Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in farming and land ownership, as set out in the register.

The reason for retabling Amendment 221 is to question the Minister on her response in Committee. I thoroughly understand that permissions in principle are currently used only in respect of housing developments. She explained that our National Planning Policy Framework strongly supports policies and decisions to promote sustainable development in rural areas and support a prosperous rural economy. She confirmed that local plans and neighbourhood plans should enable the development and diversification of agriculture and other land-based rural businesses.

However, many question the noble Baroness’s rather negative assessment of the amendment’s utility in creating rural economic development. I would be most grateful if she could expand on why it is unnecessary and would not work. My point is that although the National Planning Policy Framework strongly supports policies and decisions to promote sustainable development in rural areas, the planning system is so underresourced that it is not filtering through into local decision-making. It therefore seems highly desirable that the permission in principle route is extended to rural economic development and not just housing.

Let me reiterate the purpose and advantages of permissions in principle in the rural business context. The rural economy is 19% less productive than the national average, and for this gap to be closed, the countryside needs more rural economic development so that it can grow sustainably. Businesses are put off submitting planning applications to grow their businesses because of the risk of putting capital up front with an uncertain outcome. Planning applications are costly, risky and take a lot of time to submit.

The permission in principle route splits a planning application into two stages: the first stage is high level and sets out the principle of the development to be approved by the planners. The second stage, which involves the cost, is to confirm the technical details. Extending the permission in principle to rural economic development reduces the resources required to process applications and creates certainty as to what is required at the technical stage.

In her response in Committee, the Minister agreed to take the issue back and consider with officials how we can strengthen economic development in those rural areas. Perhaps the new discussion of this amendment will encourage her further to grant this request. If more applications were submitted and approved for rural economic development, businesses would grow, creating more employment opportunities and adding more to local rural economies. This sounds like an easy win in the levelling-up process.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, before making a point about the amendment, I acknowledge that my noble friend on the Front Bench rightly feels a little blindsided by it. I apologise to her for that. I am a newbie on the Back Benches and I clearly have much to learn about the process here. In my defence, I shared my plans and the wording of the amendment with my friend the Secretary of State who, I am pleased to say, was excited by much of the contents, although not all of it.

I will be brief because this proposal is relatively simple and, in many respects, speaks for itself. Before I describe it, I will heap praise and thanks on a campaigner who is simply formidable. I am pleased that she is in the Gallery today, probably holding a swift box. Hannah Bourne-Taylor has single-handedly made what for many people appears to be a niche concern into a national campaign—not least by walking naked through London painted as a swift and causing quite a stir, as noble Lords can imagine. She has turned this into a national cause. It is because of her that this amendment exists.

Back in 2002 the British Trust for Ornithology cited the loss of cavity nesting sites as the key factor in the decline of cavity-nesting urban birds. Since then, four species—house martins, starlings, swifts and house sparrows—have been added to the dreaded red list of species of particular concern that, crudely speaking, face extinction. Worst hit among them are house martins. When I was preparing my notes, I was going to say that there has been a 37% decline, but I have since discovered that the figure is even worse at 50%. Swifts too have suffered horrifically; their breeding population declined by 60% between 1995 and 2020. That number continues to sink.

Despite broad agreement, not just in this place or the other place but across the whole country, that the UK—one of the most nature-depleted countries on the planet—requires urgent action or to introduce emergency measures to turn around these trends, the reality is that nothing of any real substance has yet been done. The problem, as noble Lords no doubt know well, is that sites for cavity-nesting creatures such as swifts have simply been lost. It is not because of evil or malign intent but because of repairs, house modernisation and even insulation—something of which we all in this House would like to see much more.

This simple proposal to include swift bricks in new builds is key. It is not just about providing a supporting hand to a species in trouble; it is critical, indeed essential. Modern new-build homes are simply not designed to accommodate nature. Swifts in particular rely completely on cavities, as noble Lords know. Without those, there are no safe or permanent nesting sites for them in Britain. Without manmade cavities in this sense, those birds have no future in this country. It is crazy, and something I learned only recently, that the simple swift brick is not even included in the biodiversity net gains metric.

The amendment that we are here to discuss today could not be much simpler. The swift brick is a zero-maintenance solution. It is just a brick in a wall that can be added to a building as any other brick could. For a refurb or a new build, it is cheap; it costs £30 or thereabouts. We know that they work because, wherever they have been tried and installed, they have worked. Surveys conducted on, for example, the Duchy estates, where swift bricks have been installed in numerous buildings, have resulted in a staggering 96% occupancy rate. Even that number continues to grow.

Obviously, not all the bricks are used by swifts. I have heard that as one of the counterarguments—“What about other creatures using these boxes?”—to which my answer is, “So what?”. Heaven forbid that a house sparrow might decide to use one of these swift boxes. Who would not be filled with joy at the prospect? It just seems to me to be such a non-argument as to almost not merit discussion.

If this amendment is adopted—I really beseech colleagues to support it—and it becomes national policy to ensure installation of these magical, simple, cheap bricks in all new homes, it will not only help counter the tragic loss of cavity-nesting birds but directly help the Government themselves meet what are, let us remember, legally binding targets to halt biodiversity loss by 2030. This measure has unanimous support—not all measures do—from ornithologists, all of whom agree and have gone to great lengths to explain that there is no downside.

By the way, swifts do not eat vegetation; they eat insects. They particularly enjoy mosquitoes and eat mountainous volumes of them, so there is yet another bonus to encouraging swifts in and around our homes. I am told that they also do not leave droppings; there is a reason for that, which I will not go into. I am sure that the expert up in the Gallery will know, but they do not leave droppings underneath their nest boxes. They tidy up—I will tell noble Lords what they do; they eat them, I am afraid, probably to recycle the mineral content. I do not know why, but for whatever reason they remove them. They are very tidy, conscientious and thoughtful creatures.

This amendment is also flexible for developers. Those I have heard from are all supportive. One major housebuilder, Thakeham, has actively appealed for an industry-wide commitment. Very recently the Irish Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss voted to include swift bricks in all new builds. In the Netherlands, swift bricks are already installed as a mitigation measure.

There have been suggestions, and I understand where they have come from, that this should be a voluntary measure. I get that; no one wants excessive bureaucracy and mandates. But I am afraid we know that this has not worked. It is not through lack of caring: who does not want to see swifts flying in and around—maybe not in—their homes and gardens? Who does not feel better, frankly, when they have greater proximity to nature?

In fact, a petition that was initiated by Hannah in the Gallery attracted 110,000 signatures—

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords should not refer to people in the Gallery.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

As I said, I am a newbie on the Back Benches and that is yet another rule I have learned. I will cease referring to the person in the Gallery. But 110,000 signatures were collected by the person in the Gallery. I think that is pretty impressive, given the subject matter we are talking about.

National legislation is necessary because of the urgency of the situation. We have debated the issue over and over again; we understand that this country is in the midst of a biodiversity collapse. National legislation is necessary because nowhere near enough swift boxes have been installed, despite swift bricks being nationally promoted since 2019, including in guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework. That is not to diss the NPPF; it is a valuable piece of literature, but it has been largely ignored in the context of the issue we are discussing here today. A paltry 20,000 boxes have been installed at best—that is an optimistic assessment. District councillors and the vice-chair of the Association of Local Government Ecologists have all been clear that the current situation is not enough. We are simply not seeing take-up of these swift boxes. Of 455 local planning authorities in England, just nine have planning conditions around swift boxes, so the voluntary approach does not work.

We are asking here for something so small, so simple and so inexpensive, but something that will have a gigantic impact on these irreplaceable, iconic creatures. I really encourage the Government to think again about their opposition to a measure that is wildly popular and would do so much good for this country.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

My Lords, it is an honour to conclude today’s debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech—the first since the United Kingdom’s formal exit from the European Union. Before I start, I join noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Morse, on the delivery of excellent maiden speeches, delivered with great passion and commitment.

The UK has embarked on a period of great possibility and has the opportunity to make headway on the hugely important issues that matter, not just to me and to many noble Lords here today, but for the British people as a whole. My noble friend Lord Greenhalgh outlined an ambitious agenda, raising issues such as building and planning reform, the importance of getting people back into work post lockdown and the Government’s plans to revitalise the nation’s transport network to help the UK to build back better, post pandemic. The noble Lord also detailed the reforms we will make to improve the way our natural world and its animals are treated, which says so much about who we are as a nation.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate on these important matters. The range of topics has been wide and there have been many contributions, so I will not be able to respond to every noble Lord—indeed it is not physically possible for me to do so. However, I will do my utmost to respond to the key points that were raised. Should any noble Lords seek further assurances, I shall endeavour to write and copy these responses to the Library.

The case for tackling the environmental crisis and biodiversity loss—experienced both here and globally—is patently clear, as many noble Lords have said. However, I am obliged to take issue with a number of comments, particularly those from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. They said that the Government are doing nothing, there was nothing in the Bill and we are achieving nothing in relation to climate change and biodiversity. The word “nothing” appeared over and over again, and it is simply not true. That is not a serious observation of where we are. Of course, there is no Government in the world who are doing enough. The gap between where we are and where we need to be is huge, but the idea that this Government are doing nothing is absurd.

We were the first country in the world to commit to net zero in law. We are the only country in the world, at this point, to have begun to take steps to legislate to clean up our supply chains, to get rid of deforestation from our supply chains as 80% of the world’s deforestation is caused by commodities. We are the only country in the world to commit to, and actually begin, the process of shifting our land use subsidies away from destruction towards environmental renewal. If every country in the world did that, we would be well on our way to restoring the abundance of the natural world. We have doubled our international climate finance, the only country to have done so in the last couple of years at least. We will be finished with unabated coal by 2025. We are one of the only countries in the world to stop investing in fossil fuels overseas, and our emissions reductions have been faster than any other country in the G20.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, quoted me. Her quote was correct, but it was slightly out of context. I made a comment that we are not doing enough, but the comment was really “we” in a global sense. As I said, the gap between where we are and where we need to be remains huge. All governments need to catch up. That gap is there, and the UK is doing everything it possibly can to encourage the world to join it in closing that gap. She is right to say that President Biden is providing leadership, but the US has an enormous amount of catching up to do. I am not aware of any important, significant step that the US has taken to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss that we have not already taken. Indeed, the US needs to catch up fast with where the United Kingdom is, and most officials in the United States that I have been speaking to in the last few weeks would very readily agree. Yes, we do need leadership; we need leadership all around the world, and I think the UK is providing much of that leadership.

The noble Lords, Lord McNicol and Lord Stunell, both questioned the lack of detail in the Queen’s Speech. My understanding is that the gracious Speech is normally pretty high-level and does not go into the minutiae of how policies are going to be delivered. But what I would say is that the steps outlined in the Speech are just part of a much wider programme. Net zero, for instance, is not covered by the commitments made in the Queen’s Speech. It is affected by them and features throughout many of the areas where we have made significant promises, but net zero goes far beyond the commitments made in the gracious Speech. This is a cross-Whitehall endeavour. Indeed, we are not going to get to net zero without a cross-Whitehall endeavour, and every Minister, every colleague, has a role to play. That is something we are very much aware of. As my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, pointed out, we need global action but not all the change needed will require legislation. We need to operate on every conceivable level.

The Environment Bill is an important part of the Government’s response to the clear scientific case and the growing public demand for a step change in environmental protection and recovery. Acting as one of the key vehicles for delivering the bold vision set out in the 25-year environment plan and the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, the Environment Bill will act as a catalyst for urgent and meaningful action to challenge the environmental crisis we are facing and support the economic recovery from Covid-19. This legislation will deliver radical benefits by setting legally binding targets on biodiversity, air, water quality, resource efficiency, waste reduction and more. Thanks to measures in the Bill, we will have powers to set standards for eco-design and consistency in recycling that will move us towards a more circular economy and lower emissions.

We are setting legally binding targets on levels of fine particulate matter—or PM 2.5—that permeate the air. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, stressed the damage to human health this particulate matter can cause. She identified some measures being taken in Spain, such as diesel engine bans and fossil fuel investments being cut back. Actually, it sounded like much of what she proposes is already being done here in the United Kingdom, but I will look further at the policies she identifies. PM 2.5 poses a real risk to the health of the population, and exposure to high concentrations can cause all kinds of health issues and respiratory conditions. While the World Health Organization guidelines on PM 2.5 are not specifically being legislated on, we are gathering the necessary evidence to set targets that best fit the UK’s particular context. This approach is endorsed by the World Health Organization, and this Government will engage in a fully costed analysis before a target is set.

In answer to the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, this legislation will also fortify the way our precious water resources are managed through the development of new statutory regimes and regulations that reduce the risk of poor farming practices and the impact of storm overflows on water quality. The Storm Overflows Taskforce was set up in September 2020 to bring together government, the industry, regulators and environmental NGOs to accelerate progress in this area. This is just the next step in a journey that we are committed to seeing through. In direct answer to the noble Duke, we are incorporating Philip Dunne’s Bill as a series of amendments to the Environment Bill.

The urgency to act means that while the Bill has been carried over from the previous Session, the work has continued. This Government have been working with experts to develop our legally binding targets. The draft of the environmental principles policy statement was published and is now out for consultation. Consultations have been launched on the deposit return scheme for drinks containers, extended producer responsibility for packaging and consistent recycling collections.

I assure my noble friend Lord Kirkham that we are going hard on both waste and litter. Indeed, they are a central part of the environment Bill that we will shortly be introducing. The Government appointed Dame Glenys Stacey as chair of the Office for Environmental Protection. We are particularly excited about the challenge being set by this independent public body. The OEP will monitor the way public authorities implement environmental law, unencumbered by ministerial or any political agenda.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, the Office for Environmental Protection will work closely alongside our world-leading Committee on Climate Change, and I thank my noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, for the guidance they have provided in this regard.

I am confident that this Bill will deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to create

“the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth”,

even as we navigate economic recovery. It will help establish the UK as world leaders as we head towards COP 26, taking place in Glasgow this year.

I want to address points made by noble Lords on the Environment Bill before I move on to other areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, mentioned the importance of food. She rightly suggested that our climate agenda cannot rest on the shoulders of a single food strategy, and of course it does not. We address the issues that she raised in many different regards. I mentioned earlier our legislation to break the link between commodity production and deforestation —a world first—and that is something around which we are now building an international coalition of countries committed to doing the same.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh questioned whether the shift to ELM would prevent inappropriate development, a point echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. The answer is that the principle of ELM is very clear: it will be the provision of public money purely and simply in return for the delivery of public goods. Yes, the definition of “public goods” remains broad, as it should.

The noble Lord, Lord Curry, asked whether our standards would be damaged through imports of low-quality food. We have been very clear that, in our pursuit of free trade agreements, we will not allow our standards here domestically to be undercut.

The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Benjamin, all in one way or another touched on the tree strategy, woodlands and related issues. The answer is that we must use every tool that we have to deliver the hugely ambitious strategy that we are shortly to release in a few days’ time. That involves talking to other departments; I am lobbying colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, asking them to make available some of the land that it does not use—it is one of the biggest landowners in the country—in order to help us to accelerate our plans towards achieving the objective of 30,000 hectares per year by 2025. A number of noble Lords asked about the funding. We have a fund specifically designed to support the tree programme as well as our peat restoration, and that is the nature for climate fund.

To the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I simply want to say congratulations to his relatives on their rewilding initiatives.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Sandwich, all talked about the importance of global agreements. Clearly, the UK cannot do any of this on its own. We can provide a moral authority through the example that we set, but we can achieve nothing without global targets, agreements and commitments.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, talked about the importance of forests. He is of course right. Again, the UK can make a difference on our own but not a defining one, so we are building an alliance in the run-up to COP 26 where we hope we will be able to deliver a significant forest moment—a moment where people can afford to invest a bit of hope that perhaps we can turn the tide on deforestation, which continues at the rate of 30 football pitches’ worth of forest every single minute.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, talked about the tension between the need to keep costs down and the need to reduce carbon, but in fact that conflict is out of date. As we have seen, the cost of solar has collapsed by 90% since the banking crisis. Even under President Trump, who lavished public money on keeping the coal sector alive, coal use declined faster on his watch than under President Obama. The market is moving rapidly ahead of the politics in many respects, and the costs are coming down.

In the interests of time, I am going to move on to another area of Defra’s agenda, and that is animal welfare. The UK has a record that we can be proud of. The UK banned keeping calves in veal crates in 1990, 16 years before the rest of the EU. We banned keeping sows in close-confinement stalls in 1999, we banned conventional battery cages in 2012 and we banned fur farming and foie gras production in the UK. More recently, we required CCTV in all slaughterhouses and banned the use of wild animals in circuses. Our ivory ban is the strongest in the world. I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, why it has been delayed; the answer is a combination of Covid and, I am afraid, vested interests taking us to court to try to stop us, but we are very nearly there. Only a fortnight ago, as noble Lords will know, we raised the maximum sentence for animal cruelty offences from six months to five years. We have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and our plans will build on this record and go further.

Indeed, I believe the action plan for animal welfare that was launched a couple of days ago represents the biggest shake-up of animal welfare standards for generations, and that is something that I think has been acknowledged by pretty much all the animal welfare organisations—certainly the ones that I have been in contact with. Our exit from the EU allows us to do things that simply were not possible before. The plan contains five key strands of focus: recognising animal sentience, supporting international advocacy and enhancing the welfare of farm animals, companion animals and wild animals. As part of the action plan we are going to crack down on puppy smuggling, unscrupulous breeders and pet theft. We will incentivise farmers to have healthier animals on their farms that are kept to higher welfare standards. We are examining the case for ending the use of cages for poultry and farrowing cages for pigs. We are ending the live export of animals for fattening and slaughter, and we are committed to improving the conditions of animals subjected to lengthy journeys.

We are honouring our commitment to end the keeping of primates as pets. We will stop the import of gruesome hunting trophies from endangered animals. We are banning the import of shark fins and low-welfare produce. We will introduce greater protections for British hares and will end the use of excessively cruel implements such as those appalling glue traps.

Beyond our borders, we want holiday firms to cease advertising entertainments abroad that involve extreme cruelty, such as elephant training, and there is a whole range of other measures. The action plan is not exhaustive. I know that there are welfare issues that concern many noble Lords and the wider public. There is always more that we can do, and this Government are always open to pro-welfare reforms. As my noble friend outlined earlier today, our animal welfare strategy will be implemented in law, initially through a kept animals Bill, which will set an example for the treatment of animals in a domestic context.

I turn to communities issues and say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans that our building safety Bill will catalyse a once-in-a-generation improvement to the building safety regime to ensure that tragedies such as Grenfell never happen again. As well as introducing a new, more stringent regime for higher-risk buildings, the Bill will create clearer accountability and duties for those responsible. We will also give residents a stronger voice in the system. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, asked about timing. I am afraid that I am going to defer to my colleague, who will be in touch with as much information as he can provide. Following expert advice, the Bill takes a risk-based approach, prioritising action on the buildings that face the greatest risk. We are providing direct funding to address unsafe cladding in buildings over 18 metres in height, ensuring that those buildings most at risk will pay nothing. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, mentioned the French company that failed to show at the inquiry. All I can say is that its actions speak for themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Jordan, raised important concerns about other dangers associated with buildings, not least unsafe staircases and the consequent falls, usually of elderly people. That is an issue that I know my colleague will also be considering.

We have brought forward a financing scheme to ensure that leaseholders living in buildings between 11 and 18 metres in height will never face costs of more than £50 per month. Again, many will pay nothing at all. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that this will protect leaseholders from big remediation bills while also respecting taxpayers’ money. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that we are also introducing measures to protect future leaseholders from unreasonable ground rents.

My noble friend Lord Howard raised a number of concerns, citing Berlin, in relation to ground rents and reforms thereof. I know those concerns will have been heard by my colleague, my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, who will take them away. The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill, will, however, remove the inconsistency and ambiguity around the issue that have plagued leaseholders for too long.

We are introducing vital reforms to make our planning system fit for the future. The planning reform Bill will leave behind an antiquated and unengaged system. Contrary to concerns raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Rosser, among others, the Bill will give people a greater role in shaping how their communities will look through their local plans and design codes. It is a localist agenda. It will replace lengthy documents with easy-to-access digital tools and map-based local plans, allowing people to visualise local plans for development and participate in a way fit for the digital age—that was a point made by my noble friend Lord Lansley. It will support every community to produce its own design code, to reflect its own local needs, heritage and identity, putting design and quality at the heart of the planning system.

Throughout these reforms, the Government will prioritise maintaining environmental protections—I say this in response to questions raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Shipley. We will identify opportunities for environmental improvement and simplify and improve methods for assessing environmental impacts.

I turn briefly to Department for Work and Pensions matters. Alongside these important reforms, this Government want everyone to be able to find a job, progress in work and thrive, whoever they are and wherever they live. The Government champion work as the single best route out of poverty and towards financial independence. Pre-pandemic, this approach delivered record levels of employment, supported by a universal credit system which withstood extraordinary challenges, with caseloads doubling in number since March 2020. As we make an economic recovery, through our ambitious £30 billion Plan for Jobs, the Government are creating jobs and supporting people of all ages to move into work or gain the skills that will open up new opportunities.

I recognise that I have not got a chance of answering all the questions that were asked. A very significant number of questions were asked in relation to transport, and I long to be able to answer in more detail about the plans put forward by my colleagues to decarbonise the transport sector—an issue that came up time and again in numerous speeches by noble Lords. Needless to say, the plans are there and my colleague Grant Shapps is particularly enthusiastic about a shift to zero-emission buses and vehicles. I recognise that I will not be able to give any evidence of that in this speech, but I am happy to follow up afterwards.

This is an important gracious Speech, made even more so by its timing. We are at the forefront of the opportunity that the UK’s exit from the EU presents the Government to create a more prosperous, healthy and sustainable future for our people. As a Government, we will continue to put the necessary support in place to ensure that our bold and ambitious vision for the future is achieved and the issues discussed in this debate will play a key part in this process. I thank most sincerely all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate today for their insightful contributions and dedication to progressing these important matters.

Debate adjourned until tomorrow.

Bird Nesting Sites: Protection

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I congratulate the Morans for initiating the debate and for putting the issue on the agenda in the way that they have; I assume these are the Morans in the Gallery. We have heard about the massive decline in bird numbers in this country—14 million in the last 50 years, according to the RSPB. Habitat loss is a big part of that, and netting is increasingly a part of habitat loss. It may not be the biggest part, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is without doubt the crudest demonstration of, at best, our disregard for the natural world, and at worst the ongoing war against nature that we have seen in this country, which has massively reduced our biodiversity and which needs to be addressed, if necessary through legislation?

[John Mc Nally]

I totally agree. This practice sends all the wrong messages about what we are trying to do; it gives everyone the wrong message. We should be sending clear messages that we are environmentalists and are trying to protect our planet. This practice tells people the opposite, and the fact that those employing the practice think that they can get away with it is, again, unacceptable. Others have mentioned what we need to do about that.

As we have heard, there are two open parliamentary petitions concerned with bird nesting. The one that we are discussing is specifically about making the netting of hedgerows to prevent birds from nesting a criminal offence, and I believe that it had attracted more than 350,000 signatures by 2 May. As has been mentioned, articles in The Guardian and reports on the BBC have shown where nets are being used across the UK and have helped to highlight the deep concerns of the public and prominent environmentalists. Important organisations, including the Woodland Trust and the RSPB, have led the objections to the practice. Environmentalists Sir David Attenborough and Chris Packham have spoken out against it, warning of the impact of the widespread use of nets. Only a fool would ignore the warnings from those great people.

In Scotland, section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to obstruct or prevent any bird from using its nest, and section 5 makes it an offence to use a net to kill or take a wild bird. However, provided that the net is put on before nest building commences, no offence is committed under that legislation, which is strange. Under the habitats regulations, it is an offence deliberately or recklessly to obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place of a European protected species or otherwise to deny the animal use of the breeding site or resting place. Similarly, it is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act to damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used by the species protected under schedule 5 to that Act.

Scotland, like other countries, is a nation of animal lovers. We take the welfare of our pets, wild creatures and livestock very seriously. Developers in Scotland are aware that they have a responsibility to preserve important environmental assets such as landscapes and wildlife habitats. They should act responsibly and care for our natural habitats. Given that there is a significant body of European Union legislation on animal welfare, the Scottish Government, through the SNP, will work to ensure that the Government here ensure that the protections that that offers are maintained and that there is no lapse in standards in this arena as the UK leaves the EU.

Calls have been made for those wishing to keep birds away from certain sites to work in harmony with nature, not against it. Why not work around the nesting season and employ someone who knows about wildlife to advise on how people should go about their business while causing the least harm? I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham about how often checks must be done. If nets cannot be avoided, regular checks should be made to ensure that no bird or wild animal has been caught in them.

I have to say that, even with some safeguards in place, my feeling is that this practice is in no way acceptable. If we treasure our precious wildlife at all, netting simply has to stop. If developers will not exercise proper care and diligence, suitable penalties should be applied to them.

Shale Gas Development

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mark Menzies]

I will give way in one moment, but I will just make some more progress on permitted development.

As we know, permitted development rights are most commonly used to simplify and speed up minor planning processes around such issues as small property extensions or the change of use of property. Indeed, I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department for Communities and Local Government, as it was then, at a time when we looked to relax permitted development rights on home extensions and conservatories, and even then the Department had to row back from its original proposals because even with changes on that scale, particularly in urban areas, the impact was there for all to see.

What permitted development rights are not suitable for are new and substantial developments, especially those that have significant and ongoing operational activities associated with them. As the Minister knows, I have extensive knowledge of shale gas development, with the first horizontal wells in the UK within my constituency. These are not small or straightforward developments by any means. They are major industrial sites that require the construction of substantial infrastructure to set up and countless vehicle movements to operate. Indeed, if you will indulge me, Mr Hollobone, I will go through some examples.

I will take the site on Preston New Road first. We have got thousands of tonnes of hardcore piled on top of double-layered polyurethane membranes; big trenches dug around a site that is up to 2 hectares; a 30-metre drilling rig; a 2-metre high perimeter fence; 4.8-metre high bunding and fencing; several cabins that are 3 metres in height; acoustic screening of 5 metres in height; a lighting rig of 9 metres in height; a 2.9-metre high-powered generator; two water tanks that are 3 metres in height; a 10-metre high emergency vent; an access road off a busy main road; and I could go on. Now, who on earth thinks that is equivalent to building a little extension on the side of your bungalow? It is not.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I am very grateful to him for initiating the debate. On that point, he has just described something that is hugely disruptive that we know is hugely unpopular. Does it not strike him as odd that we would subject that enterprise to permitted development, while at the same time making almost impossible the erection of new onshore wind turbines, which has been subjected almost entirely—rightly in my view—to local control? Does that not strike him as being inexplicably inconsistent and give the appearance of a policy that is driven more by ideology than anything else?

[Mark Menzies]

The inconsistencies in this process are there for all to see, and I really appeal to the Government to start approaching this issue in a sensible and consistent manner, whether we are talking about onshore wind or the shale gas sites that we are discussing today.

Anti-Semitism

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Graham Brady]

I condemn all forms of racism, but there is a danger in suggesting that anti-Semitism is somehow different from other forms of racism—it is not. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in condemning all forms equally.

As a contributor to the 2015 all-party inquiry led by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), I was keen to contribute to this debate. Indeed, I am also keen to do so as a Member who represents a significant part of Manchester’s Jewish community.

This important debate is necessarily short because of the previous business, so I must be brief, but it is worth noting that there is a thread that links the business that we dealt with earlier and the business that we are addressing now. The targeted strikes on Saturday were about drawing a clear line to mark the limits of decent human behaviour, ruling out chemical weapons as too horrible to be tolerated, and stopping them from becoming a normal part of a modern arsenal. Similarly, we are discussing in this debate patterns of thought and behaviour that are not new—they have been the cause of terrible crimes and loss of life in the past—but that must not be allowed to become normal in modern Britain.

The Jewish community in Manchester is the oldest and most established minority community in the city, with many Jewish people having fled there from persecution in the 19th or 20th centuries. There are 2,000 to 2,500 Jewish residents in my constituency, but I suspect that there are many more who identify as Jewish but are not particularly observant. We have four synagogues, including the newest Sephardi synagogue in the country, which opened just a year ago. The community is a model of integration, contributing fully to the wider civic and cultural life of the area, but it also maintains its own religious and cultural traditions. There is an excellent record of interfaith co-operation with local Muslim and Christian groups.

Nevertheless, in Manchester, as elsewhere, there has been an insidious growth in the number of anti-Semitic incidents. The CST has been mentioned. It has been collecting data for the past 30 years, but the past two years have seen the largest figures on record, with the number of incidents rising to nearly 1,400 last year, as the Secretary of State said. In some ways, the most worrying thing about that increase is that unlike some previous peaks in anti-Semitism, it has not been driven by wars involving Israel. Rather, it seems that an increasing minority—often on the extreme right or the extreme left of British politics—have come to regard anti-Semitism as in some way normal or acceptable. It is not.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we are seeing a particularly sharp increase in anti-Semitism on university campuses? Does he agree that Jewish and Israeli students should absolutely never be made to feel unwelcome in their learning environments?