chancellor, embarked upon by this Chancellor, there is no question.

A government that has borrowed £100 billion this that has borrowed £100 billion this financial year alone is not a government that is in a position to talk about a businesslike approach talk about a businesslike approach to delivering housing and infrastructure. The opposition shares the concern that the Member shares the concern that the Member for Brentford and Isleworth set out briefly in her intervention. That briefly in her intervention. That is highlighted in Lords Amendment number one. The issue of accountability and ongoing accountability is absolutely crucial.

We know that there will be trade offs, whether it is Heathrow, an issue which I know affects her constituents and mine, whether it is HS2, an issue which I know has been very much debated, whether it's the delivery of New Cross Thames infrastructure to the east of London, new ports, new airports, new roads, all of those. There is a significant parliamentary interest and an opportunity through that process to begin to explain to the public where those trade offs sit. Heritage sites, reservoirs.

I have to say again, we see some excellent work that's been done by the Lords, and I'm grateful to the Minister and the government for the willingness to embrace the debate about electric vehicle charging, something which I know local Lords have been extremely keen to support. The the work that's being done to deliver that net zero agenda. But so many of the elements in this bill incorporate a tendency to centralisation and that lack of community level accountability, that lack of ability for local residents to have their say about what is happening in their area around things like assets of community value.

These things remain a fundamental concern because if we want those communities to embrace development, to embrace new homes, they need to be able to see what the benefits and the opportunities that development will bring to their lives will be. And on some of those issues like chalk streams. And I declare for the record, I am Deputy speaker of the colon that borders my constituency is one of those chalk streams, the majority of which are in southern England. Given the work that was done by this party in government, we are determined to ensure that there are there is an appropriate level of protection enshrined in legislation and by choosing to develop brownfield first, we recognise the opportunity that there is, including here in our capital city, to ensure that rather than intruding on a greenbelt that is critical for nature, that is important for the health of human beings, is important for access, for leisure is often a site of sports facilities and agriculture that support the lives of our communities, that instead we seek the swifter redevelopment of brownfield sites.

Again, an area where, sadly, this legislation falls far short. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I move to a conclusion, it's very clear that this is a government which has a heavyweight majority. And when we reflect on the measures that are being implemented, it's using that majority to deliver a left hook of reducing community, voice and community, say, in planning applications. It's following that with a right hook of reducing protections on the greenbelt building on virgin land, as we heard from a member who's no longer in his place earlier on, rather than previously developed land being recycled.

That's followed by the uppercut of wholesale top down council reorganisation. Followed with a jab demanding that local plans, the length and breadth of the country be changed through the national Policy. National planning policy framework changes, without there being remotely the capacity at the Planning Inspectorate to deal with those in a timely manner. And picking up the point, a number of members have said, why is this happening and what do we think needs to be done to address it? The knock out blow to our housing market in the last 12 months has been delivered by the massive hike this government introduced on National Insurance, which is leading to developers, to builders, to the whole supply chain, to local authorities, all to fear that they are going to have to throw in the towel because it is simply not possible under the auspices of such a business unfriendly government, to deliver homes and infrastructure that require a pro-business environment.

So as this legislation comes forward, pummelling our first time buyers, that hammering our homeowners, that is bashing our builders and is duffing up our developers, I simply say on behalf of the opposition to the Minister, there is an opportunity this afternoon to begin to change course to signal that you believe Madam Deputy Speaker, that we believe that a different course of action is possible, that will deliver the homes and infrastructure that the British people expect. So, Minister, I always enjoy meeting this Minister across the despatch box.

I attempt to say I always keep my spear Conservative Party membership form handy, just in case he should ever need it, because his his high standards of professionalism suggest that one day he will make the journey to the dark side. But Minister, take the opportunity to say to your colleagues, it's time to add on to so many very poor U-turns, a good U-turn and let's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

get on with the job of delivering the homes and infrastructure that the British people need. Yeah. Chair of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Select Committee. Florence Eshalomi. Yes. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I want to pay tribute to the And I want to pay tribute to the Other place for their work on getting us to this stage today. I am conscious of time being a Thursday. Many members wanted to speak, so I'm not going to go into speak, so I'm not going to go into great depth with all the amendments before us today. But I do welcome the changes the government have made and the other place and the made and the other place and the work of Ministers to reach a compromise to get this bill on the statute book as soon as possible.
13:41
Florence Eshalomi Portrait Florence Eshalomi MP (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )
-
-
statute book as soon as possible. In particular, I welcome the series of pragmatic amendments from the government to environmental delivery plans. It is critical that we ensure that any system to protect our environment is robust, and the measures outlined by the government will go some way to quell some of the fears outlined, not just in the other place, but my members across this House during Report stage. I also welcome reforms to address water supply and encourage the building of badly needed reservoirs, and measures to ensure that developers have extra time to commence work when a court grants judicial review.

I think this is a sensible and proportionate approach that will ensure that permissions do not expire through no fault of the developer, and avoiding any unnecessary repetition of the whole planning process. As the chair of the housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee, I would like to touch on two points relating to the scrutiny we have in this place around planning and infrastructure. The first relates to Lords Amendment one, which is identical to amendment 83, tabled by my hon.

Friend, the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, during Report stage in this place. As the Minister said then this is about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made. But we have to be honest and say that even amendments to statements can have a massive impact on our communities up and down the country, sometimes even bigger than the bill's, subject to the full weight of parliamentary scrutiny. Now, I understand the point that the Minister has made during Committee stage that this has led to unacceptable delays, sometimes even for several months, and I know more, as much as anyone, that just because a committee recommends something to Ministers, it is far from a guarantee that the government will change its policy.

But it is important. It is important that this change isn't used to ride through significant changes. Without committees having a chance to carry out proper scrutiny into how this will impact the lives of people up and down the country. Nor it is used to bypass scrutiny when statements are amended or amended as so much over time to become a de facto new statement. This is part of the role that we were elected to carry out by this House, and it is something that helps to give confidence behind the policy to the whole House that we have properly considered this statement before us.

I heard the Minister earlier and he's indicated that they will not accept Lords Amendment one, but I would gently ask the Minister that if he will give assurances to the House that committees will still be included in the process of the amendments, that committees will not be sidelined. When we engage proactively and in a timely manner with this process. Madam Deputy Speaker. The passing of this bill is long awaited. After years of failing to unblock the planning system and build on a scale that we desperately need.

Research from crisis has found that nearly 300,000 families and individuals have ended up without a home of their own. While previous governments have failed to act. And we all know that some children don't even have a room to learn to walk or crawl, the reality is this will not end overnight. It will only end when we have a system that consistently builds affordable and social homes that we desperately need. Really.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank. The chair, the committee, for giving way. I'm not on a select giving way. I'm not on a select committee, but I can tell from her passion that she's an excellent chair. And part of the issue that chair. And part of the issue that the housing and we've discussed before is the use of temporary accommodation, which costs local councils millions of pounds every councils millions of pounds every year. Does she hope that this bill and actually the fast tracking of building the social and affordable housing she talks of, will help

**** Possible New Speaker ****

housing she talks of, will help tackle this issue and bring down bills for local councils. Florence Eshalomi thank you. And I thank my hon. Friend and being a I thank my hon. Friend and being a proud advocate in terms of highlighting that issue. And this is an issue that we constantly raised with the Minister, and it's about making sure our councils are part of the building process. And I think the new social and affordable think the new social and affordable homes package, the 39 billion, will help in terms of making sure we are building those homes.

And it's good building those homes. And it's good to see that that package, the prospectus was announced last week and bids will be coming in from and bids will be coming in from February 26th. Build baby build. This bill is the first in the stage This bill is the first in the stage in moving in the right direction, and I welcome the big step we are taking in the passing of this bill today, and it's important that we continue to make sure that as we are looking at easing up and alleviating the planning process, alleviating the planning process, we are making sure in addition to those homes that families want to buy and purchase, we are building the social homes to help address the issues around temporary accommodation and long growing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

housing. Waiting list. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Gideon Amos.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gideon Amos. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As Liberal Democrats, we welcome a number of the changes made to this number of the changes made to this bill in the other place. But it is disappointing that, for example, Baroness, my noble friend Baroness Baroness, my noble friend Baroness Pinnock's, aimed at ensuring all unsafe residential blocks are fully remediated and my noble friend Lord remediated and my noble friend Lord Foster's on Kerbing the proliferation of betting shops were not adopted in the other place where, unfortunately, the where, unfortunately, the Conservatives were unwilling to support those proposals.

It's disappointing also that, having removed all pre-application regulations for nationally significant infrastructure projects, the government has not seen fit to the government has not seen fit to plug the gap with standard and a requirement on the on ensuring that communities are properly consulted, as we proposed at committee, simply as we proposed at committee, simply sweeping away consultation requirements is not acceptable. That said, today we are here to
13:47
Gideon Amos Portrait Gideon Amos MP (Taunton and Wellington, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
That said, today we are here to debate amendments that have made it through from the other place and I want to first acknowledge where the government has listened and made improvements and concessions that we welcome. Lords amendment 53 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 negative impacts of development and environmental features, something we argued for in this House. I hope that when those regulations are brought forward, the government will see the sense in referring to the mitigation hierarchy as the accepted standard approach, and I remain confused as to why those words have not been included in the amendment.

But we continue to push the government to recognise the mitigation hierarchy as a key environmental principle in development that should be enshrined in EDPs. Additionally, I'm pleased to see Lords Amendment 29, that in which government has listened to points raised by Historic England and Heritage Alliance that I raised at Committee stage so that heritage protections will remain in transport works projects. However, there remain amendments the government wishes to reject, which we strongly believe this House should accept today, particularly with regard to nature and environmental protection and the role of communities and their local councillors.

Lords amendment 40 limiting the application of environmental delivery plans to issues where approaches of a strategic landscape scale would be effective. That's an amendment. I'm sure colleagues have received many emails from constituents about and for good reason. The amendment is essential because it ensures EDPs are used where they can actually deliver environmental benefits and address problems effectively at strategic scale. In Somerset and my Taunton and Wellington constituency, we see only too well the massive issues caused by phosphates and EDP approach for phosphates would genuinely be welcome, because that problem operates at a regional level and side by side solutions aren't enough, but protected species and biodiversity are rooted in the habitats in particular places on particular sites, and a simple strategic approach is not enough.

You cannot say protected species going extinct in one location by creating a habitat hundreds of miles away and expect the same outcome. I'd be happy to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just if he could briefly give way, because I just draw his attention to district level licensing schemes for great crested licensing schemes for great crested newts. As an example of where a strategic approach can benefit a strategic approach can benefit a species population. So I'm not sure it stands. Does he reflect on the situation where the type of intervention that underpins EDPs is already in existence, and is having benefits for nature Gideon Amos.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benefits for nature Gideon Amos. And of course, I accept what the Minister is saying, that there may be elements of species protection that require strategic approaches. that require strategic approaches. I think the fundamental point for us, Madam Deputy Speaker is if the government are committed to stronger protections within EDPs, within EDPs from the outset, in terms of the mitigation hierarchy, in terms of protection of species on site, then we would be more open to supporting these provisions. But to supporting these provisions.

But it hasn't. And so we can't. And so Lords, amendment 40 needs to remain. Equally important is Lords Equally important is Lords Amendment 38, proposed by the Bishop of Norwich and supported by Liberal Democrat peers. This would Liberal Democrat peers. This would ensure the new spatial development strategies include protections for our incredibly rare and valuable our incredibly rare and valuable chalk streams. Shockingly, there is currently a lack of protection for these rare and incredible habitats. these rare and incredible habitats. Around 85% of the world's chalk streams are in England.

Madam Deputy Speaker. They are rare. They're rare globally as rainforests, yet they don't have the required designation as irreplaceable habitats. I'd be happy to give. I don't know where the voice came from. I'd be happy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to give way over there. I have a friend for giving way, and he'll know that West Dorset is and he'll know that West Dorset is home to a number of of our rare and precious chalk streams, including the Frome and the Wraxall Brook. I wonder whether or not he agrees wonder whether or not he agrees with me that a system similar to Blue flag status that we have for beaches would be a relatively cheap beaches would be a relatively cheap and easy way for the government to provide environmental protections to our chalk streams.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

to our chalk streams. I would, I would agree with my my hon. Friend and he does an excellent job championing chalk streams in other, at the moment, chalk champion chalk streams in his chalk champion chalk streams in his particular in his constituency and the idea of a public facing recognised standard for chalk recognised standard for chalk streams in the same way that we have for for other other environmental designations, would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

environmental designations, would be would be incredibly welcome. I give way to my. My friend for giving way. I also

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My friend for giving way. I also have a chalk stream in in my constituency, the River snail. And does my hon. Friend agree that it's does my hon. Friend agree that it's really important we give these chalk streams statutory protection chalk streams statutory protection through things like the Lords Amendment number 38, rather than relying on national planning frameworks, which can be changed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

frameworks, which can be changed without coming back to this place. Good point. My friend is absolutely right and proper statutory protection for chalk streams is internationally valuable. Resource is long, long overdue and we need to see that come forward. I did welcome the words the Minister May said in his opening remarks. I think until we see those designations, we will continue to advocate for proper statutory protection for chalk streams. We urge the Minister to go further on that.

I now turn to amendments on democratic and parliamentary accountability, because this bill doesn't just tinker at the edges with that. It fundamentally concentrates power in the hands of Secretaries of State Lords. Amendment 33 would ensure that if and when government makes its proposed regulations to remove powers from planning planning commit councillors, then they must come to this House. Resolution. Procedure. The bill's clause 21 gives unlimited power to all future Secretaries of State to remove any and all decisions of planning committees from them, and there is no limit imposed on that power.

So the very least the government should be willing to accept is to commit to meaningful parliamentary oversight when they bring forward these powers, to remove these regulations, to remove powers from planning committees, and no amount of consultation on national schemes of delegation will change the extraordinary power in clause 51 of the Bill and what it takes away from local planning committees, locally elected councillors and local communities. So this amendment offers only a small safeguard against that centralisation for such powers to not even be affirmed by Parliament would make a mockery of the democratic process, because, simply Lords Amendment one would ensure the government continues to be fully accountable to Parliament on its changes to national policy statements.

NPSs governance. The biggest projects in the land Madam Deputy Speaker Hinkley to Sizewell. From rail freight terminals to the largest solar and wind farms in the world and transmission lines, it is the fact that MPs are approved by Parliament that provides them with the efficacy they have in guiding decisions on such projects. In the Commons, we propose a compromise that case law could, for example, be reflected without parliamentary processing processes. But policy changes on matters as significant as the future plans for nuclear power stations should remain rightly, fully subject to decisions of Parliament.

We therefore oppose the government's attempt to remove scrutiny of national policy statements. Amendments two and three on protections for reservoirs. We also oppose the government's attempt to remove those provisions and on assets of community value. We also would oppose the government's intention to remove those protections, and we also remain concerned about proposals for badger shooting on building sites which remain unamended. In clause in schedule four of the bill. Madam Deputy Speaker. As Democrats, we have set out our proposals for housing and planning a far more ambitious programme on public housing.

150,000 publicly funded social and council rent homes per year, not the 20,000 the government is established as their target. Genuinely affordable to local people. It's a mistake to pick development against nature and communities. At Second Reading, only Liberal Democrats voted to stop the damaging effects on nature. This bill could have this bill, have met the government, have made some changes. We welcome those amendments remain before us today could be accommodated. They are essential to ensuring that the people and nature affected by building the homes and infrastructure we need are heard and have their place in shaping that development.

We must not give up, and Liberal Democrats will not give up on ensuring that nature and people are protected in the rush to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

build the homes that we need. Neil Duncan-Jordan. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a bill. That has sparked. A keen interest from my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A keen interest from my constituents living in a nature rich part of the country. It's important that we recognise how important that we recognise how those who live in Poole want to protect the environment and the protect the environment and the benefits it gives them. I welcome some of the changes made to the bill in the other place, many of which reflect points raised by myself and others during Report myself and others during Report stage, including the need for a stronger overall improvement test to ensure changes to environmental to ensure changes to environmental protections.

Don't hand developers a licence to trash nature. Britain,
13:57
Neil Duncan-Jordan Portrait Neil Duncan-Jordan MP (Poole, Labour)
-
-
a licence to trash nature. Britain, as we know, is already one of the most nature depleted countries in the world. We've lost half of our biodiversity. 1 in 6 species are at risk of extinction, and only 14% of our habitats are in good condition. That's why I'm urging the government to accept amendment 40 to safeguard vulnerable habitats and species from harmful developments. The proposed environmental delivery plans would form part of a framework for nature recovery, allowing developers to pay into a restoration fund to offset environmental harm that may work for nutrient neutrality, water and air quality.

But it simply isn't suited to the complex realities of natural habitats or declining species. We risk a situation where destruction comes before detection, with new habitats created too late to replace what's been lost. That means losing their homes, leading. That means species losing their homes, leading to wholesale extinction. Now, developers of years gone by might have got their way with a brown

**** Possible New Speaker ****

envelope or two. But you can't buy back lost biodiversity. I will. Madam Speaker. I'm sure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Speaker. I'm sure. My hon. Friend has. Considered the. Results of the quarry review, which recognises that we.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which recognises that we. Have such complex. Nature legislation in. incredibly. Difficult to build. And would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And would. You agree with that? Amendment 14 makes. It even. More complicated for people to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

More complicated for people to need. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think has been intervention. I think has been already mentioned by a number of members in this debate so far. We members in this debate so far. We have to find the correct balance between building the houses that we need so desperately. And I'll come need so desperately. And I'll come on to that later in my speech, but also protecting our very vulnerable nature and the habitats that we nature and the habitats that we want to preserve the wildlife and countryside.

Link put it like this countryside. Link put it like this some species cannot be traded away for mitigation elsewhere once local for mitigation elsewhere once local populations are destroyed, they are unlikely to ever return. If we want unlikely to ever return. If we want this bill to be a genuine win win for development and for nature, and for development and for nature, and to keep our manifesto pledge to reverse nature's decline, environmental delivery plans must be limited to where there is clear evidence they can actually work.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. The wildlife. Oh. I'm grateful to him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For giving way. And he's absolutely right that there are examples where species shouldn't be able to be moved. But in terms of able to be moved. But in terms of amendment 40, that doesn't say in some cases it shouldn't be able to be used for species. In all cases, be used for species. In all cases, it states in statute that it must never be used for that. Doesn't he think that actually the government's approach, which in many cases will prevent species being used, is actually a better one than setting in statute something that could block so many opportunities?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and actually, I was just about to come on to that very point and the very serious nature point and the very serious nature that people feel about this issue. The Wildlife Trust have nearly 1 The Wildlife Trust have nearly 1 million members, the RSPB over 1 million, the National Trust more million, the National Trust more than 5 million. There is a massive base of people in this country that care deeply about nature. So if we care deeply about nature.

So if we get this wrong, the risk isn't just environmental, it's also political. People won't take kindly if their local chalk stream is degraded, for local chalk stream is degraded, for example. For that reason, I'm also keen to get assurances from the Minister on Amendment 38 on chalk streams, which he mentioned in his opening remarks. Four main rivers feed into Poole Harbour in my constituency, and the catchment is home to a number of internationally recognised chalk streams. That is why it's important to my constituents now.

There has been a concerted effort from lobbyists and private interests to scapegoat nature as the chief villain of the housing crisis. This just isn't true. In my view. The government's own impact assessment provided no data that environmental protections are a blocker. Nature is, sadly, being scapegoated to distract from a broken developer led housebuilding model. That's allowed a few to get rich while failing to deliver the homes people actually need. We need to be clear. Madam Deputy Speaker, that if developers don't use the planning permissions they already have, then they should lose those permissions.

Ancient woodlands aren't a blocker. Wildlife isn't a hindrance. Chalk streams aren't anti-growth. They are, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. As I'm sure he knows, chalk streams are amongst the rarest habitats in the world. It's not the first time I've mentioned them in this chamber either. Only them in this chamber either. Only 11 of the more than 200 are protected, and even those are in decline. The problems are decline. The problems are overabstraction abstraction, significant pollution, and inappropriate development caused by inappropriate development caused by poor planning. Does the hon. Member agree with me that protecting these habitats through this bill is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

habitats through this bill is essential, not optional? Thank the hon. Member for her contribution and absolutely because contribution and absolutely because of the nature of the constituency that I represent, chalk streams are that I represent, chalk streams are extremely important and should be protected. They are our national protected. They are our national inheritance. We are their custodians and I really hope the government takes further steps to government takes further steps to align this bill with a fairer and greener future for everyone.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

greener future for everyone. David Mundell. Thank you, Madam Deputy. Speaker, and I wish to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker, and I wish to. Speak to amendment 28. Which was. Introduced in the other place,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but does relate specifically. To my. Own constituency. The seismic array located in.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My constituency. Near the village of Esther McVey, is a. Seismological monitoring station

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Seismological monitoring station which was established to detect seismic signals from nuclear explosions to a generation which explosions to a generation which has grown up following the end of the Cold War. This facility may the Cold War. This facility may seem to be a little more than a historic curiosity. The reality is that it is a vital and ongoing that it is a vital and ongoing asset in global monitoring, scientific research and, crucially, helps keep the United Kingdom helps keep the United Kingdom complying with its international obligations under the Comprehensive obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

The seismic array has been operating seismic array has been operating since 1962, making it one of the longest operating steerable seismic arrays in the world. The facility arrays in the world. The facility is geographically remote in a low seismic noise environment and seismic noise environment and highly calibrated and sensitive, enabling detection of even small enabling detection of even small seismic signals from vast distances. Over the recent years, its seismometers have picked up the sonic boom from Russian jets in UK airspace, detected underground airspace, detected underground nuclear tests in North Korea, and on one occasion it was able to detect signals of generated from the detonation of around 100 tons of conventional explosive in Kazakhstan.

All of this is clear evidence of the unique nature of the site and its capabilities, so some might wonder what it has to do with the bill under consideration. What could be its impact on the maintenance of this vital scientific facility, crucial to our national defence and our undertakings under international treaties? It is because, as is the case in so many rural constituencies in Scotland, the march of large scale wind developments continues. Encouraged by the Scottish Government, the forces acting on wind turbines cause vibration in their structure, which can travel underground for many kilometres, with obvious consequences for facilities which require to be seismological quiet for their effective operation.

And as some members may recall, the desire on the part of windfarm developers to push the boundaries of where their infrastructure can be located and the guidance against which their applications are assessed has already led to challenges to the Ministry of Defence. A previous attempt by a developer to site a wind farm at Little Hartfell, which is within the consultation zone of the Estelle Muir Seismological Monitoring Station, led to judicial review proceedings against the Mod. On that occasion.

The challenge did not dispute the Mod is entitled to devise and enforce a policy to protect the array from interference with its detection capabilities, but rather concern the allocation of priority as between proposed developments. Irrespective, the lesson is clear developers will seek to push the boundaries of where and how their developments may be sited, and Ministers must be aware of that and willing to take measures to properly protect against it. Where issues of national defence are at stake, the key consideration here is not watering down our defence systems or letting down our allies in a dangerous and difficult world to squeeze out.

What, in a national context, is a small amount of extra electricity. The UK government should robustly refuse to entertain novel technologies within the 15 kilometre exclusion zone proposed by the FCDO working Group, and which would replace the existing ten kilometre zone. This should rightly include those applications already in the planning system, where the developers have continued to aggressively pursue projects with full knowledge. That work was on going to review the exclusion zone. Our national defence must come first.

Most people would, I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, agree that this is one area where an abundance of caution is well justified, and it would be concerning if Ministers and the Mod were pressured into going too far in the name of net zero. Now I am not necessarily Madam Deputy Speaker objective because I am the Member of Parliament that has the largest number of wind turbines in their constituency, either consented or built, and I do now believe that the industrial scale wind farms are bad generally for the locality, and there is, but there needs to be specific rules around them where national security is in question.

And we have to protect our credibility with our international partners. Any loosening of the rules on infrastructure developments around facilities such as the steel Seismic Moray, or indeed passing up the opportunity to reinforce those existing rules, would send entirely the wrong message to both potential developers eager to exploit new opportunities to construct even more wind farms, or to our international partners who are rely on our ability to contribute both to our own and our collective defence. That is why I believe that amendment 28, in this bill is an is an opportunity to underscore the protections needed for facilities like the SDL Muir Seismic Array and what I want to see, Madam Deputy Speaker, is this government take those protections forward.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Meg Hillier. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I add my thanks to the. Other place for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Other place for. The work that they've done on. This committee and. Actually. Particularly for the new clause one. Although I. Will explain my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one. Although I. Will explain my thinking on that in amendment one, detail. I stand.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand. On this issue. Because of the importance. Of the. Scrutiny by select committees of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scrutiny by select committees of. This House of government policy. While this House. Has an important. Task as. A. Whole on doing. This work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This work. Bill committees have their job to do. There is a very valuable role by select committees.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

role by select committees. knowledge. And depth of. The teams on those committees. Made up of. Members and experienced and expert staff and clerks. And that can be very helpful, I think, to Ministers and governments who can get useful input as policy is developed and on national policy statements, they have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have. A particular But I would say to the Treasury bench more widely, and I appreciate that massively, the I appreciate that massively, the work that the Minister has done to lean into us on this issue, which I will touch on in a moment. But we will touch on in a moment. But we do need to be mindful when we are pushing legislation forward at whatever government or whatever party, because we always get elected with an agenda. Quite rightly, we are impatient to push things through that.

We do need to be mindful of the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and at our peril. Do we diminish it without potentially risking a slippery slope where one day a future mad, bad or dangerous government? Don't tempt me on that over the last 14 years. But but a my bad, dangerous government could misuse the the system. So we need to make sure that we're stress testing what's being proposed by the government today. Against that important bar. We have 13 national policy statements covering specific types of Loughborough infrastructure.

I don't need to go into detail on those, but that includes, of course, energy transport waste, waste, water and waste. And the is a proposal. The normal process has been that these are laid before the House and select committees have an involvement. I won't go through all the technical detail for time reasons about how that works, but basically select committees have an important role in scrutinising any changes to national policy statements. Now, the government's had a concern that this can take too long, and it is decided, as the minister's explained, to introduce a new reflective amendment procedure so that the government will not be subject to the existing statutory obligation to respond to either a resolution of either House of Parliament regarding the proposed changes or recommendations from a committee of either House of Parliament regarding the proposed changes.

So what is in place? What is being proposed in place of that, I think is the key thing here. So there is going to be a continued, as the Minister said, the public consultation on reflective amendments, so that smaller amendments that he that might be introduced, the Minister will need to write to the relevant select committee, and Ministers must make themselves available to appear before the relevant committee to explain why the proposed changes to the NPS mean that the reflective amendment route is appropriate.

Now, the Minister and I thank him very much for his time. I've had discussions about this over months. Me speaking on behalf of the Select Committee corridor, and in the last the last time it appeared at Report stage, he said from the despatch box that Ministers would appear in front of select committees if practicable. And I think and he and I, I raised concerns with him at practicable maybe a legal term, but that doesn't really work for select committees, because what does practical mean? Madam Deputy Speaker mean the Minister could be on holiday, or the Minister could have a visit to a constituency somewhere else in the country.

It might not be practicable for them to appear before a select committee. And I think one of the important things is that Ministers should be, and rightly are. I've been a Minister myself, absolutely accountable to this House, and that should be a priority. It's the job of a Minister to steer the politics of a legislation through, as well as the practical side of it, and that is something that they need to do. So I know that the Minister has been looking closely at whether that we can just he can give us more reassurance that it's not just practicable, but Minister will be expected to appear before a select committee if required to do so.

The under the new approach, an amended National Policy Statement will be laid in Parliament for 21 sitting days. That's critical, and I'm glad that the Minister is clear on that. It would be sitting days of this House, not during a recess period, because I think that is absolutely important. And the government would respond to any committee reports in that time, but it no longer has a statutory obligation to respond. So I just hope the Minister can just reassure me even further at the despatch box that it would be expected.

And on behalf of the committee corridor, it's very clear that as committees, we are very clear that we would play our role properly in making sure that these matters were turned around within proper timeframes and would not be unnecessary delays. There is a great team of people behind our select committees I'm privileged to work with. I think probably I would say, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you weren't in the chair, the best set of speakers, chairs of select committees that we've ever had, but that would cut you out from the important work that you did, setting the tone for us all.

A leader in this field when you chaired the Women and Equalities Select Committee. So we follow in in big footsteps. But seriously, there is a very talented team of people on the select committee corridor who want to make sure that this works. And we take very seriously our responsibility to scrutinise matters that the government is considering, and making sure that we play our role in getting those through, not necessarily without amendment, but making sure that we actually put our views in very closely and give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way to my old friend. Those watching this debate might find this just tedious find this just tedious parliamentary processes. Hon. Friend from Vauxhall made it clear that national policy statements that national policy statements have impacts we are about to consider in some detail. I hope the National Policy Statement with National Policy Statement with regard to the airports, the impact in my constituency would be 15,000 people losing their homes, whole communities being wiped off the communities being wiped off the face of the earth.

That's why this procedure is so critical that we procedure is so critical that we get it right, because otherwise we won't. We won't carry the population with us, the community overall.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

overall. And I think if I can reassure my hon. Friend that and as the Minister made clear from the despatch box, very large changes despatch box, very large changes which would also would go through the whole process. So there is no watering down of that. And I think watering down of that. And I think that's absolutely right and proper. And I think that the government was was leaning in the right direction on this. Our concern was about the on this. Our concern was about the new changes to smaller amendments so that these would be reflective amendments.

These were and the amendments. These were and the Minister outlined four categories of amendments. So I just would be grateful if he could clarify when grateful if he could clarify when he sums up who decides what category of the four an amendment would be in, and is there any would be in, and is there any prospect that this could be misused by future governments? I wouldn't imagine he would misuse it, but in any any bad world this could be abused by the government of the day.

Will he be just again reiterate from Dispatch Box some of the things we have been discussing over months, that that the Minister would be expected to engage with the select Committee not just appeared if requested, but also engage early? I think it is. It's in all the discussion around this, but be helpful if it's laid at the despatch box, because I would say with politicians, no surprises for us all is a good, good maxim. We don't ever surprise a constituency MP or a select committee chair or a select committee, because that can cause challenges and we are a reasonable people in the select committee system means that we would want to engage as early as possible.

So an early whatever party. And I have to say of course, on select committee corridor, cross party chairs, but it is absolutely proper that the chair of a committee works with the government of the day, whichever their party. And that's certainly when I was chairing a committee as an opposition MP. I did that, and it was important that we play that role and we understand that. So an early, early engagement is better. There's nothing that needs to be hidden from a select committee. And select committees also have a very well worn route of making sure that we deal with confidential or sensitive information absolutely properly, whether that be through a reading room mechanism or having a private briefings.

And obviously we prefer to do most of our work in public, but we recognise that sometimes this House and the British public need to be reassured that at certain times, maybe not forever, but at certain moments in time, we may need to have a conversation earlier when it's not in the fully in the public domain. And I think we're trusted to do that responsibly and well. So if I that responsibly and well. So if I could just slightly reassure on that as well. And, and I think, I think he has confirmed if he could think he has confirmed if he could just for the record, confirm that the clock only starts ticking for parliamentary sitting days.

But I really thank the Minister for his really thank the Minister for his work engaging on this. I do thank the other House for taking parliamentary scrutiny so seriously parliamentary scrutiny so seriously that they put forward amendment number one. But I think I've had enough reassurances from the enough reassurances from the Minister to be convinced that the Select Committee corridor is being treated with the respect that it deserves, and I just hope he can reiterate the points and answer the questions that I've made in his summing up.

Okay, Kit Malthouse.
14:18
None Portrait
-

Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm grateful to you. I don't wish to detain the house terribly long just to cover three matters, if I may. First of all, Lords Amendment 38 on on chalk streams, as the Minister knows, because I've told him before. My constituency, as is yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, as my constituency neighbour is Chalk Stream Central, the river test, the most celebrated chalk streams, rises in the north of my constituency, the Anton that flows through Andover and of course, most famously, the Bourne Rivulet, about which books have been written, such as its its beauty and importance.

And I know the Minister appreciates, appreciates the importance of these incredibly rare and almost unique to southern England ecological environments. Now, I heard what he had to say about the appropriateness of spatial development strategies to protect these chalk streams. But he will know that those of us who are concerned about this issue have been disappointed since the advent of the the government about the seeming reduction of, shall we say, enthusiasm for protection of of chalk streams. Obviously, the chalk stream recovery pack, which had been hard won and negotiated with the previous government, was abandoned in May.

We saw amendments to this bill voted down that were to this bill voted down that were seeking to protect this environment further at every stage. And the Minister is a good chap and he and Minister is a good chap and he and I get on well at every stage. He's reassured the House that he wants to do more for chalk streams, but to do more for chalk streams, but we have yet to see the beef, and we have yet to see the beef, and even today, in his opening remarks, he said he is minded to take step he said he is minded to take step further steps elsewhere to protect chalk streams, which I'm afraid, given the record thus far over the given the record thus far over the last 12 months or so, is not terribly reassuring, so I'd be very grateful if he could be a little grateful if he could be a little more detailed in his response as to what exactly it is he intends to do.

Yes, please, sir. Yes, please, sir.
14:20
Kit Malthouse Portrait Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP (North West Hampshire, Conservative)
-
-
He will know in his own constituency there are some fantastic campaigners trying to protect children. In my own patch. I have to Redditch association, mending them and the Children's Society. Does he agree with me that it shouldn't be down to committed campaigners to protect these chalk streams, and that it does need a statutory underpinning? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, I completely agree with the hon. Lady in my own constituency. I have groups of constituency. I have groups of volunteers who work very hard. For instance, on the Anton River in Andover. They do a fantastic job. Andover. They do a fantastic job. And in fact, that river is about which flows through part of the town centre but gets lost. It's town centre but gets lost. It's about to be opened up with a new park, a new riverside park running down Western Avenue, which I'm pleased to say I played a small part in obtaining the levelling up part in obtaining the levelling up grant from the previous government, which will go towards that park.

Yes. Look, people in my Yes. Look, people in my constituency value these chalk streams almost as if they are members of their family. They are members of their family. They are part of the identity of towns like Whitchurch and Overton and and as I say, Andover and other villages in say, Andover and other villages in my patch and in yours, Madam Deputy Speaker. And so their their protection should be taken almost protection should be taken almost as seriously as the protection of their children.

And many members, not just me, have campaigned for not just me, have campaigned for those kind of statutory protections. So I'd be interested in in what the Minister has to say. And I don't Minister has to say. And I don't entirely protect accept his argument that these are completely argument that these are completely inappropriate as he knows they are able to flag up areas of planning constraint. They are able to talk about corridors and about green infrastructure. And if there is a green infrastructure corridor, then it is a chalk stream.

And certainly in my part of the world, they are treasured in a way that would demand that anybody who was like a new mayor, if we have one next year, that a mayor was required to look at them as as protected corridors

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and say as much in the in their plan, by all means. I absolutely agree and support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely agree and support everything he said about chalk streams and nature corridors. Does he think that it would be helpful he think that it would be helpful if this bill went a bit further into trying to reinvigorate the natural world in densely populated natural world in densely populated urban areas? And since he has an enormous knowledge of London, does he not think London would be so he not think London would be so much improved if some of the unfortunately now underground rivers could be opened up? So to rivers could be opened up? So to give people a sense of what their natural world really is like.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

natural world really is like. Well, interestingly, the right hon. Gentleman, I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and with the right hon. Gentleman, and interestingly, he may or may not recall when I was a Westminster councillor, we had a project in councillor, we had a project in Westminster called Hidden Rivers, which signposted where those rivers which signposted where those rivers were. And any hon. Members, for example, who find themselves on the platform at Sloane Square station, platform at Sloane Square station, just a couple of stops away.

If you look upwards, you'll see there's a look upwards, you'll see there's a socking great big pipe going across the across the the top of the the across the the top of the platforms carrying the River Wandle, is it? No, the Tyburn, it carries the Tyburn, which flows from, rises at Marble Arch, where the Tyburn convent is, and where Tyburn trees that stand for hanging people flows down and across the platform and into the Thames. The same is true, I think, in the hon.

Gentleman's constituency, where the fleet flows down through down towards, of course, Fleet Street and into the Thames. I know people do value them, they do treasure them. They should be protected. And I want to hear from the Minister a little bit more. It's also worth saying that the the reason that SDS might be important for protection of chalk streams is for those of us who would support, for example, new settlements and SDS can point towards the areas where new settlements should be and protect things like river catchments and for chalk downland constituency like mine, that is absolutely key.

So while I accept the Minister is going to get his way and and get his party for the second time on this bill to vote against protection for chalk streams, I do take him at his word, but I'd like to hear a bit more detail, please, on what he is minded to do, how firm that mindedness is, and when we can expect some of this protection to come forward. Because this is an urgent matter on which many of us have campaigned for many years.

The second thing I just wanted to lament, I guess, in the bill, or ask the Minister if he could clarify, is what the impact of this bill is going to be on neighbourhood plans. I have asked him in the past, particularly in the light of new housing targets, and both my borough council, Basingstoke and Deane and Testvalley have significant increases to their housing targets. I don't mind that necessarily. The question is where those houses go, but I have encouraged villages and communities across my constituency to take advantage of neighbourhood plans and put them in place.

And of course, the significant alarm now 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. Now he has given me in a moment. He 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, for refresh. But and also that constraints such as protected landscape would still pertain in the light of those new housing targets.

And I'd be pleased

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if he was able to reassure us on that point when he makes the summing up. Yes, please. I thank the gentleman for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the gentleman for giving way, and I share his concern about the impact on neighbourhood development plans of the new development plans of the new housing targets. Certainly in my constituency of the South Cotswolds, they were blown out of the water by they were blown out of the water by the new targets in the Cotswold district. 80% of it is in protected landscape and the remaining 20% half of that is floodplain. So does the hon. Gentleman share my the hon.

Gentleman share my disappointment that the government is opposing amendment 39, which is opposing amendment 39, which would have forced developers to prioritise brownfield sites and save our countryside?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

save our countryside? Well, I sort of agree. I mean, I do think that we should be pushing developers towards brownfield. It's absolutely right. Brownfield first was the the policy of the previous was the the policy of the previous government and makes lots and lots of sense. But the key thing is, and I hope the government and I'm sure I hope the government and I'm sure the Minister does accept this, that if we're going to, if we're going to overcome this, this problem with the generational contract, which is that we who are housed will build that we who are housed will build houses for those who aren't, there has to be a compromise.

And for me, that compromise has always been neighbourhood planning. Far too often in my constituency, you know, villages and towns feel as if planning is something that is done to them. They dread the land promoter showing up to ram some kind of 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 that that word is not used. I welcome his nodding. That's great. I've often said in my own constituency, which for members who don't know, is 220mi² of beautiful chalk downland.

If they would build thatched cottages, we'd have thousands of them, right? People would be more than happy for them to build villages like Saint Mary Bourne all over the place. If they look pretty and fit in, they look beautiful and fit in. But unfortunately we get the same ersatz development that everybody else gets around the the country. So if we can crack that. But the other thing is putting planning in the hands of local people, and I hope the Minister in this bill will try and preserve that principle.

And the third thing I just want to say briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, is an omission in the bill which the Minister and I have discussed before, and that is dealing with the problem of undeveloped consents. My concern about this bill is that it will stimulate the land promotion industry and it will stimulate lots of applications. But as the my hon. Friend for the front bench pointed out that in a market where the housing market is flat, stamp duty is at penal rates, interest rates are remaining stubbornly high because of government borrowing.

The development industry has been crippled by taxes. We're really not going to get the level of development that he aspires to, and certainly not towards the 300,000 a year target, 1.5 million by the end of the Parliament. So what we will see is a stacking up of consents. And we've seen that in some parts of the country already, where there are thousands and thousands of undeveloped consents. And so what the industry will do is it will bank them and it will, you know, in the absence of a market into which it can sell, it will occupy itself by banking the land for when times hopefully will come.

Good. Similarly, I'm afraid with some of the large infrastructure projects which he's keen to see accelerated, as am I. What we'll see is them going through the process, but then they'll wait for more propitious economic times to bring them forward. Notwithstanding the lack of, therefore, the facility to the British public. And I would urge him to consider, as he looks to the next stage of his planning reforms, what he's going to do on undeveloped consensus. I think I've said to him before, my view is that they should allow local, should force local plans to have a ten year housing supply, but that that housing supply should take into account granted consents, because then developers can see a ten year horizon, as can local authorities.

But they also can see that if they want a life beyond ten years, they're going to have to start developing that which they already have. And if we can deal with that issue, then we'll also deal with quite a lot of the resentment that people feel when they see particularly large scale planning applications coming forward, because they'll say, we've already got 400 down the road that haven't been built, why are we having to take another 400? And of course, a local council having to put huge amounts of work into the local plan, notwithstanding the fact that they might already have a five year supply that's been consented but doesn't count towards the future number.

So I'm afraid, I mean, this is a problem with which governments have struggled for some time, including my own, and including one which I struggled with when I was in his job. But I hope he'll give it some thought. A ten year supply or at least give give councils the option of having a ten year supply in which granted consents count. I think he might find he'll get a lot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more houses built. Thank you. Terry Jermy. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The natural Deputy Speaker. The natural environment in my South West Norfolk constituency is fantastic. It is of huge value to my It is of huge value to my constituents and it underpins Norfolk's greatest economic driver Norfolk's greatest economic driver tourism, which is so fundamental to rural areas like mine. I am particularly proud that we have so particularly proud that we have so many beautiful chalk streams and rivers.

The most impressive of these, the river now forms the these, the river now forms the northern boundary of my constituency, and it lends its name to the villages of Narborough and to the villages of Narborough and Narford. Because of the national importance of this river, it is designated as a Site of Special designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest and is one of only 11 chalk streams in the whole of the UK with such a designation. It is well known for its populations of brown trout and the globally threatened European eel, but even this river, protected by its designation since 1992, has a history of damage and ongoing degradation through the pollution from farmland, sewage treatment works and road drainage, and also from man made modification to the from man made modification to the channel and its floodplain, and from obstruction, both from the river itself and the chalk aquifer, which supplies the calcium rich clean water on which these systems rely.

Natural England report that
14:32
Terry Jermy Portrait Terry Jermy MP (South West Norfolk, Labour)
-
-
50% of the river na CCC is not healthy and not getting better, healthy and not getting better, which they classify as unfavourable. No change. I had the pleasure of No change. I had the pleasure of visiting part of the Na at South Acre in my constituency last year, which has been restored by landowners with the help of the landowners with the help of the brilliant Norfolk Rivers Trust. I am so pleased that landowners and this Norfolk charity are working hard to restore the river to better health through these efforts.

The health through these efforts. The other 50% of the river is unfavourable. Recovering condition, unhealthy but getting better. Sadly, none are classed as favourable condition. Other chalk streams and rivers in my constituency include the River Wissey, the Little Wus and their tributaries such as the and their tributaries such as the river which runs through my home town of Thetford. All of these are important features of our local important features of our local natural environment, but none are healthy enough to be considered as a CCC.

Just two weeks ago, I visited the Little Toulouse and met the Little Ouse Headwaters Project, another small local charity which is trying to restore the river and the Fens in its catchment. I the Fens in its catchment. I visited Blo Norton Fen. Blo Norton is a small village at the very southern edge of my constituency, near to Gravesham. For the benefit of Hansard it is spelt Garboldisham, but in Norfolk we call it Gravesham. I saw a familiar story at this location. The Little Ouse has been canonised, straightened, overdeepened and embanked separating it from its floodplain.

It is polluted by phosphates, nitrates, silt and pesticides running off from agricultural land. It has been polluted by sewage treatment works and poultry units adjacent to the river. Local volunteers have been working hard to restore the catchment for the past 23 years. I pay tribute to the Chair of trustees, doctor Rob Robinson, Trustees Reg and Rowena Langston, and Eddie Beech, the conservation manager, all of whom are as pleased to meet recently. And they gave me a tour of the Fen. My sincere thanks to them, as well as the other volunteers involved in the Littlewoods Headwaters Project.

We owe so much as a nation to volunteers like this, safeguarding our natural heritage for future generations. It is disgraceful that past governments left small charities like this, and others struggling to restore a habitat which is globally rare, and of which 85% are in England, England, with many located in my constituency. This government is rightly proud of its efforts to improve our rivers by holding water companies and other polluters to account, delivering an ambitious programme of reforms to fix the water system, managing and resetting the water sector.

And I am pleased that water companies will invest 2 billion over the next five years to deliver more than 1000 targeted actions for chalk stream restoration as part of our plan for change, and that the government is investing £1.8 million through the Water Restoration Fund and Water Improvement Fund for Chalk Stream projects. As a newly appointed member of the EFRA Select Committee, I will be keen to see the effect of this government's improved funding for environmental land management schemes, including six landscape recovery projects in chalk stream catchments, one of these, awaiting a decision on funding from DEFRA, is in the headwaters of the Little Woose.

I hope it gets the funding it deserves. I believe it is time we legislated to put the protection of chalk streams on a permanent footing, buffered from the vagaries of policies and funding by future governments, so that we leave a permanent legacy of environmental protection of a globally rare resource. We must do more to protect and restore chalk streams. I urge Ministers, and I strongly urge the Minister. I listen carefully to his words at the start. I urge them to take up opportunities now or in the future, with future policy considerations, to protect precious environments like those in Norfolk.

They are irreplaceable, but also in their own right. They are crucial to our local economies and growth. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scott Arthur Roz Savage. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of many of my constituents in the South Cotswolds, I would like to speak in strong I would like to speak in strong support of amendment 40. Nature unites us in a way few other things unites us in a way few other things can. Even the hon. Member for Clacton told me of his own love for nature after the Second Reading of
14:37
Roz Savage Portrait Dr Roz Savage MP (South Cotswolds, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
nature after the Second Reading of my climate and nature Bill. So our love for the fields, woods and waterways that shape our lives can cut across deep political divisions, ages and backgrounds. We all want future generations to walk the same landscapes, hear the same birdsong, and feel the same sense of belonging to the natural world that so many of us have known. And this amendment recognises that truth. It ensures nature is not treated as an optional extra, but as something essential that must be protected and restored.

Alongside meeting our urgent housing need. Amendment 40 limits environmental delivery plans to areas where a broad strategic approach generally works. As the hon. Member for Poole has already mentioned, for example, nutrient neutrality and water and air quality. Without this safeguard, the bill risks undoing decades of progress in protections for our most vulnerable species. A big picture approach cannot replace the precise protections that bats, dormice or great crested newts depend on. You can't ask a dormouse to move house, and you can't offset repeated local losses somewhere else.

If we allow that pattern to continue, national extinction becomes a real possibility. This is how nature works. This is how the web of life works. We can't just dismiss small snails because they are small. It's the smallest creatures that inhabit our topsoil that actually form the foundation of the entire ecosystem. In the South Cotswolds, the bond between people and nature is strong, but our area is also one of the most environmentally constrained, as I've already mentioned, about 80% of the Cotswold district lies within the Cotswolds national landscape, and with much of the remaining 20% already developed or at flood risk, we are going to really struggle to meet our target of over 1000 new homes every year.

Constituents who cherish our wildlife and landscapes have written to me with heartfelt concerns about what this level of development would mean for the places that have defined their lives. The government's own manifesto promised planning reform that increases climate resilience and promotes nature recovery. Yet the Secretary of State has recently rejected amendments that would do exactly that. His Build baby build slogan suggests that we must choose between growth and nature, which is not true. Wildlife protections are not blocking new homes.

Councillors and developers alike point instead to land availability, infrastructure and delivery capacity as being the constraining factors. There is no justification for weakening nature protections when it's entirely possible to build in ways that benefit both people and planet. Amendment 40 reflects a real cross-party consensus and is also backed by the Wildlife Trusts, the RSPB and the Better Planning Coalition. It offers. Clarity, reduces legal risk and supports sustainable development while strengthening genuine nature recovery, which, incidentally, will also help in climate change mitigation.

Above all, amendment 40 recognises that we are not and do not need to be in conflict with nature. We are part of it. This is our chance to show that good planning can be both responsible and ambitious, and that we can deliver the homes that people so urgently need, while safeguarding the natural world that sustains us all. So I urge members and the government to support amendment 40. I urge this House to choose clarity over confusion, evidence over ideology, and long term stewardship over short term slogans.

Today, we have the chance to choose a planning system that is efficient and fair, that is good for business, that is good for communities, and above all, good for the wildlife and landscapes that define our country. We can choose to honour our responsibility to future generations who will judge us not so much by how fast we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

build, but by what we protected and what we passed on. Toby Perkins.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Toby Perkins. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Building 1.5 million homes to tackle the housing million homes to tackle the housing crisis at the same time as protecting British wildlife is an issue that the the general public issue that the the general public are rightly passionate about, and one that government must get right one that government must get right for people, for nature and for the economy. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, initiated an inquiry to explore this exact question last November, and the committee will very shortly be able committee will very shortly be able to share our conclusions and recommendations to government.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a central plank of the government's plan to unlock the planning system, to deliver the housing and to deliver the housing and infrastructure that Britain needs. I was interested in the contribution of the hon. Gentleman, contribution of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner who rightly identified and Pinner who rightly identified the issue of developers sitting on land. I have to say, as someone who's been in local and then parliamentary politics for 23 years now, that's always been the case.

now, that's always been the case. And so it was, as I say, unconvincing that, having identified the issue, he didn't seem to have any solutions to that. He listed a number of things the government might consider without enlightening us as to whether he supported any of them. And so it is clear that the government will have to crack on alone if they wish to be able to address this important issue. Now, in my view, this bill has been significantly improved through its passage.

My original concerns and those that many others had around part three have been allayed. I think I've been through enough legislation in this chamber where people have accused Ministers of not listening, to give credit to my hon. Friend, the housing Minister, for having listened to the the criticisms that were put in place and skilfully clarify how government will respond to those. And I thank him for that work. I have to say that his work, unfortunately, has been made more difficult by briefings which characterise nature as a blocker to development.

In fact, research from the Wildlife Trust found that bats and great crested newts were a factor in just 3% of planning appeal decisions. And I think these anti nature narratives. Best lazy and often unhelpful, and they distract from some of the more significant challenges in the planning system, such as the lack of resources and skills in local authorities to support planning applications, and tackling these genuine planning barriers. Alongside this bill will be essential to building the homes that we need.

I'd like to speak to amendment 40, which would limit environmental delivery plans to only certain environmental impacts, including water pollution, water availability and air pollution. Addressing environmental impacts at a strategic level, as enabled by the EDPs introduced by this Bill, has the potential in some circumstances to deliver more benefit for the environment and faster planning outcomes. In some circumstances, this strategic approach would absolutely not be appropriate. For example, harm to a site loyal species. As my hon. Friend from Paul Waugh two would be often impossible to address in a different location.

However, I do believe it's reasonable to steer clear of stipulating on the face of the bill which environment environmental issues the EDPs could be developed for in the future, as amendment 40 would do, guided by current robust scientific evidence or evidence that might come to light in the future, it is possible to imagine that a strategic approach for addressing environmental impacts could be found to be appropriate for issues beyond just water and air pollution.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will happily give way. Yes. I'm grateful. It's a it's an extremely considered speech he's making on that particular point. And it's the point that my hon. Friend from Poole made. We now have concerns being expressed by virtually every environmental organisation we've ever worked with, including Sierra. Our own labour campaign environment. There could be a compromise here, couldn't be a compromise here, couldn't there, if the government really was clear on the process for the future, when the issues that he's just raised could be considered, so that at the moment we can see there's a strategic approach on some issues, strategic approach on some issues, but with others there'll be further consideration and the government could come back and there is a could come back and there is a potential there for a compromise with the other House as part of this ping pong process.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

this ping pong process. Well, I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. I think it is important to state that think it is important to state that I think the amendment from the Lords is absolutely coming from a Lords is absolutely coming from a sensible and well-intentioned place, and I think he's right to say that it is important that in even if this specific amendment is, is rejected as the government is rejected as the government is minded to do, that, we get the clarity that he is seeking that we are in in a position that in the majority of cases, that it would be this more narrow type of approach.

And I think what the the Minister has said about the specific scrutiny that specific EDPs will get does give us some assurance that we will be able to, in the event that we start seeing them being misused to to scrutinise that process. But I think he makes an important point. Be interesting to see what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say in response to that when he responds, guided, as I was saying, madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the government's package of amendments during the Lords stages, including one that specifies that robust scientific evidence must be used by Natural England to develop an EDP.

These improvements largely address the original concerns of the office for Environmental Protection. However, I would urge the Minister to consider proactively providing a list of environmental issues which might be considered suitable for EDPs. This would provide reassurance that this new and powerful tool will only be directed towards diffuse pollution. Pollution. Pollution issues, such as those set out in amendment 40, where EDPs will have environmental benefit and provide the most value for development. I wish also to speak briefly to amendment 39, which would embed a brownfield first approach in the new LDES building on brownfield line land can help revitalise towns and cities, as well as developing greenfield land.

However, it can be more expensive. There are often clean up jobs to be done on site in large urban centres. Brownfield development is often still profitable, but in smaller towns such as in my constituency in Chesterfield, the additional factors in developing brownfield land can mean that that development is unprofitable and undeveloped, such as the Robin Swann site in my constituency for over 20 years now. So it would be good to hear from the Minister what more the government can do to promote development on brownfield land, both nature and safe.

Secure housing is enormously important to people. Our constituents deserve both. They deserve to breathe clean both. They deserve to breathe clean air, live in safe and healthy homes, and for their children to be able to play in a local river free from to play in a local river free from pollution. But they also deserve to have affordable housing in the communities in which they live. And communities in which they live. And that is the balance the government must strike. Whilst EDP has introduced in the Planning and introduced in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill are an important tool, they are only part of the answer to solving the of the answer to solving the housing crisis and only part of the answer to improving our natural environment.

This is an important environment. This is an important bill. It's much improved. We need to get on and get it passed as soon as possible, but also make sure as possible, but also make sure that the work of protecting nature doesn't begin or end with this bill, doesn't begin or end with this bill, you.
14:50
Liz Jarvis Portrait Liz Jarvis MP (Eastleigh, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liz Jarvis. Amendment 38. I've heard from many constituents who are deeply concerned about the potential environmental impact of this bill and how it might affect the River Itchen, the precious chalk stream that runs through my constituency of Eastleigh. The River Itchen is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Area of Conservation, but despite these designations, it has been subjected to repeated sewage discharges by Southern Water, threatening its delicate ecosystems and putting species at risk. We have incredible natural habitats that are being destroyed because existing protections have failed.

Indeed, in the latest Environment Agency assessment, Southern Water was handed a two star rating after causing a shocking 269 pollution incidents last year, including 15 classified as serious, according to the 20 2425 Chalk Stream Annual Review, 83% of England's chalk streams are failing to achieve good ecological status. This is disgraceful and this is why Lords Amendment 38 is so important to my constituents and communities across the country who live alongside these extraordinary habitats. There is no reason why we can't have a thoughtful planning process that protects our precious natural environment, but can also deliver the social and affordable housing with the infrastructure to support it that our communities desperately need.

We have an opportunity here to show that development and environmental responsibility are not competing interests, but shared objectives. By embedding these principles in this bill, we can address the housing crisis while simultaneously simultaneously protecting our rivers, habitats and green spaces. Lords amendment 38 would establish much needed new protections for chalk streams and impose a responsibility on strategic planning authorities to enhance chalk stream environments. I saw the urgent need to address this when I visited with representatives of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Trust this summer, I was able to test the water quality of the River Itchen and with the help of experts, we saw first hand the very low levels of biodiversity and high nitrate levels.

I fully support the proposition that spatial development strategies must list chalk streams in their strategic area and safeguard them from irreplaceable damage by outlining clear measures to protect from environmental harm. Greater and appropriate consideration for our chalk streams is long overdue. I also welcome that through Lords Amendment 38. Local spatial development strategies will vary according to the needs of the particular area, allowing strategies to set differing balancing points in differing places between local conservation and development needs. It's disappointing that the government is unwilling to retain this amendment.

Will the Minister instead commit to strengthening existing planning mechanisms and ensure that water companies are held to account so chalk streams are protected? This is such an important issue for my constituents, and anything less than a cast iron guarantee is not good enough. Madam Deputy Speaker, people across the country deeply value and treasure treasure our natural environment. We need to deliver the housing and infrastructure that are vital for our communities. But let's not treat our chalk streams, wildlife

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and habitats as an afterthought. Chris Hinchliff. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would like to declare an and I would like to declare an interest as a vice chair of the Climate and Nature Crisis Caucus. At the outset of my contribution to today's debate on this important legislation, there are a few general points that I think are general points that I think are probably worth reiterating the need be no conflict between house building and nature. The real building and nature.

The real conflict is between greed and the sort of country we want to build. After 20 years of planning deregulation, we see time and again profiteering, trumping public need profiteering, trumping public need and the protection of the countryside. Cost cutting where communities deserve quality, low communities deserve quality, low density, high priced housing, where families wait for council homes.
14:54
Chris Hinchliff Portrait Chris Hinchliff MP (North East Hertfordshire, Labour)
-
-
Since we last debated this bill in this place, key cities have published a very useful report in which they highlight that in a survey of their members, only 6% cited the planning system as the primary obstacle for housebuilding, more than twice that figure pointed to developer delays. So I hope that we will shortly see similarly major government legislation to tackle the profiteering developers blocking the delivery of genuinely affordable housing in this country. The recent announcement of plans for towns built within a new forest shows that good development and nature recovery can go hand in hand, and we must go further.

A democratic program of mass council house building could easily avoid the clashes that so often mark the developer led system. What is needed are well-funded councils with the power to assemble land, identify the best sites for new homes building, not grey estates shaped by the defeatism of low expectations but cohesive, thriving communities built for life to flourish. That is the solution to the housing crisis and creating a country that puts people and nature before profit. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the several important amendments tabled to this bill by the government in the other place.

Most importantly, in my view, the stronger overall improvement test for Nature Recovery, which I campaigned for at Report stage. It was very good news that these amendments substantially allayed the concerns of the office for Environmental Protection. Nevertheless, it is clear that environmental experts and conservationists continue to have some concerns regarding this legislation, which the Other place has sought to address through amendments 40 and 38 in particular. Our Labour government was elected on a clear manifesto promise to reverse the nature crisis in this country.

So it is essential that we get this right. That is particularly urgent in relation to our endangered species and irreplaceable habitats, including chalk streams like the rib bean, Ivel and Mimram, which criss cross North East Hertfordshire and bring joy to so many people's lives. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I genuinely welcome the comments the Minister has already made. To allay the concerns of nature experts, and will dedicate my remaining time to a few short questions. I hope the Minister can address in his wind up.

Firstly, given the need for legal certainty. Can the Minister confirm that the overall improvement test will guarantee that irreplaceable habitats and species cannot be covered by EDPs? And if so, will the government set out a list of environmental features it considers would be irreplaceable. Secondly, would the Minister confirm if there are any EDPs currently under consideration or development by Natural England or proposed by the government, and if so, would any be affected if amendment 40 remained part of this bill? Thirdly, will the Minister give confidence to the many constituents of North East Hertfordshire worried about potential impacts on the wildlife we love? By once again putting on the record that the government does Wrexham recognise the difference between diffuse landscape issues like nutrient pollution, where strategic scale action is best suited for nature restoration, and protected sites and species which cannot easily be recreated elsewhere? Fourth, given the widespread interest in this legislation shown by many of our constituents and by the wider nature sector, would he consider providing further transparency and accountability through a government amendment in lieu of amendment 40 to ensure parliamentary approval of Edp's beyond diffuse issues like air, water and newts? Fifth, given the catchment based approach, Annual Review published this autumn, found that a third of chalk streams do not have a healthy flow regime and overabstraction, due to development pressures, is one of the main threats facing these crown jewels of our natural heritage, and there are currently no planning policies specifically protecting chalk streams.

Can the Minister set out in more detail how the government foresees planning authorities being able to direct inappropriate development away from struggling chalk streams within the process of setting spatial development strategy plans? And would he consider opportunities for this through regulation, if not on the face of this bill? Sixth, will he provide further certainty from the Dispatch Box to ensuring that chalk streams are specifically added to the National Planning Policy framework as an irreplaceable habitat? And will he set out when this might happen, given an update of those provisions have been delayed since 2023? Seventh, as one of the reasons put forward for amendment 40 is that it would mitigate against concerns around the weakening of the Protection of Badgers Act.

What reassurances can he give my constituents that these iconic animals will not be at risk from widespread licences to kill within EDPs paid for by developers in the absence of amendment 48? Can the Minister confirm whether the government has assessed the potential impact of proposed biodiversity? Net gain exemptions on the private finance nature markets, which will be essential for the delivery of EDP? And ninth, and finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, can the Minister reassure those who have raised concerns that the current legislation might allow money committed to the Natural Restoration Fund to be redirected

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to other purposes? Ellie Chowns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I like to start on a know that I like to start on a positive note and look for look for common ground. So I would like to begin by recognising and welcoming the fact that the government has the fact that the government has made some concessions in the Other place in relation to this bill, and place in relation to this bill, and that is a positive step forward. However, I am afraid that unfortunately I do have to disagree with the Minister's claim that this with the Minister's claim that this is now a win win for for nature and
15:00
Ellie Chowns Portrait Dr Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)
-
-
housing and express my continued concern, particularly in relation to part three, which has not had the full reconsideration that it really needs in order to ensure that we can have that genuine win win. And the reason for that, I think, is because unfortunately, the government does seem to be stuck in this kind of view, essentially of there being a zero sum game between nature protection and housebuilding. That is wrong. It's unhelpful. It's a complete misconception. And, you know, despite the fact that there have been some concessions made, you know, fundamentally, the government did lose a lot of trust among the general public by claiming at the outset of this bill's progress through these houses that that it was going to do no harm to nature protection.

It was forced to reconsider and recognise, not least by its own official adviser, that that wasn't, in fact, the case. And of course, we now see, as other members have recognised today, huge numbers of citizens of the UK, members of incredibly well, well respected, well trusted organisations such as the National Trust, the RSPB, the Wildlife Trust still deeply concerned that the government is still digging its heels in and refusing to support amendments that have been passed by the Lords that would improve this bill.

I will come on to the details of those in a minute. So I just want to fundamentally hammer this point. Madam Deputy Speaker, that economic prosperity, social justice and environmental responsibility, environmental protection can and must all go together. They are fundamentally interlinked. And that is why the Green Party has been so passionately campaigning, so outspoken on these issues in relation to this bill, specifically, the importance of democracy in the planning process, the importance of people's voices being heard, specifically on the importance of making sure that the planning process is focussed on tackling, tackling the the most important part of the housing crisis, which is the social housing crisis.

And I repeat yet again in this chamber, that very frustrated that the government is still refusing to set targets for building social housing. And thirdly, that we must protect nature and act responsibly, not only because it is in our own interest now, but of course, for future generations. Some parts of government seem to have been trying to pitch this as a contest between builders and blockers, but that that that is completely the wrong way to. It's completely misleading. You know, actually, it would be more accurate to call it a contest between carte blanche for bulldozers versus building the better Britain that is rooted in taking care of our natural environment and social fairness.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just briefly run through some of the amendments that are before us today explaining why I think it is that it is so disappointing that the government is refusing to accept the Lords amendments and briefly, on amendment one, the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of changes to national national policies. The hon. Members for, for for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green and for Hackney South and Shoreditch have articulated the arguments on this very powerful but very powerfully.

Unfortunately, unlike them, I am not completely reassured by the Minister's warm words on this. This is why I do believe it is important that we agree with Lords Amendment one and on amendment 33, requiring the affirmative procedure for regulations to change the national scheme of delegation. This is this is really fundamental. This is about whether Parliament will properly get to scrutinise any proposed changes to the degree to which citizen voices and the voices of the local representatives, councillors are able to be heard in the planning process.

This is a core element of local democracy and there is a real risk, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in bulldozing this through the government, is aiming to achieve some minor cost savings for a few developers, but at a huge cost to democracy, you know, creating a democratic deficit within the within the planning system. Greens are on the side of democracy, not on the side of developer profiteering. And so we strongly we strongly support Lords amendment 33, Lords amendment 37 just seems to be really reasonable.

It's about clarity on how assets of community value are dealt with. I note that the government is making some concessions around saying that they will consult on this. I very much hope they will. But in the meantime, what better way to ensure that the government is serious about that than to support the Lords Amendment and Lords Amendment? 38 chalk streams. Many members have spoken very passionately already in the chamber on this. I will not hammer this point, but it is crucial to protect our chalk streams.

And what better place to do it than in this bill on the face of this bill, these globally, globally significant, irreplaceable, irreplaceable habitats? Amendment 39 and the prioritisation of brownfield building. Now the government has talked about, you know, this, the Minister said this government has a brownfield first approach, but they've actually widened the definition of what brownfield means. I mean, this is really quite extraordinary. And even, you know, even as things stand, despite governments for quite a while saying that their brownfield building, the actual rate of prioritisation of brownfield building has declined really significantly over the last 15 years.

The CPRE figures were cited earlier by another hon. Member. You know, we all read the CPRE has also said that there is already planning permission for 770,000 new houses on brownfield land. We could get halfway to our house building housebuilding target if those those buildings were just put up again. It is not the planning process that is holding back, holding back, building. And finally, amendment 40, absolutely crucial. It would limit environmental delivery plans to those areas where we have the strongest strategic understanding that environmental benefit can be generated by this.

It would eliminate the risk of destruction of irreplaceable species and habitats. Site loyal species. It. We need to have a nuanced approach to this. Amendment 40 does that. Amendment 40 recognises that there are some areas air quality, water quality where a a catchment wide approach, an area wide approach could absolutely be sensible and helpful. But to have a blanket approach to establishing EDPs with all of the lacks of safeguards that we talked about at great length within Committee stage around the lack of initial assessment of what's going on, the ability of developers to have a get out of jail free card in terms of actually paying into those things when they claim it's not possible because of viability.

All of these are hugely significant problems. Amendment 40 would take a more precautionary approach to the application of EDPs and therefore very important. I think that this House reiterates to the government that we cannot give that carte blanche to bulldozers. We must protect building better, building in harmony with nature, nature, protection, economic prosperity and ensuring that everybody has a decent, affordable place to live. We can and must do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these things together. Thank you Mike Reader. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did think in her round up she was build. Then when she was going through

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Then when she was going through that round, but we almost, almost had her there. Madam Deputy Speaker, every single week in my constituency surgeries and tomorrow is no exception. People will come and talk to me about housing
15:08
Mike Reader Portrait Mike Reader MP (Northampton South, Labour)
-
-
shortages, whether that is people that are living in overcrowded accommodation, people who are living in temporary accommodation or people that are facing homelessness. And actually in my constituency this weekend, the impact the storm was would likely mean that hundreds, if not up to 1000 people will be temporarily removed from their mobile homes, temporary homes that they have in the billing aquadrome putting additional pressure on our housing system. So it is right that the government is stepping forward to try and fix this.

And I'm quite surprised by some of the debates on this, that we're not putting more focus on how we deal with homelessness, and instead, a debate on planning and infrastructure has come down, in many cases purely to can.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Member, recognise that there are many, many hundreds of thousands of empty homes currently thousands of empty homes currently sitting around the country and that this bill would not do anything to this bill would not do anything to address that problem. That could go a very long way to addressing the problems of homelessness that he claims to worry about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

claims to worry about. Thank you. I she is completely right. There are lots of empty homes and I'm sure there were some homes and I'm sure there were some amendments put in by the the Green Party that I have missed and they have been constructed. But I'm sure with government to address that with government to address that issue through the progress of of the bill. But, Madam Speaker, actually working across parties, actually working across parties, what I've always tried to do in this place, I'm very proud to chair the all party parliamentary Group on excellence in the Built on excellence in the Built Environment, and also the all party parliamentary group on infrastructure, and even the Minister.

And I don't always agree with the membership of the group. with the membership of the group. And I have to say, some of the members do take unwarranted and quite grotty shots at the Minister. I'm quite proud to to chair the representative planning group with Simon Dudley, the treasurer of the party opposite, and I'm really pleased actually, through this, the government has recognised a point that I raised at Second Reading that solving the housing crisis takes action of the whole government, that this bill is part of it.

But there's many other things that we need to do to fix things that we need to do to fix the mess that we inherited. I'm really assured, actually, that the concerns that I and others raised at Second Reading around how EDPs will work has been recognised, particularly now in some of the latest amendments, and also the Minister's comments as well, on how brownfield is going to be dealt with. So critical. But I'm of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course, I'm. Very grateful to him for giving way and it's absolutely right what way and it's absolutely right what he says about the housing issues that we all see in our constituencies. And it's interesting that you get so few interesting that you get so few advocates actually for building in that regard. Whenever we have a new housing application in Chichester, housing application in Chichester, we have people who live nearby to it saying, oh, a bit concerned about this. We get lots of people saying there's not enough houses around, but they never come to see us to say, please, can you support one of these new applications? So one of these new applications? So maybe we should give some thought to how we do more to actually build that huge number of people who are that huge number of people who are inadequately housed and do need more housing developments to actually create some sort of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually create some sort of developments. Mike Reader. Yeah. My hon. Friend could not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My hon. Friend could not be all right. And that's part of why we set up the cross-party group, the representative planning group, to try and create an opportunity in to try and create an opportunity in a way that we can bring forward legislation that makes sure that all voices are heard in the debate on housing, not just the loudest on housing, not just the loudest and the angriest, and those who've got lots of spare time on their hands. But I'm surprised by the position taken by the party opposite.

And I was very fortunate to sit on the devolution Bill and I recognised the shadow Minister is recognised the shadow Minister is an absolute expert in local government and he made some amazing contributions. But I, like, I'm sure many of us here did listen to the leader of the opposition's speech at their conference when she talked about cutting bureaucracy, making things easier, cutting down on government waste. But many of the amendments that actually I think he spoke to do just the opposite.

Amendment three, adding layers and layers of process to how planning will work, increasing the risk of judicial review. And amendment 33, which the Minister picked up in his opening remarks, adding more House processes to trying to fix our housing crisis. I hope. In his summing up, the Minister may the Minister may well reflect on whether his position on this bill reflects the position of his leader and her her call to cut regulation and get us building. But actually, there is a big point here, which is trust.

And I think unfortunately, the debate in this on this bill has kind of focussed on trust, trust in government, trust in those who build our homes and trust in our planning system as well. And many of you will turn your mind back to May 2024. You will remember a soggy former Prime Minister standing with music playing behind him. But actually I was at UK reef discussing housing and how do we get Britain building and particularly listening to a whole industry who are completely fed up with the party opposite.

And one of my engagements over this past couple of days was a discussion and debate on trust in the housing sector now a couple of years ago, so I can't quite remember the specific numbers, but it was less than 20% of people have trust in developers, but also 20 less than 2,020% of people have trust in our planning process. So it's clear that the whole process is broken. And that's why this bill is working really hard to try and fix that.

And beyond the big amendments that have been talked about, and I will talk to EDP. So if anyone wants to further come in on that, I'm very welcome to have that that discussion. There's other great things in this bill that will get lost. Amendment 34, which is improving how heritage heritage sites are dealt with. Fantastic South Northamptonshire, which has one of the largest volumes of country houses, manors and stately homes across the whole country. Amendment 39 looking at brownfield sites and amendment 31 on the provision of EV, which actually came up on my time a couple of weeks ago on Politics East, where we were asked about our views along that alongside the hon.

Member sitting opposite me. So I'm really pleased, actually, that this bill does is going back to focusing on planning and some of the amendments brought forward really do make sure that this shows the government has listened, listened to those who build and those who want to see the homes built across our country and are taking positive steps forward. But I will come to EDPs because I know it's been the topic of a number of speeches, and it's a contentious issue. Both of my colleagues on this side of the House and those opposite.

But I can tell you from 20 years of working in the industry, starting my life, fixing people's houses that are filling with sewage and ending my career, working on mega and giga projects around the world, and experiencing planning and approvals and consenting processes in most developed countries. And some of those developing countries as well. But our process is so, so complicated. I referenced the Corps review in my intervention to my hon. Friend behind me, and, you know, the Corps review found and the commissioned by Defra that we have some of the most inefficient, inconsistent and difficult to navigate nature legislation in the country, in the world.

And it is not fit for purpose in driving nature recovery. So those who argue against change, I will just finish and then I will give away. Those who argue against change, argue for the status quo. They argue for the status quo that has led to our country being one of the most nature depleted countries in the world. That is what those who argue against this bill argue for. They argue for more of the same, more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nature destruction and a process that doesn't deliver homes. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He did intervene on me and mentioned the review, and then he mentioned it in his own contribution. He quoted from it, but I'm sure he'd like to acknowledge that. The review specifically warns about a bonfire of red tape and supports targeted of red tape and supports targeted changes. So. So would he agree that amendment 40 aims to support amendment 40 aims to support pragmatic reform, limiting EDPs to where they can make a positive where they can make a positive impact rather than where they'll do harm?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

harm? Mike Reader. I take the point, and I think I think the intention behind amendment 40 is well made, that there are situations, as my hon. Member said, that actually when EDPs won't be needed, there are other ways to deal with it are other ways to deal with it through existing legislation. But in the two lines of this amendment that people have focussed down on that people have focussed down on to have it, such as a finite way of defining this, I think actually does what the review calls the problem, which is adding more complexity to the process, not simplifying it.

And I make no simplifying it. And I make no complaints of starting my career as a civil engineer and working in industry. And I'm really sad to hear that some of my colleagues and some across the House have got this idea that these greedy developers taking all our money and making millions and millions of pounds of profit and never giving back to society. But I'm really interested actually, through this debate, to see the very well funded environmental lobby. And I'm proud to be an environmentalist, to be on the executive committee of Sera, Labour's environmental campaign.

And I am really grateful for the debate I've had with them through this process to inform my thing. You know, there's a there's a there's a stat that my hon. Friend mentioned, the 3% stat, only 3% of planning fails because of nature. Because the truth is you would do that assessment much before the planning process. I'm surprised schemes have got to that point on nature and 3%, because chances are, when you're going through your early viability on a project, you're going to start looking at nature challenges and the complexity and the difficulty of delivering in this country because of the way our legislation is set up and the risk it entails means many of those schemes don't go ahead in the first place.

So I recognise the stat that my hon. Friend has made, but it's kind of a slightly erroneous, because most projects will never got to planning when there are particular nature issues. I think what's really positive though, on this we see so much brought forward by the government nearly 30 additional amendments to this bill. Listening to the concerns of the of both houses, listening to the environmental lobby, listening to those who build the homes we desperately need, and improving the way this will work. And there's great opportunities now to support that going forward.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just end on a slight observation. So through my career, I coined the three C's and I saw the three C's of delivery. And this was kind of whether I was working on the Hudson Tunnel in New York, connecting new Jersey and New York, whether I was working on the Pru reconstruction program, a project that was championed by another former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, is a great example of exporting British expertise to a country and delivering in partnership to deliver nature restoration, new schools and new hospitals, or whether it was airports in places like Keflavik in Iceland or regeneration schemes in Greece, or even the new hospitals programme and prison programmes and other things that we deliver in our great country too.

And those three C's Madam Deputy Speaker are certainty, commerciality and cost. And I think that's what fundamentally comes down to delivering projects everyone recognises. I'm sure cost is critical. If you can't deliver it, you can't, you can't afford it, you can't deliver it. So we've got to get cost right. And at the moment, viability particularly impacts our ability to deliver homes. And this legislation will start to improve that. Commerciality is the kind of one that I like to focus on when I'm talking to industry, because how you deal with apportionment of risk, how you deal with change, how you deal with commercial incentivisation is how you get projects working well, like the Silvertown Tunnel, perhaps in in Newham, and how you get projects that run very badly, like HS2 phase one, where the commerciality of that project is completely, completely wrong.

But the third see I've just picked up on is certainty, because that's what we have to now give the market. After 14 years of failure of a conservative party. That flip flopped on housing policy, revolving door of housing Ministers. You've all heard the tropes. I won't keep going on them. We need certain now in the timescales about how planning works. And this bill is simplifying that, making it clear how the process works and how we go through planning to give certainty to the communities that are impacted that need these homes, the certainty, the legal process, the amendments brought forward by the Lords that the government is, is, is taking forward, improve that certainty of the legal process.

And actually, even yesterday in the committee, we heard evidence on the planning process for delivering community energy, which I'm sure everyone would support more school, small scale community energy. And we were blown away by the complexity of planning, regulation and trying to get solar panels onto a community building or a small scale district heating scheme delivered in the local community that already benefit from it. The scale of complexity of our planning process is such a big challenge and improving certainty of the legal process, but also this bill improves certainty around nature protection.

I do believe that EDP process will help us deliver more homes, will help us also to protect nature. But since coming into this House, Madam Speaker, I have chosen to add a fourth C to my three C's. And that's the C of courage, because what I saw in industry was a government that didn't have courage. That flip flopped on their decisions, and it meant there was chaos. As the shadow Minister has talked about, we now inherit a system that fails to deliver the homes that we desperately need, but that political courage do things that are difficult to find, compromise and drive forward is what this bill represents.

And I'm really proud, proud to give my backing to my government in pushing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this through and making sure we deliver the homes for people right across our country. John Milne.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

John Milne. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There's been great anxiety around possible negative impacts.
15:21
John Milne Portrait John Milne MP (Horsham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

possible negative impacts. On the environment from this legislation. Lords amendment 40 seeks to restore site specific protections for most cases where protections for most cases where they don't involve wider issues such as nutrient neutrality, but has been opposed by government, as we have heard. Can we trust the government has its heart in the right place when it comes to nature versus development? We can pick up a big clue by looking at what has been happening in my constituency of Horsham, West Sussex, for the last four years.

Horsham district has been contending with the complications of water neutrality, often wrongly confused with nutrient neutrality, but something that only applies to my district and a couple of neighbouring areas. It concerns possible damage to a unique wetland habitat on the River Arun, home to a rare species of snail and many birds. On a precautionary basis, Natural England has acquired a halt to any new development that would increase demand on the water supply abstracted at nearby Hardham. I think Natural England was wrong to impose such a draconian limit.

The not one litre more rule prevented small businesses from building even the smallest project, and that seriously damaged the local economy. But neither do I have any confidence in the abrupt lifting of all restrictions, as happened a fortnight ago, Southern water promised to reduce their hard on abstraction licence by a few million litres a day. But that won't make any difference because they never used the whole allowance anyway. It was just a notional figure set many decades ago.

But the immediate crisis for Horsham is how this affects planning and housing development. For the past four years, Horsham has been in the ludicrous position of having to obey two totally contradictory laws. One law says we have to build circa 1000 a year, 1000 houses a year. The other law says we can't build any houses at all if they're going to use extra water. That clearly is quite a challenge. As a result, we have fallen from being an authority that actually exceeded our housing targets, even though there were very stiff to now one of the worst performers in the country with less than one year land supply, it is literally against the law for us to obey the law.

As a result, Horsham District Council has been forced to accept a series of applications that contradict its local plan and make a complete nonsense of the. The strategic plan led development that the government always professes to support. Complications around water neutrality have prevented a new local plan from being passed, and that has prevented major new environmental provisions from coming into force. This legal nonsense has done huge damage to Horsham District and is set to do even more. The sudden lifting lifting of water neutrality today leaves us exposed to wholly unconstrained development, which will do major damage to our environmental ambitions.

It is impossible to make meaningful plans for new schools, clinics and community services to support the enormous targets we're going to be forced to build. When speculative developments keep going through that have none of those attributes. So do I trust the government's heart is in the right place when it comes to environmental protections? No, I do not. Do I believe they are committed to planning and development? No, I do not. This government is content to see holes dug all across our beautiful Horsham countryside, in the hope that it might dig the Chancellor out of her own personal fiscal black hole.

Therefore, I urge the Minister to support amendment 40, but also to consider how this legislation is impacting on my constituency. I invite him to meet with me and with Horsham District Council so we can explain how what he is doing will not just sacrifice our local environment, but will also make the delivery of affordable housing, which is my overall key ambition in Horsham will make it harder and not easier. Thank you John McDonnell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I apologise Madam Deputy Speaker for having to leave the chamber for a period. I had to the chamber for a period. I had to chair a meeting upstairs that had been planned for a number of months. My hon. Friend raised the issue of My hon. Friend raised the issue of number of seats for the four seats. I think we've got to. I want to add a fifth. And that's confidence,
15:26
John McDonnell Portrait Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
-
-
a fifth. And that's confidence, because one of the problems I think we have as a government on this issue, but on a number of others as well, is that we need to inspire confidence that is instilled, if you like, in the general population, that not only are our objectives sound, but that the methods that we were about to use will be effective as well. And there's been a trend in government, and I want to stick to talking about the bill, but I just use this example really, there's been a trend over the last 17 months of policies which have been introduced, which have not maintained the confidence of the general public, and also a number of the confidence of number of members here.

And then we've gone through a process of having destroyed that confidence, then reversing those policies. And yet we've not then as a result, gained the benefit of that. And it just needs a bit more, I think, political nous, as we consider issues by issue and on this field in particular, I have to say I don't think we have taken people with us and what has undermined a bit of confidence in this chamber for people like me is that where members have honestly expressed their views and their concerns from some expertise and moved amendments, they've actually lost the whip.

And then at a later date, within weeks. The government has then adopted those amendments as part of the process of discussion in the. With

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the other chamber. I'm happy to take an intervention if he so wishes. Well. I'm happy to intervene in. Just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm happy to intervene in. Just to make clear, we did not adopt the amendments that were pushed at Report stage. Very crucial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Report stage. Very crucial differences between the package we submitted and those amendments. The Report stage. But the reality is we had to negotiate with reality is we had to negotiate with the other House and introduce amendments to section three, which were in the spirit of the were in the spirit of the amendments that were proposed by my hon. Friend, it's as simple as that. We need to be honest about that and admit the mistakes sometimes that admit the mistakes sometimes that we make.

And that's why I'm worried about this. I'm worried that if we're going to introduce we're going to introduce legislation of this sort, we need to take people with us. My hon. Friend referred to the in a Friend referred to the in a derogatory term to the well funded environmental groups these are groups have been working with in groups have been working with in for 50 years. Nearly. I've never seen a breadth of unanimity across seen a breadth of unanimity across them on a particular issue like this.

And some of them, some of them are. You can't describe them them are. You can't describe them other than mainstream. And what they're asking for on some of these they're asking for on some of these amendments, I think is relatively limited. And so it behoves us as a limited. And so it behoves us as a listening government to go that one step further in terms of listening and see whether compromises can be reached. And I congratulate the government because on the section three, that's what's happened.

Compromises have been reached, but for some reason, here's a people are digging themselves in, particularly over amendment 40. But let me just deal with amendment one with regard to national policy statements. As I said earlier, confidence has to be built when you're dealing with huge developments. The third runway at Heathrow was mentioned by my hon. Friend previously. The proposal to build a third runway in my constituency will never gain the constituency 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. 2 million more people in London will suffer from noise and air pollution, so we're not going to be able to convince them to be honest. However, on more general topics, including major infrastructure projects, the role of the select committees has been critical. Being able to examine in depth how Ministers before them then report to the House where we can have a discussion and debate over those particular reports, and then also, in many instances, the select committee reports and the work that they've done has been of such a quality.

And my hon. Friend in front of me today demonstrated that from his speech, the work that his Select Committee does in the detail that they go into and on various issues, they have influenced government. They have enabled policies to be changed and amended. And they has, as a result of that, built up confidence in the general public. So 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'll see how that works out in practice.

But I think you interfere with that that democratic process of this House at your peril when you're in government, because this is how mistakes get made. With regard to the issue of the edps, I cannot understand why some compromise can't be made. My hon. Friend from Poole has said very, very clearly in his presentation that we're talking about millions of people involved in the organisations that are supporting amendment 40 and asking the government to think again. There's also an argument, and I and I accept it, that edps are a could be applicable and successful on certain issues.

But there's others that there is a real scepticism that they can do, particularly with regard to individual habitats and within individual species. I don't want to get into dormice, to be honest. We've already had that debate, but I, I accept that argument. So therefore I just ask the government to think again and see whether in the discussions with the other House, there is an element of compromise here where maybe we accept that the way this EDP process can operate is in relation to those that are set out in this amendment.

But before we go any further, there's much more discussion and consultation and maybe research as well, because some of the research that I've seen is quite challenging. And then we might be able to move forward, but to try and bash this through now without that element of compromise, I think will undermine what could be a very effective and successful piece of legislation. So just I'm just I suppose I'm appealing for is just a bit of political nous. Do we have to go through another process where we bash something through, realise we've alienated so many people that we then have to reverse it, and then even then, people have lost confidence because we've even done that.

I just I've been involved in so much legislation in this place. It becomes boring after a bit. But, you know, I can, I can remember I can remember the mad Dogs one. Can you remember that one that went through chasing through the house and regretted it within about three months? It was legislation like that. You realise that we're not in the situation here, but but you realise then just how, as a result of the sort of failure to even consider compromise, that you can make bad legislation that you'll subsequently regret.

So that's all I'm asking for. If there is ping pong, which they might well be, because the majorities in the house, the other place were enormous on this particular amendment. So if there is to be ping pong, maybe that will give us the breathing space to get that compromise and it would be worthwhile. The Minister maybe bringing together some of the members of the House that have expressed their concerns, just to have another consultation, discussion and consultation in between that time period, when it goes back to the other place and then maybe comes back here because I think something could be hammered out.

And as a result of that, as I say, we'll maybe avoid mistakes that we've seen over the last 17 months that are so damaged. My own, my own party and my own government. I'll leave it at that. Madam Deputy Chair, maybe I'm. Maybe I'm maybe I'm lost in terms of the argument about appealing for rational and reasonable reasonable government, but I'll continue to pursue that as I have for the last three decades.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Steff Aquarone you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm pleased to speak today in full support of amendments 38 in full support of amendments 38 and 40. I'd also like to take the opportunity to press the Minister on the government's response in the
15:34
Steff Aquarone Portrait Steff Aquarone MP (North Norfolk, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
on the government's response in the other place to the debate on amendment 32, which I'll come to shortly. Firstly, amendment 40, I'm pleased that the Lords altered the uses of the 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 and icon of the Norfolk Broads. As an indicator of the nature emergency, we currently face. Protections for wildlife and biodiversity are crucial, and I hope the government will retain this amendment.

Turning to amendment 38, and I welcome his statement of future intent on this. I'm nevertheless in full support of protecting North Norfolk's chalk streams. I want to thank my local bishop, the Bishop of Norwich, for bringing forward this amendment in the other place and his admirable support for and defence of chalk streams in Norfolk and across the country. He's a great champion for the environment and I thank him for it. Over the summer I myself 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 which we hold dear. As one local councillor told me in North Norfolk, we cherish our chalky's. 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, to restore the river to its natural flow after years of human interference, a 1.2km man made channel was dug to reconnect it to its original path. A new wetlands near Glandford Ford has also been created, generating a vital new habitat for the native crayfish and water vole which can be found there.

But also I heard of the challenges that it faces from construction silt runoff to sewage discharges, allowing a unique and precious natural environment to be treated in this way in recent years is nothing short of scandalous. Sadly, it's not just the Glaven or even Norfolk's chalk streams. Across the country, we've heard shameful tales of these historic habitats being trashed and abused by profiteering water companies without a shred of care for the environment that they are damaging. That's why I believe that the amendment from the other place is a perfectly sensible and much needed addition to this bill.

For those of us who have chalk streams in our local areas, of course we want spatial development strategies to take account of them and ensure their ongoing protection. I'm yet to hear a convincing argument from the government about why this provision is being so strongly opposed. Clearly, the status quo is not working. We can't embark on a new age of development and infrastructure building without making sure that the aspects of our environment which are already being failed, are not damaged beyond saving. There's been a lot of talk in recent months of national pride and the Saint George's Cross.

While I'm proud that the Saint George's Cross flies over 85% of the world's chalk streams, I have only 200 in the world. The majority. They're right here in England. We're the custodians and guardians of a vast majority of this special habitat. We have to take that responsibility seriously. This amendment is an important step towards proving that we will. Now, I've been critical about much of this bill. Almost equal amounts of criticism can be levelled against it because of what it lacks as what it includes.

But today, we can plug one more gap in this bill by keeping this amendment in it. Now, I did mention that I wanted to press in on amendment 32, which I think may have been perhaps unfortunately worded with a slightly pre-determined outcome when it was opposed in the other place. However, in North Norfolk, we do 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.

I know that the government's response in the other place did say that we needed to look at PDR and would return to them. I wonder if I could press the Minister today, perhaps to indicate a few more steps and some timelines about how that might possibly happen? I'm indicating I'm getting indication that he won't, which is a shame. Now to conclude Madam Deputy Speaker I support more homes in North Norfolk. We have 2400 households on our housing waiting list who demand it.

I'm delighted that new residents in Walcot and Bacton will be moving into dozens of new affordable homes in the coming months, supported by our Lib Dem led council, but I want everyone living in North Norfolk in new homes or old, to better cherish our ancient chalk streams for the decades and centuries to come. I urge colleagues across the House today to vote to protect them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ruth Cadbury. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,
15:39
Ruth Cadbury Portrait Ruth Cadbury MP (Brentford and Isleworth, Labour)
-
-
and it's an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Norfolk and also fellow Transport Committee member. And we don't have any chalk streams running through Brentford and Isleworth, but we are beside the Thames, which I know is fed by many chalk streams. So this is we've got a canal, we've got canal, we've got Thames, we've got the River Crane and the Duke of Northumberland River. But I don't think that any of them are chalk and, but and, and the issues around the chalk streams, particularly the sewage going into them in, in Oxfordshire is, does cause us problems in the Thames as it goes past my constituency.

But I digress. Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the many, many changes the government have made by bringing in this bill and the amendments that have made as it has gone through its passage. And the most important thing, as the Member for Northampton South said so eloquently, is that it will bring more homes. And we we're very lucky. In the borough of Hounslow, there's a large housing demand in Hounslow, both from people who desperately need adequate, affordable, good quality housing and cannot get on the housing market, but also for people who can rent or buy privately.

All of the the flats built over the last 20 years are fully occupied, as I know, from from door knocking because West London, with so many growth sectors is is desperately short of housing for people who want to stay with their families and have already been living here, living in the area, but also who want to come to live in West London in order to be able to take the job opportunities of which we have so many. Sadly, there are still some developments that have not yet have planning permission but have not been built, partly because of issues following Grenfell change of design.

Partly. Building regular other building regs changes and changes in the building industry. And I really do hope that those get on stream very quickly. But I actually want to focus in my speech today on Lords Amendment one to clause two. I think I've got that right. And I thank the my hon. Friend, the Minister in his remarks when I intervened at the beginning of this debate. And my hon. Friend assured me that for significant changes and for new planning policy, new national policy statements, the existing process of parliamentary scrutiny, including a role for this chamber and the committees will continue.

And I thank him for that. The changes are where the there are there there are national policy statements that are amended. The government uses the terms non-material. Sorry. Yeah. Where there are changes through a change of policy, a change of legislation, things that have been going through the courts, the implication that this is a quicker light touch role for less material changes. And I think that is what does concern some of us. And, and my right hon.

Friend, the chair of the Liaison Committee has already covered so eloquently because some of these changes could be very, very significant and deserve proper scrutiny. And I'll cover some specific transport examples, as I'm speaking here as chair, Transport Committee today. And I will cover some of those later. So just to be clear, the the the government's changes are giving, giving Parliament and the relevant select committee forewarning. Great. When the government intends to follow the reflective amendment procedure, reflective amendment procedure being the the name for what I would call the reduced procedure.

But the reflective amendment procedure to update an MPs. So we'll get forewarning new measures that the to ensure the government will have to formally announce any review by making a statement in Parliament. Great. Informally updating the Liaison Committee and the relevant select committee when there is a partial review writing to the relevant Select Committee at the commencement of the public consultation period on proposed changes to an MPs and making Ministers available to meet the relevant Select Committee over the course of the consultation period.

So far as is practical, and I think that is those were those last few words are words that I say have concerned those of us on committee corridor. The letter also states that if a select committee publishes a report on proposed NPS changes in this process within the public consultation period, then the government will take those views into account before the updated NPS is laid and will seek to respond to the report around the time of laying the updated NPS wherever feasible.

So those are two phrases that I do hope the Minister will clarify in his summing up remarks. The so far as is practical in terms of the Minister coming to committee and wherever feasible in terms of the government coming. As a coming back on our report. So. The reflective amendment process is expected to apply to changes to NPSs that reflect, as I've just said, legislative decisions, government decisions, publication of government policy or changes to other documents referred to in the NPS.

And I have a question that I would really like to know is who decides? And by what criteria will the the new process be used, and when will the full fat version of the involvement of Parliament be used? But I'm going to pick up a couple some examples from transport specific. And, you know, there are probably others in the field of net zero water and energy. But so. So for transport, net zero has made a fundamental change.

And the UK's commitment to net zero by 2050 as incorporated into legislation, has had a significant impact on a whole range of transport infrastructure. And, you know, but and it's government policy. So therefore it it's therefore it's factored into all of the last revisions of national policy statements. And for instance, net zero, the net zero government policy, and therefore our legal commitments has been adopted since the last airports National policy statement. And one could say that significant capacity increases that have been agreed at airports across the South East would also have a significant impact on any future debate in Parliament and and scrutiny in Parliament of the airports.

NPS. And let's remember, the airports NPS only actually doesn't doesn't mean all airports. It just means runway three at Heathrow. So when that NPS comes back through the parliamentary committee process, will the fact that this, this parliament has adopted net zero policy since then, will the significant capacity increases in other South East airports be considered and consider those changes to be still to be determined under the lesser process or under the existing full process? So there may be other changes, such as in the national network strategy, which also has been impacted by by by net net zero.

So the national network strategy covers the strategic road network and railways and rail freight interchanges. And this is what determined what governance the DCO decision for the Lower Thames Crossing, for example. Funnily enough, national networks actually touches very little rail. Bizarrely, even under the existing process, the TransPennine route upgrade, which is very significant, doesn't meet the threshold to be an NSIP and most rail projects are consented under the Transport and Work Act. Now, HS2 will definitely have been dealt with by the full Phat process, but what if there are going to be changes to the route of HS2 or some major element of HS2 station or so on, which deserves by the people, by the representatives in this chamber deserves really full scrutiny and I, I'm concerned that the the amendment the that by rejecting the Lords amendment one unless we can have some further reassurances from the Minister, I am concerned that there will be in effect, this place will have less ability to scrutinise some.

Very I certainly will. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Member for giving way, and she's making a really important point about the need to use these planning processes to align our transport infrastructure plans and make sure they align with plans and make sure they align with our ambitions around housing developments. And nowhere is this lack of public transport infrastructure more important than infrastructure more important than in rural constituencies like my thriving market town of Shrewsbury. We have 65,000 residents, but no buses. After seven or on a Sunday until now, because thanks to a pilot, we will now have a night bus for the month before Christmas that will run hourly between 8 p.m.

and midnight, giving a boost to our local economy. But does she agree with me that we mustn't wait ten with me that we mustn't wait ten years for such excellent news, and we must plan ahead to align both

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we must plan ahead to align both our transport policies and our development plans? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend is an amazing ambassador for Shrewsbury, and I've learned so much about Shrewsbury since I've got to know her. But since I've got to know her. But also, I mean, it's possibly beyond the scope of today's debate, but the scope of today's debate, but she is absolutely right. And it's and the the the point about and the the the point about aligning transport policies and transport networks with our wider growth and development aspirations is absolutely right. And I know the government is listening and working very hard on those very points.

And the new Towns is a very good point. It's very good to see a transport Minister sitting alongside the Housing and Planning Minister at the end of this debate, in fact, for quite a lot of this debate. So that's very, very, very welcome and a real good sign of the really important need to break down the silos that built up in government over the last 15 years. So I, we really appreciate that. On the committee corridor, in terms of transport committee, we did consider national networks in 2023, so we don't expect to see it again until 2028.

And we shall see which process this will be done for. If indeed this change does go through. And we actually we've actually published our national policy National Policy statement. Sorry on ports. Our view on the national policy statement on ports this morning. So it'll be 2023 before that's due for revision again. And I said airports is the only national policy statement which is specific to a particular development and one that the Transport Committee expects to address in the months ahead.

And of course, we'll be doing that. Following the Chancellor's announcement that the government do wish to pursue the development of runway three. And, you know, I just want to reiterate the point that we we obviously honour the power and role of the government, but I do want to pick up what the Minister said in the debate when this bill was in the House last time round, he he's keen to assure us that the changes, the government changes are not about eroding parliamentary scrutiny, but about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made.

And and they and the government recognises the value that such scrutiny brings to getting important changes. Right. Well, I think our constituents would want assurance that the changes will that any changes that have a disproportionate impact on them are properly scrutinised by this House. And, you know, as I say, I'm glad to see that the the Minister has said that the government will lay a statement in the House, will write to the relevant select committee and make them and make themselves available.

But I do want to pick up on that phrase. As far as is practical. I'm glad that he went on to say that the government recognises the importance of Ministers attending committee to explain the changes. So that's good. And. And, and that he and he also said Parliament retains the ultimate say on over whether a change should be enacted. But Parliament, Madam Deputy Speaker, needs the time the access to Ministers and the assurance, that assurance that significant changes will be able to be properly and fully scrutinised where the change proposed is significant enough that we are able to use the full process, unless it's a relatively minor change.

Thank you,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy. With leave of the House Minister to wind up. Yes. Thank you.
15:54
Matthew Pennycook Portrait Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I'll close the debate. And I thank all honourable and right hon. Members for their and right hon. Members for their contributions in opening the debate. contributions in opening the debate. I set out at some length the reasons the government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place. In the interest of time, I don't intend to repeat or reiterate at any great length the points I made in so doing, but I'll instead focus my remarks on expanding the government's arguments in key respects and addressing any specific points raised in the debate that I didn't cover in my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opening remarks. I'll have even. Extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially so early in his remarks, and I so early in his remarks, and I apologise to him and indeed to the House, for not being here for his opening remarks, which he's just opening remarks, which he's just mentioned. I know that in them he talked a little about government amendments A and B in lieu of Lords Amendment 31. And can I say to him, Amendment 31. And can I say to him, I'm grateful to him for the concession the government is making here and the moves it intends to here and the moves it intends to make.

Can I make just two criticisms, however, of Lords of Government amendments A and B? The Government amendments A and B? The first is very minor, but it refers to the Automated and Electric to the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act of 2028. That should of course be 2018. I know that he will be able to correct that in due course. The more substantive course. The more substantive criticism is around data collection, and he will know that the only substantive difference left between the government's proposal and that which I made at Report stage in this place, the noble Lord Borwick made in the other place is in relation to data collection, so relation to data collection, so that we know that when we seek to improve access for people with disabilities to charging infrastructure, we can keep track of progress.

And if he's not minded to do that in the context of this to do that in the context of this bill, can I ask him to consider other ways in which we can be sure that progress is being made in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

direction that he and I both want to see? I think the right hon. Gentleman, for that intervention, I'll, of course, pick up the drafting error that he has identified and rectify that in response to data. I'm more than happy to take that point away and reflect further on it. I would say to him that with the amendment in lieu that we proposed, there's obviously a process around the regulations that come forward with further opportunities to feed in, further opportunities to feed in, but I'm very much appreciate his recognition that the amendment in lieu goes a long way to addressing lieu goes a long way to addressing the points that he raised.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to pick up a number of the points that have been number of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate, starting with those relating to Lords Amendment one. Let me just, Lords Amendment one. Let me just, again, for the purposes of clarity, lay out the reassurances that I've given to the House, both at Commons Report stage 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, as I the relevant select committee, as I said, will be written to Ministers, will make themselves available to speak at that committee.

I used, wherever practicable in Commons wherever practicable in Commons report, just to account for the usual scheduling challenges that all Ministers face. But I hope it all Ministers face. But I hope it was noted that I withdrew those comments. We would 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. And importantly, as I said, the MPs has amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days.

That's 21 sitting days during which time this House may resolve. The amendment should not be proceeded with. So, as I say, Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change proposed through the reflective route should be enacted in respect of 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 quite closely defined. There are other relevant published government policy a change to legislation, a decision of the court, the intent of the relevant clause, as I said, is not to evade parliamentary scrutiny.

It is 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, as I say, we want to ensure that select committees are engaging and we get regular and timely updates. Of course, as I've made clear, where a select committee returns recommendations during that consultation period, I can happily confirm that they will be taken into account. But we do need this change to make, as we say, reflective amendments to ensure that they can be kept up to date.

When it comes to a full NPS review, airports is a good example of where a full NPS review would have to take place. It would not be allowed to take place through the reflective amendment process. That's not the Secretary of State for Transport's intention. In those circumstances, 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.

So they are two different processes. Turning to chalk streams, Madam Deputy Speaker, Lords Amendment 38, I think we've got to be very clear here what the Amendment Amendment in question is the intent of the amendment in question. It is not a broad blanket statutory protection for chalk streams. It implies very specific requirements in relation to chalk streams on spatial development strategies brought forward by the relevant authorities. And we do think that there are very 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 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 sds's. So we don't think it's the right way to proceed. National policy is the way to proceed in the government's view. And 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 and map and safeguard local wildlife rich habitats and wider ecological networks.

In addition, Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 as a last resort, compensated for, then the planning permission should be refused. These protections go further than just applying to strategic plans. They apply to all types of plan and crucially, to decisions or planning applications. But as I said, the government recognise that we there is a case for explicitly recognising chalk streams in national planning policy.

I can't go further today than the commitment I've given at this Dispatch Box that we will lay out proposals that will be consulted upon to include that explicit recognition, and in doing so, make clear unambiguously our expectations for how plan makers and decision makers should treat chalk streams. And that will be part of the consultation I mentioned in my opening remarks. So for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way. He will know. That. Across the House and certainly. In the other place. preciousness.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

preciousness. Of chalk streams. Of which we. Have a number. In Dorset. Are widely recognised.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He clearly. their. Importance. Given the fact.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That we have most. Of them. In the. UK. Why is it. That the government. Itself, by this juncture.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Itself, by this juncture. Has not brought. Forward an. concerns. Of both houses across party.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of both houses across party. And instead is relying. Upon and I know him to be a serious and sincere man and Minister, but effectively is asking the House to rely upon his goodwill to do something at some point. And we have no idea what it is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir. I think I would say to the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I would say to the hon. Gentleman, I think he is slightly unfair precis of what I said. I take very seriously the commitments take very seriously the commitments I make from this box I've committed in a consultation that will take place before the end of this year, place before the end of this year, to bring forward in proposed changes to national planning policy, an explicit reckon of recognition of chalk streams and how they will be treated, and the full detail will be, as I've said, open to consultation.

I hope that that will reassure him. We could go into a much wider debate about policy versus statute. We think there are very good reasons for, in terms of the planning system, for ensuring things are in policy, where they can be amended, kept up to date if necessary, rather than in statute and chalk streams is a good example of that case. I do want to just mention, because my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk made a compelling case as to many of these other things we're doing to address the chalk stream safeguarding beyond planning policy, we have existing mechanisms to deliver chalk stream conservation, including through our plans to reform the water industry.

With water companies planning to spend over 2 billion over the next five years to deliver targeted actions on chalk streams through biodiversity net gain, which requires like for like compensation or enhancement, where development impacts on these areas and via the new System of environmental outcomes reports, which we intend to introduce, which specifically reference these water bodies. The. I was just going to mention the Member for North West Hampshire.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to Tonbridge Upper Bann and I understand the undertaking he's giving, but of course he will recognise that all course he will recognise that all of this is guidance. Yeah, and it doesn't preclude planning decisions being taken that will impact on being taken that will impact on chalk streams. Given that this is obviously he's set upon his course, which we understand. And I know he which we understand. And I know he appreciates that the amendment was in the spirit of a lack of any other kind of protection for chalk other kind of protection for chalk streams.

Could he just reassure us that in the planning guidance, it's his intention to give Chalk Stream the same kind of protection that the same kind of protection that was put in place, for example, for veteran trees, which is the highest level of planning protection that level of planning protection that only you know. I mean, I think in planning guidance and I say this because I think I brought it in as planning Minister, they are deemed to be irreplaceable, that only in very exceptional circumstances can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very exceptional circumstances can planning be granted that would impinge upon these chalk streams. I think the hon. Gentleman for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, I can't go beyond what I've said out of this box. As I say, we'll put those box. As I say, we'll put those proposals out to full consultation before the end of the year. I will briefly address irreplaceable briefly address irreplaceable habitats in my remarks. In winding up, he mentioned a number of other issues the absorption constraint issues the absorption constraint dilemma, viability, HGT and local plans. I think we should probably, outside of this chamber, sit down and have a coffee, and I could benefit from his insight, but I will certainly give some further thought to the many points he made on National Neighbourhood plans.

Specifically, they're not referenced at all in the bill other than in relation to an amendment we made specifically in connection with Ramsar sites, but I'm more than happy, again, to have a conversation with him more widely about the place of neighbourhood plans in the planning system, in this government's view, just very briefly, on irreplaceable habitats. Madam Deputy Speaker, the National Planning Policy Framework makes 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.

These protections continue to apply. Nothing in the bill bypasses them, and fundamentally an EDP that would lead to irreversible or irreplaceable harm could not be approved by a Secretary of State, as this would fail to secure the overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature. Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to just briefly mention the mitigation hierarchy that was raised by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when they develop an EDP.

This is an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it's generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to obviously protect what is already there than to replace it. The requirements for the Environmental Policies principle 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 NPS when making policy, and will therefore do so when making an EDP. But we do recognise that we need to to provide further reassurance.

And at Third Reading in the other place, as the hon. Gentleman reference, we amended the Bill to allow the government to bring forward regulations setting out how Edp's 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've got to briefly touch on two further issues, Madam Deputy Speaker, which were addressed on 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 neutral 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, was that somehow applying EDPs to species will cause harm. That is not the case. Limiting the environmental impacts that can be covered is unnecessary because the overall improvement test that I've mentioned ensures that an EDP could only be made where it would have an overall positive impact on the environmental feature. And I mentioned district level licensing of great crested newts, an example of where a strategic approach can lead to better outcomes for nature.

And that is the approach we're taking forward in this bill. On one last issue, because I must reference the constituency issue that the right hon. Bridgend from for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale raised, and that is the Eskdalemuir Seismic Array. We recognise and are aware of the interference that onshore wind turbines can cause to seismological monitoring stations and the subsequent subsequent safeguarding concerns that operators of seismological arrays can have. We're working closely with the Ministry of Defence to bring forward a resolution to this issue via the working group that I know he's aware of.

We're 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. And under a new proposed approach, the Ministry of Defence needs to develop an onshore wind proposal to submit specific information, comply with the seismic impact limit and for determining authorities, i.e. decision makers, to be bound not to approve applications if these limits are breached. I hope that provides him with some further reassurance, but I'm again more than happy to engage with him further.

To conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, this government was elected on a promise of change. We're determined to deliver it through the measures introduced by this landmark bill 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 my bill, at the heart of this Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South made the point very compellingly. We need new homes. We need new critical infrastructure. The need for those is across the country is pressing.

This bill needs to receive royal assent as soon as possible. To that end, Madam Deputy Speaker, we've shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the bill in response to compelling arguments made. But we're not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles. I look forward to continuing the constructive conversations with peers alongside Baroness Taylor, to secure agreement across both houses in the near future, and I commend the government's position to the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this House disagrees. With the Lords and their
16:09
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

disagrees. With the Lords and their amendment one, As many as are of that opinion, say aye. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the contrary, no no. The question is as on the Order Paper As many as are of that opinion, say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

aye. I of the contrary. No, no. Fellas, for the ayes Mark Ferguson Taiwo Owatemi Tellers for the noes. Harriet Cross. The The ayes The ayes to The ayes to the The ayes to the right The ayes to the right were The ayes to the right were 254. The ayes to the right were 254.

The The ayes to the right were 254. The noes to the left 135.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right were 254. The noes to the left were 135. So The noes to the left were 135. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it. the ayes have it. The ayes have it. the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. We now come to government amendment A to Lords. Amendment two.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment A to Lords. Amendment two. As on the Order Paper. I call the Minister to move the amendment. Move formally. The question is that amendment A

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment A Lords Amendment two be made? As many as are of that opinion, say many as are of that opinion, say aye. I of the contrary, no, no. The question is, as on the Order Paper, question is, as on the Order Paper, as many as are of that opinion, say aye of the contrary. No, no. Tell us for the I I Taiwo Owatemi Mark Ferguson tellers for the noes.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Please Please do Please do not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Please do not. Please do not. Speak Please do not. Speak this Please do not. Speak this way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Please do not. Speak this way. Your exits are here and here on Your exits are here and here on This This way. This way. This way. DSIT This way. DSIT now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Mr. Davis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis. Mr. Mr. Davis. Mr. David Mr. Davis. Mr. David Davis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. Davis. Mr. David Davis. Order the order! The Ayes to the right 264.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Ayes to the right 264.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noes to the left 125. Control the Ayes to the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Control the Ayes to the right 264. The noes to the left 125. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it. the ayes have it. The ayes have it. the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. We. We now come to the government motion to agree with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government motion to agree with the Lords amendment two, as amended. I call the Minister to move the motion. Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment two, as amended as may amendment two, as amended as may the opinion, say aye. I of the contrary. No, no are. Ayes have it. The ayes have it at home. We now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

come to the motion to disagree with the Lords. Amendment three I call the Minister to move the motion. Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment three as amended. Opinion, say aye.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. The contrary. No, No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. Of the contrary, no efficient. Colleagues Colleagues should be seated. Seated. If you're should be seated. Seated. If you're near a bench, please seated I business will take all night. If colleagues are still trying to hide from me, I can see you completely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, then. The question is, as on the order papers. May that be. Say I of the contrary, no tellers for the ayes of Taiwo Owatemi and Mark Ferguson. of Taiwo Owatemi and Mark Ferguson. Tellers for the noes. Harriet Cross Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The I for the right to a 255.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The I for the right to a 255. The nos to the left 128.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. The ayes to the right 255. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 255. The noes to the left 128. To the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. We now come to the motion to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disagree with the Lords. Amendment motion. Move formally. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 31. As many as that opinion, say aye. I the contrary. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. With the leave of the House. As it. With the leave of the House. As to put a single question on government amendments A and B in lieu of Lords Amendment 31, I call

**** Possible New Speaker ****

lieu of Lords Amendment 31, I call the Minister to move amendments A and B in lieu of the Lords Amendments 31 formally move. Formally. The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the Government Amendment A and B in lieu of Lords Amendment 31 be made, is made that opinion, say aye. I is made that opinion, say aye. I contrary no. The ayes have it. The contrary no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords. Amendment 32 I call the Minister to move the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords. An amendment 32, as amended, say aye.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 32, as amended, say aye. of the contrary. No, No, Claire. Colleagues Colleagues should Colleagues should be seated very quickly, not playing on seated very quickly, not playing on their phones. And, Mr. Mahindra, I'm loathe to call you out. The I'm loathe to call you out. The question is, as on the Order Paper as many say, I the. No Tellers for the ayes Taiwo Owatemi and Mark Ferguson tellers for the noes are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Therefore Therefore I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Therefore I. Therefore I. Will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Therefore I. Will Therefore I. Will get Therefore I. Will get into Therefore I. Will get into the Yes, Yes, yes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the right. 268. The noes to the left 78. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 78. Thank you. the ayes to the right. 268. The Noes to the left 78. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. In an earlier division, six members behaved in the most disorderly fashion and pushed themselves past fashion and pushed themselves past Doorkeepers. Those six members have been identified, and I expect them to come and apologise to me before to come and apologise to me before the evening is out, and to the doorkeepers that they behaved in the most disrespectful way to.

We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords. Amendment 33 I call

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the Lords. Amendment 33 I call the Minister to move the motion. Move formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 33, as many that opinion, say aye. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can Can observe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can observe that Can observe that I'm Can observe that I'm standing. So they need to be seated. So they need to be seated. Wonderful. The question is on the order papers many opinion, say aye. want to know Tellers for the ayes want to know Tellers for the ayes and Mark Ferguson and Taiwo Owatemi Tellers for the noes Rebecca Paul

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The ayes to the right 257. The noes to the left 128.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 128. The Ayes to the right 257. The Noes to the left 128. So the ayes Noes to the left 128. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. The members that caused the earlier fractures have now apologised to fractures have now apologised to the chair and the doorkeepers. So for now, that case is closed. We now come to the motion to disagree

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords. Amendment 37 I call the Minister to move the motion. Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 37, as many people say, I. amendment 37, as many people say, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They They should They should be They should be seated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They should be seated. They should be seated. If they're near a bench, colleagues should be seated. If they are near should be seated. If they are near a bench, the question is on the order. Papers may say I of the order. Papers may say I of the contrary, no, Tellers for the ayes, Stephen Morgan and Gregor Poynton and the Tellers for the noes, Oh oh.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 254. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left 129. The ayes to the right 254. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 254. The nose the left 129. So the ayes have nose the left 129. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it unlocked. We it. The ayes have it unlocked. We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords. Amendment 38 I call the Minister to move the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister to move the motion. Move formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords and their disagrees with the Lords and their amendment 38 as many say, I know amendment 38 as many say, I know Colleagues should be Colleagues should be seated because they can see that I'm on my feet and we can continue with business at a pace. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with business at a pace. The question is, as on the order papers, may say, I no. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. Tell us with the eyes of Stephen Morgan and Gregor Poynton, Tellers for the noes, Ashley Fox and Harriet Cross.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The Ayes to the right 252. The Noes to the left 130.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 130. Five. Yes. The ayes to the right 252. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 252. The nose left 130. So the ayes have it, the ayes have it, and lock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ayes have it, and lock. Nearly there boys. Yes. One more question. We now come to the motion to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now come to the motion to disagree with the Lords. Amendment motion. Move formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment. 39 as may that opinion, amendment. 39 as may that opinion, say aye. the contrary. No permission. Clear the lobby. Colleagues should be seated. Colleagues should be seated. Colleagues should be seated. The question is, as on the order papers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say I. II Of the contrary, no. No. Tellers for the ayes Stephen Morgan and Gregor Poynton tellers for the noes the Harriet Cross and Order, Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 250. The noes to the left 133.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Yvette Cooper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yvette Cooper. The ayes to the right 250. The Noes to the left 133. To the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. Order. Order must now put the Order. Order must now put the question necessary to bring proceedings on the Lords amendments to its conclusion. We now come to the motion to disagree with the the motion to disagree with the Lords Amendment 40. I call the Minister to move the motion formally. The question is that this House disagrees with the Lords in their amendment 40.

As many as I their amendment 40. As many as I say I. High country. No, no. The Be Be seated Be seated if Be seated if they're Be seated if they're near Be seated if they're near a bench. Mr. Reverend, I can see you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seeing me. The question is, as on the Order Paper as say aye. no. No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The eyes are Stephen Morgan and Gregor Poynton tellers for the noes Rebecca Paul and Jerome Mayhew

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. Well, Well, because. Well, because.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. The ayes to the right 244. The nose. The noes to the left 132.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nose. The noes to the left 132. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. The eyes, the right 144. The Noes to the left 132. So the ayes Noes to the left 132. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. Under. Under standing order number Under. Under standing order number 83 f6. I must put a single question to agree all remaining Lords amendments. The question is that this House agrees with the Lords this House agrees with the Lords and their amendments for to 30, 34 to 36, and 41 to 117, as many have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to 36, and 41 to 117, as many have to say. I, I. Of the contrary, no the ayes have it, the ayes have it. Minister have it, the ayes have it. Minister to move a move that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appointed to draw up reasons. I beg to move that the committee be appointed to reasons, to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments. The Matthew Pennycook amendments. The Matthew Pennycook Deirdre Costigan Harpreet Uppal, Sean Woodcock, Kevin McKenna, David Simmonds and Gideon Amos be members of the Committee that Matthew Pennycook Matthew Pennycook be the chair of the Committee, that three

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be the quorum of the Committee, and immediately. The question is that a committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the amendments one, disagreeing to the amendments one, three, 32, 33 and 37 to 40. That Matthew Pennycook Deirdre Costigan, Matthew Pennycook Deirdre Costigan, Harpreet Uppal Sean Woodcock, Kevin McKenna, David Simmonds and Gideon Amos be members of the Committee, Amos be members of the Committee, that Matthew Pennycook be the chair of the Committee, that the three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately, as many say, I. I know in the ayes have it. The ayes have in the ayes have it. The ayes have it. That concludes consideration of the Lords amendments to the the Lords amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. With the leave of the House, I will With the leave of the House, I will bundle the next bit of business together. Motion number three on immigration, motion number four and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

immigration, motion number four and infrastructure planning. Motion number five on contracts. Minister to move. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is, as on the Order Paper, say. I contrary. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Again, with the leave of the house, I'll bundle the next bit of business together. We now come to motion number six. Backbench Business Committee, motion number seven. Culture, Media and Sport Committee, motion number eight justice Committee, motion number nine relating to Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Motion number

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ten relating to science, Innovation and Technology Committee. Jessica Morden I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jessica Morden I beg to move. The question is as on the order papers say. I, I. Of the contrary, no I think the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of the contrary, no I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Ahem. I beg.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg. I beg to move that this house now be adjourned. The question is that this House do now adjourn. And I call David
17:55
None Portrait Adjournment: Legacy of the Troubles
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn. And I call David Davis and legacy of the Troubles David Davis. Thank you. Thank you, Madam
17:55
David Davis Portrait Rt Hon David Davis MP (Goole and Pocklington, Conservative)
-
-
Deputy Speaker, can I start by welcoming the Secretary of State to his place? We all know that Secretary of State don't have to answer adjournment debates. And he and I will, of course, have robust differences of view on this. But no one can gainsay either his courtesy or his commitment to the task. And so I thank him for being here. Now, in the coming weeks, we'll be asked to consider legislation addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland, and we must approach this with the real facts of what happened in Northern Ireland, not the misinformation peddled by the IRA and their sympathisers.

We should also remember the state has a moral obligation to protect brave soldiers who defended our freedoms in the most testing circumstances. This is not simply a question of policy detail, it's a question of principles, the principle that we do not abandon those who acted under our lawful instruction, the principle we do not risk weakening the effectiveness of our armed forces, and the principle we do not bend to the demands of terrorists, or indeed their modern sympathisers. And the government's proposed legislation, I'm afraid, does little to show any willingness to defend those principles to which I'll return shortly.

In the Westminster Hall debate in July, we heard Labour MPs, government supporting MPs argue, and I quote exactly the only thing that grants immunity to former members of the IRA is the Northern Ireland Legacy Act. As it stands, that's the conservative Government Legacy Act. That is plain wrong. The truth is, there is long been a de facto amnesty for crimes committed during the Troubles. Blair's government created the Good Friday Agreement, an agreement for the purpose of achieving peace.

A good aim for the purpose of achieving peace drew a line under the atrocities that had been committed without resolving the complex issues of accountability. Now, the Good Friday Agreement contained a provision for early release of convicted prisoners. 483 terrorists were released from prison early, effectively pardoned 843 of those released have been sentenced to serve life sentences, 143 inevitably, including many killers, at least 16 terrorists were also granted the royal prerogative of mercy, also effectively a pardon, and those granted the royal prerogative of mercy included hardened terrorists guilty of extreme violence.

Gerry Kelly, convicted for the Old Bailey bombings, which killed one person and injured over 200. The three IRA terrorists who murdered SAS Captain Herbert Westmacott. Fergal Toal, who held down his victim's arms while two of the victim's fingers were hacked off with a hammer and chisel. All of these people received the prerogative of mercy. It was also the Blair government authorised the so-called on the run administrative scheme. That's its formal title, the on the run administrative scheme and the letters of comfort that accompanied it, a secret scheme that only came to light properly in 2014, years after terrorists had received their letters.

It was kept secret precisely because it was so spectacularly controversial, and it was done in response to Gerry Adams saying, and I quote, it will be better if there was an invisible process for dealing with on the runs. And the name speaks for itself. These people were on the run from the law. It was an administrative scheme precisely because attempts to legislate for it were dropped when Sinn Fein opposed them, on the grounds it would have protected soldiers too. That was their explicit grounds.

Of course, there was no risk for them in opposing it. They already had their letters, they already had their de facto immunity. Again, the government is coy about the exact numbers, but at least 156 people received an individual letter of comfort, and many others were listed in government communications as not wanted by the authorities. Again, we're talking about vicious murderers. 95 of those letters of comfort or the people in receipt of those letters of comfort were involved in 295 murder investigations, 295 murders, and the letters were clear.

I quote from the first letter of comfort issue, you would not face prosecution for any such offence should you return to the United Kingdom. Letters given to murderers. The government, of course, will retreat to the refuge of legal technicality. They will tell us that these letters are not, strictly speaking, an amnesty, as they left open the possibility of charges for crimes not yet discovered, as does any amnesty. The government is hiding behind legalistic language. These letters absolutely did stop prosecutions for terrorist atrocities in.

Well, the. My hon. Friend on the Front bench mentions the name John Downey. In 2014, John Downey faced prosecution for the Hyde Park bombing. He produces letter of comfort and his trial collapsed. And what was important is what the judge said at the trial. The judge stated that there is, quote, a public interest in holding officials of the state to the promises, no promises they have made in full understanding of what's involved in the bargain. It could not be clearer, and he concludes that it offends the court's sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try.

The defendant shouldn't even have been Their Their families. Their families. You Their families. You know, Their families. You know, the Their families. You know, the wives and children both worried in their own right and worried about about about their their husband or father. And that, I'm afraid, is what the IRA and their sympathisers want. It's one of the reasons the IRA consider the very fact of Loughgall being referred to an inquest as a victory. They see that as a victory that in a fact that allows them another chance to rewrite history, to fit their own bogus claims.

Now that's why in their letter, now been repeated in this chamber a number of times, the letter on Remembrance Day nine four star generals wrote, and I quote, by extending the same protections to those who enforce the law and those who defied it, the bill becomes morally incoherent. It treats those who upheld the peace and those who bombed and murdered as equivalent actors in a shared tragedy. And they go on to highlight the immediate effect of this. Bear in mind this is having an effect right now on our current serving armed forces.

And they said highly trained members of Special forces are already leaving the service. These are the men and women who quietly neutralise threats and protect lives every week. Their loss is significant. It's a direct consequence of legal uncertainty and the erosion of trust. And I can attest to the fact that that is true. These are the reasons, by the way, that our veterans hate this new legislation and view it as grotesquely unfair. It also raises the question of who the government are trying to appease here.

When the government announced the policy, it was not done in this House. It was done on the Friday, but certainly it wasn't done in the House. And it was in a joint statement alongside the Irish Tanaiste, the Irish government is being treated as an independent party to these Troubles and brought into the Reformed Legacy Commission, established by the new bill as a party who is assumed to be acting in good faith. Well, I'm afraid that's not true. There is overwhelming evidence showing the Republic providing sanctuary to IRA terrorists during the Troubles on the run.

As the Kingsmill inquest a terrible tragedy. The Kingsmill inquest confirmed. Terrorists exploited the porous border ruthlessly. The IRA committed acts of terror in the north and used the republic as their shield, a base for planning, for training, for storing weapons and, of course, for sanctuary violence in the North. Sanctuary in the South. Consider the brutal murder of Corporal James Elliot. In 1972. IRA members abducted him at the border, dragged him into the Republic, tortured him for two days for two days, and shot him dead.

They sent his body back across the border, booby trapped with £500 of explosives and six claymores. What did the authorities of the Republic do? They charged two individuals not with murder, but with possessing explosives. When SAS Captain Herbert Westmacott was murdered, the killers escaped jail before they could be sentenced. Where did they flee? Straight across the border. Aided by their comrades. And if you need a third example, look at the Omagh bombing carried out after Good Friday Agreement had been signed.

The bombing that injured more than 200 people and tragically killed 29 innocent civilians, one of whom was pregnant with twins, was both planned and launched from the Republic. Indeed, despite this, and notwithstanding the call from a Belfast High Court judge for an investigation on both sides of the border, the Irish government refused to authorise a separate parallel inquiry. The pattern is unmistakeable and in some cases agencies of the Irish government crossed the line from passive antagonism into active complicity.

Former IRA intelligence officer Kieran Conway has admitted how leading members of the IRA were tipped off before Garda raids by Garda Special Branch. This was more than turning a blind eye. It was agencies of the Irish state actively participating in the subversion of justice. There are countless incidents laid bare before us, each one making this point plain. The most horrible one in my mind is in 1989, two senior Northern Irish policemen, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, were shot dead in an ambush as they crossed back into Northern Ireland.

After almost eight years of detailed investigations, the Smithwick Tribunal determined that the Irish police colluded with the IRA in organising that attack. Between 1973 and 1999, the Republic of Ireland turned down 102 extradition requests, choosing to view murders in the North as political acts. The Irish state is not a neutral bystander. It's not some impartial observer. It was, in practice, a partisan actor, an actor that for more than 30 years has deliberately turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by the IRA.

For years, our armed forces have properly faced scrutiny for their actions during the Troubles, and we have answered that scrutiny with honesty, never to erase the truth but to confront it. Yet we hear nothing of the de facto amnesty given to terrorism murders, nothing of the collusion that allowed that terror to take root, and nothing from the government about preventing the vexatious pursuit of our soldiers who are guilty of nothing but bravely serving their country during the dark days of the Troubles, he said.

All we see are relentless attacks on those soldiers, no doubt. Well, relentless attacks, I mean, introducing doubts about the legitimacy of their actions and of course, the weaponization of the entire legal process. We had a warning of that again in that letter on Remembrance Day, when those generals in The Times spoke of the damaging effects of lawfare and specifically the risk posed by the government's legacy proposals, they said the government's Northern Ireland Troubles Bill and the legal activism surrounding it risk weakening the moral foundations and operational effectiveness of the forces upon which this nation depends.

Presented as a route to justice and closure, the bill achieves neither. This lawfare is a direct threat to national security. The government would do well to heed those warnings. Warnings. Failure to do so brings injustice for those who served our country with honour and threatens the future effectiveness of our armed forces. Every would be enemy of the United Kingdom is watching how we handle this matter, and looking at plans for retaliation in the law courts as a way to avenge their defeat on the battlefield.

As the generals warned in their letter, make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Before I call the Secretary of State, it's a short
18:19
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-
reminder. We should not mention or repeat the names of individuals that are subject to proceedings I call the Secretary of State. He'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be back. Well, thank you very much indeed. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I congratulate the right hon. congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, on having secured this debate and the legacy of the Troubles cast a very long, dark shadow over the lives of so many people in Northern Ireland across people in Northern Ireland across the United Kingdom. And some of those people. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned there are Gentleman has mentioned there are many, many, many others amongst the 3500 or so who lost their lives.

3500 or so who lost their lives. And I would just say it's really important in these debates that we important in these debates that we acknowledge all of those affected. And not to some, even though the some are of course, extremely important. And I would also say to the benches opposite, at some point they will need to acknowledge that they will need to acknowledge that the last government's Legacy Act had no support in Northern Ireland. had no support in Northern Ireland.

And if we are to move legacy on, if we're to have move legacy on, there we're to have move legacy on, there needs to be support for the legislation and that is why the government is seeking to change it. Now, the government, of course, takes the concerns of veterans very seriously. Our commitment to Operation Banner Veterans is unshakeable, and the Troubles bill we'll debate next week will put in place the strongest possible protections for them, none of which none of which were in the last government's legacy.

And now the right hon. Gentleman talked a lot about prosecutions, and he knows full well decisions on prosecutions are taken independently by the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland. And nothing, nothing this government is doing will change that at all. The system will be exactly as it has been in the last 27.5 years since the Good Friday Agreement. I would say just en bloc all the reason there is going to be another inquest is because the conservative attorney general, ten years ago ordered that the inquest take place.

That is the fact. And since nothing has changed in the past 27 years, well, why don't we just look at some facts about prosecutions? Since 2012, there have been 25 decisions to prosecute individuals for trouble related offences. Six of these have resulted in convictions. Three were Republicans, two were loyalists, one military. The soldier in question received a suspended sentence. If you look at the current cases, live cases that are before the courts, six Republican, one loyalist, one former police and one in the military category.

What are the facts? Show the vast majority of prosecutions are against former paramilitaries. And when the right of Munira Wilson suggested at one point in his speech, well, five, five or so prosecutions for all these deaths, he does ignore the very, very, very large number of paramilitaries who were sent to prison during the Troubles, including many of them for murder. And that was a very large number compared to the numbers, as he well knows well on on the subject of immunity, of course.

Noticed the letter that was published in The Times. But when I have said repeatedly that the Legacy Act, the current one, would have granted immunity to terrorists, I hear from a sedentary position. Well, that's not true. Let me just quote let me just quote from what the Legacy Act says, section 19, quote, the ICR must grant a person immunity from prosecution. End of quote, if certain conditions are met that they've asked that they've asked for it, that the information describes conduct which form part of the Troubles and is to the best of the person's knowledge, true, and that the Commission is satisfied that the conduct would have exposed the person to criminal investigations and shouting.

That's not true when it is true. And that is one of the reasons why the Legacy Act had no support in Northern Ireland, because the families of all those who saw their loved ones killed did not want their killers to be granted immunity. And as the right hon. Gentleman well knows.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! The House stands
09:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
-

18:30
09:01
None Portrait Oral questions: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
-

18:30
09:01
18:53
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page