Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Gideon Amos and David Simmonds

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Public Bill Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The Opposition broadly understand the direction of travel that the Minister has set out and the principles underlying it are clearly quite sensible.

Will the Minister give us a degree of assurance, particularly about the process for determining the circumstances in which the authorities that are listed and the circumstances that are listed may be set aside? That is significant because significant infrastructure developments are often close to heritage railway buildings and historic sites where there will be a legitimate expectation from both local authorities and residents that a proper consultation will be undertaken.

We know that, in the past, the effect of that regime has been that in many cases developers, in places such as Royal Quay in my own constituency in Harefield, have chosen to put historic buildings back into use for a new purpose. For example, formerly industrial buildings connected with Victorian transport networks could be used for residential development, rather than simply demolishing and clearing the sites and losing that heritage asset in the process.

It would be helpful to understand how we will ensure, through the regime as set out, that those considerations are fully taken into account. I appreciate that we will debate the green belt later on, but there is significant interaction in the Bill between the different types of regime that apply, and we have already had much debate about the green belt and the grey belt.

I am aware that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government yesterday issued a decision with respect to a site just north of London, and the effect of her determination is that any land on a transport corridor located between, for example, a motorway and a village, even if it is currently in the green belt, will be considered to be grey belt for the purposes of developability. That will clearly have a significant impact in similar situations in locations with a significant heritage element that are close to railways, motorways and other such transport networks that would potentially, from a developer point of view, benefit from swifter development without a consultation being undertaken. However, from the perspective of local residents and the wider community concerned about heritage and land use, they are losing the opportunity to have this.

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

I rise to speak either against the clause or in favour of amendment 7, which is in my name. I am not sure which, but I am sure you can advise me, Ms Jardine. We have significant concerns about the clause, and I will spend a few minutes on them as it is, perhaps, more serious than it first appears. The clause would disapply the need for listed building consent, conservation area consent, scheduled ancient monument consent and notices for works on land of archaeological importance from Transport and Works Act projects.

Our heritage has benefitted from protection under criminal law since Lord Avebury in the Liberal Government brought in the Ancient Monuments Protection Act in 1882. The Act provides that anyone who damages a monument commits an offence punishable by imprisonment

“with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding one month”.

That protection, and much of the wording in that Act, has survived, and the relevant wording remains in the main and principle Acts for listed buildings: the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. My suggestion is that this is not the time to remove such strong statutory protection and criminal sanction from measures to protect ancient monuments and listed buildings.

I appreciate that the Government, in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, say that the approach is similar, but not as wide as the Planning Act 2008 approach, which the Minister has mentioned, and I fully understand the single consenting regime objective. It would be narrower in some ways because, in the proposed Transport and Works Act approach, it could be possible to be more selective about which measures are disapplied. However, the Planning Act 2008 approach is very different, because regulations made under it enshrine those same legal tests that go back decades—and, in some cases, centuries—so that they remain on the statute book and applicants under that Act still must comply with them.

If our country’s heritage is worthy of protection under criminal law, as the Liberal Democrats believe that it is, the same tests should surely be applied under the Transport and Works Act as under other legislation. Those are long-standing tests. In relation to listed buildings, the wording that many in the sector will know is that we must have

“special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest”.

Those words ring down the years. For scheduled ancient monuments, the requirement was to have regard to the “desirability of preserving” the scheduled monument or its setting and, in conservation areas,

“to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.”

Those are familiar words that, as I say, ring through legislation over many years. They should not be removed from the Transport and Works Act process altogether, which this clause would do. These are central principles of heritage protection that have lasted decades, if not centuries. The Government may point out that, as they say in the explanatory notes, section 12(3A) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 remains in place, which provides:

“An application for listed building consent shall, without any direction by the Secretary of State, be referred to the Secretary of State instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority in any case where the consent is required”.

Although that section is referred to, it does not apply here, because consent is not required. All the requirements for consent are disapplied by the clause in this Bill, so there would be no recourse to consent under that route.

Our recommendation is that the important statutory tests be repeated in the legislation for Transport and Works Act projects, just as they are for all other projects, including in regulations made under the Planning Act 2008.

Many heritage organisations share our concerns. The National Trust says:

“We have serious concerns regarding the scope of Clause 37 of the Bill which seeks to disapply existing heritage regimes. This clause enables Transport and Works Act 1992 orders to disapply authorisation”

for listed buildings, and so on. It continues,

“we have strong concerns about the possible disapplication of heritage regimes for transport infrastructure developments. There is a risk that this could enable harm to heritage assets without proper scrutiny and go further than the stated ambition of the Bill.”

The Heritage Alliance has stated:

“Until greater clarity and detail is forthcoming from government, we continue to have significant concerns regarding its potential to cause…unintended harm to heritage assets.”

Even the Government’s own agency, Historic England has said:

“Whilst the clause provides discretionary powers for the Secretary of State on whether to disapply the legislative provisions relating to heritage, as drafted there is a lack of clarity as to how and when this discretion would be applied. This risks resulting in uncertainty and inconsistency, which would undermine the policy intention…In addition, the disapplication of the legislative provisions for heritage does not provide any equivalent safeguards for the protection of heritage in relation to the authorisation and enforcement provisions for listed buildings and scheduled monuments, as exists at present”

in legislation. It goes on:

“The clause, as currently proposed, would therefore result in a weakening of heritage protection.”

It concludes that

“the current wording of Clause 37 may not actually deliver the policy intention of streamlining planning decisions, whilst having the unintended consequence of reducing heritage protection.”

In short, we are very concerned about the removal of such long-standing legal protections for our heritage. In our view, they must be put back on the statute book in one way or another.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I will start where the hon. Member for Barking finished. We know that the planning system has delivered consents for 1.5 million new homes in England, where the development sector has failed to step up. One of the things much debated among political parties is the fact that that seems to suggest that, although there are undoubtedly issues, the planning system has been good at producing the opportunity for those new homes—the challenge has been the inability of the development sector to step up to the plate. That should be the priority to address.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley mentioned the Mayor of London’s recent decision about going into the green belt. That is in the context of a capital city that already has 300,000 unbuilt planning permissions for new homes. The Opposition’s argument is that the priority should not be increasing the stock of unbuilt planning permissions but delivering the homes that our country needs.

[Gideon Amos]

As an illustration of the hon. Gentleman’s point about unbuilt planning permissions, in Somerset there are permissions for 11,000 new homes that have not been built, while the new NPPF requires a 41% increase in the allocation of permissions. There is no record of these pressures having led to an increase in the number of houses actually being built.

[David Simmonds]

If we look at the statistics from the ONS on new household formation and the balance between that and the delivery of new homes, we see that they are reasonably in balance at the moment. We know that many people would like a bigger home or a different type of home, and that is why we have consistently argued that we need to focus on the nature of the homes we are delivering, not just on the units being delivered through the planning system.

Members have consistently made the point about centralisation. The UK is already an exceptionally centralised country: we have fewer democratically elected politicians per head of population than most other developed democracies in the world. Our concern with these measures is that they further reduce the voice of a local resident through their democratic representative about a decision that may be the most significant thing affecting their home or their neighbourhood in their entire life.

By creating a national scheme of delegations, we go beyond a point of saying that all local authorities must ensure, in the delivery of a quasi-judicial process, that they are following the law. We begin to say that this is no longer a delegation: it is compulsory. We are taking away the democratic power of the local authority, under which it delegates those decisions to planning committees and to officers, and we are deciding in Whitehall who will make those decisions.

While I absolutely respect what the Minister is saying about expert planning officers, having served in the last Parliament as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on housing and planning and worked very closely with the RTPI, I think we need to be realistic. In many cases, when the Minister says “expert planning officers”, we are talking about newly minted graduates who do not live in—and have no experience of—the local area. They arrive and undertake a desk-based exercise to make these decisions. They are not highly experienced people with a level of local insight who understand why particular aspects of design, materials, or the nature of a development will have a real impact on a neighbourhood.

There are specific examples; one is applications by elected members themselves. I know from my time as a councillor in Hillingdon that a standard rule to ensure transparency is that any application by an elected councillor must be heard by a committee. If someone wishes to change the windows in their home, or build a loft extension, it has to go through a planning committee, even when those things are covered by permitted development rights. That was to ensure that level of transparency. It is not clear how such issues are dealt with through this proposed scheme of delegation.

Matters of detail can be critical: ensuring the acceptance of a proposed development at a neighbourhood level may often come down to issues like overlooking or how it respects the privacy of neighbours. Does it have tree planting, to screen developments that people are unhappy to see? Will there be mitigations around noise? Those are not trivial matters; they have a huge impact on people’s quality of life. The ability of elected representatives to say, “This decision made, entirely in accordance with planning law, needs to be taken transparently in public so that these representations can be heard” is critical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

rose—

[David Simmonds]

rose—

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Gideon Amos and David Simmonds

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gideon Amos]

I thank the hon. Members who have spoken. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner for reminding me of the discussion about Hinkley, which is 13 miles from my home and is where a lot of my constituents work. In the evidence sessions, much was made of the fish disco. If memory serves, it is an AFD—not a political party in Germany, but an acoustic fish deterrent—which would cost a fair amount, but would stop about 3 million fish being killed every year in the 7-metre diameter cooling tunnels that suck seawater into Hinkley. Many of my constituents are concerned about species loss, habitat loss and the effect on the natural environment.

[David Simmonds]

Sucking fish into a nuclear reactor—what could possibly go wrong? That seems a good example of how, when the details of a project are analysed, there is a requirement for such measures. However, we have also looked at the issue of battery storage in connection with improving grid capacity, and the point has been made that ongoing appraisals of the nature of battery storage ensure that local authorities granting planning consent have fulfilled all their relevant environmental and health and safety duties when doing so.

It seems to me that, if a parliamentary Select Committee had looked at and taken into consideration such projects, it would be valuable for the Secretary of State to be required to respond, rather than being able to set that aside and having to seek to unpick the whole decision later as a result of judicial reviews brought because of the failure of a local authority to carry out its statutory obligations.

[Gideon Amos]

The hon. Gentleman raises another example of a failing that could have been addressed by parliamentary scrutiny.

Hon. Members may be wondering why I am referring to the acoustic fish deterrent, but the fact is that such concerns do matter to people, and people do care about species loss and habitat loss. A simple change in Government policy—for example, a ministerial speech changing Government guidance—could provide a pretext or a basis for a change to a national policy statement without any parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, if the NPS changed, EDF would be allowed to get rid of its acoustic fish deterrent, and there would be no further scrutiny on that basis, but that is not a good way to make policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

I am grateful to be able to get back to the clause. Clause 2(3)(d) of the Bill is clear that any published Government policy can be the basis for a change through this expedited route, which does not involve parliamentary scrutiny. As I explained earlier, court cases have held that a speech can be admitted as Government policy. There is another danger with this approach. It may be said that there will be only occasional changes. Were the clause restricted to where there have been legal judgments or thorough parliamentary debate, those of us on this side of the Committee would be more relaxed about the changes, but it is not; it covers all published Government policy.

One of the other dangers, besides quick changes in Government policy that would help particular projects, is a potential cumulative danger. There could be numerous changes to national policy statements through this minor amendments route, and anyone who thinks that that is unrealistic needs only to look at the cavernous website of the national planning practice guidance, which is voluminous, ever expanding and always changing. One of my concerns is that this process, through gradual attrition and minor changes, will degrade the importance of a national policy statement as a single statement that has been voted on in Parliament, rather than a mass of amendments over many years, on an ever expanding website of guidance.

If the Minister suggests that there is a very high test, clause 2(3)(d) says that the only test is that it is “published Government policy”. That is not a very high test for what can go through this expedited process.

[David Simmonds]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is another risk? Ministers may set out that, in order for a particular project to be expedited, it needs to meet a series of tests. I think again of airport expansion; numerous Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box that a whole set of different tests on air quality and finance would need to be met before it could be approved. If we effectively set aside elements of parliamentary feedback, then Ministers, having announced that such tests would need to be met, could, in effect, retrospectively set aside that requirement in order to enable major infrastructure projects to go ahead, without having satisfied the kind of environmental and community concerns that the hon. Gentleman describes?

Renters' Rights Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Gideon Amos and David Simmonds

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. We aired the issue of credit worthiness and its impact on prospective tenants’ ability to secure a property during earlier deliberations on the Bill, and the Minister has given detailed responses about how the Government are treating this issue. I welcome the fact that the new clause is a probing one. In my view, it is a sensible question to pose, as is the question about the availability of rental insurance to those who may have a poor credit history when they seek to secure a property and undergo checks as part of the affordability process. I hope the Minister will give us an indication of how the issue will be dealt with, but I am confident that the Government have it in their sights and an appropriate solution is in the offing.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I add the support of the Liberal Democrats for the intent of the new clause. Clearly, tenants should not be penalised for having to move frequently, and we are interested in the Minister’s response on the subject.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I suspect that we rehearsed this debate earlier, when the Minister gently rebuffed the point and commended me for trying to secure a degree of impact assessment in advance of the implementation of the measures in the Bill. These new clauses are designed to increase the degree of scrutiny on the Government, in respect of both the Bill’s potential impact in advance, where we are able to consult on that, and its impact on the housing market, on which new clause 2 would require an annual report. A lot of the debates in the Committee’s evidence sessions revolved around the impact on supply of various of the Bill’s measures. We know that those are valid and legitimate concerns, and I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the new clauses.

[Mr Amos]

rose—

Renters' Rights Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Gideon Amos and David Simmonds

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th November 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Amos]

The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner believes that the commitment from the last Government that the decent homes standard will be applied to Ministry of Defence housing still stands, but the Minister says that the decent homes standard will not apply to MOD homes and instead that the MOD has it under review.

[David Simmonds]

The Minister and the previous Government were clear that the decent homes standard has applied to MOD accommodation since 2016, so it is in effect already. That is the evidence the Committee has heard. This debate is therefore not about whether to apply it; it already applies, and has done for some time.

[Mr Amos]

That is not consistent with what Jacob Young said in 2023, as recorded in Hansard, namely that the intention was to extend the decent homes standard to cover Ministry of Defence accommodation. That is the intention of the amendment. That is why I tabled it and why my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire tabled it in the last parliamentary Session. We are hearing that someone in the MOD has it under review. At the moment, that is not a huge reassurance. The whole subject of MOD housing and the need for serving personnel to benefit from it has been omitted.

The Minister mentioned the difficulty of enforcing the decent homes standard because MOD accommodation is behind the wire, but according to him we know that 96% of MOD accommodation would meet the standard. That work has been done, surveys have been carried out and the information is being freely exchanged, so clearly it is not that difficult to inspect the accommodation and understand what standard it meets. All accommodation on MOD bases can be easily accessed with the permission of the officer commanding the base. All sorts of inspections are carried out on MOD bases.

I accept that the Government are supportive of the principle of improving the standard of asylum seeker accommodation, but as with MOD housing, the fact that it is under review is not much of an assurance. I therefore will not withdraw the amendment.

Renters' Rights Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Gideon Amos and David Simmonds

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dame Caroline. The Opposition agree with the Government’s position on amendment 76. It is clear that interest rates set by the Bank of England are not a suitable proxy or measure to be used when setting a reasonable level of rent. If we look at examples in recent history, we see that we have gone through a period of sustained very low interest rates, followed by a rise prompted by the decision of the United States Federal Reserve, which sets the baseline for the rest of the world, to raise interest rates, so they sit at today’s present rate. Of course, inflation throughout that period was very much determined by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the consequent increase in energy costs in particular, and also in basic foodstuffs. All those things do not amount to an effective basket of measures that can be used. What the Minister has said on that point is important.

[Mr Amos]

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the main costs landlords face are not from the price of goods in the shops, but the price of borrowing—the price of the loans with which they have acquired their properties—and, therefore, it is about the logic of the increasing costs to landlords being passed on through a relationship to the base rate of interest?

[David Simmonds]

No, I do not entirely accept that. For a start, we need to recognise that the costs landlords face when looking at purchasing a property will be based on the commercial cost of borrowing, rather than the Bank of England base rate. A landlord who is considering, for example, refurbishment or investment in a property is considering the rising cost of maintenance and servicing the property to the appropriate standard. The costs driving that, and the inflation behind them, are related not to the Bank of England base rate, but to what is going on in the market for those particular goods and services. It is important that we recognise that.

I hope the Government will acknowledge that it is particularly important to recognise that bringing in investment to create more private rented homes depends on the build to rent sector and on investors, including investment funds, that may specifically choose to come to this market on the basis of a reasonable, if modest, rate of return. If the investors considering creating new homes are deterred because the Government are fixing the available return on rent at a low level compared with alternative investments, that will lead to an exodus of investment from the private rented sector, which will be deeply harmful to the needs of renters.

[Mr Amos]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Challenging amount or increase of rent

[David Simmonds]

I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 8, page 11, line 38, leave out from “date” to end of the line and insert—

“of the application under section 14(A1)”.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

One issue that we have debated—I think, once again, it falls to a small p political and philosophical difference—is ensuring the availability of appropriate options for levels of term, in pursuit of our aim of freedom of contract for those to whom these terms would most lawfully and best apply. The purpose of this amendment is to move us on towards achieving that, and I believe that it would.

[Mr Amos]

The intention behind amendment 66, which stands in my name, is to take landlords at their word that they value hugely the opportunity for fixed-term tenancies, which of course are being removed by this Bill. We support the move to longer tenancies—periodic tenancies—in the Bill. Our policy was to extend them to at least three years, and in effect this Bill extends periodic tenancies almost indefinitely. But for the student population, it is a big disadvantage that students can no longer really rent premises or rent accommodation for the 10 months for which they need it. They nearly always face being forced to rent for 12 months, and paying rent over the summer period when they do not want to do so.

We are taking landlords at their word that they really value fixed-term tenancies, and that fixed-term tenancies would unlock investment and support from the landlord sector. The amendment would offer landlords and student tenants the option to enter into a 10-month fixed-term tenancy, which would benefit students in not having to rent for 12 months. MoneySuperMarket.com—other websites are available—has said that according to a survey in 2023, average student rents are £535 a month. Saving each student two months’ rent would save them £1,000, which is well worth it from their point of view. From the landlord’s point of view, if, as we heard in oral evidence, landlords value fixed-term tenancies, the option to have such certainty would be of value to them.

Having looked at the amendment again in the cold light of day, I will be withdrawing it, because I am not sure that the wording—for which I take full and complete responsibility—delivers my proposal as an option; it seems to indicate a requirement for a rolling 10-month notice period. However, I encourage the Committee to consider the benefits to students of reducing their tenancies from 12 to 10 months.

Renters' Rights Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Gideon Amos and David Simmonds

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Amos]

I hear what the Minister says. The case was made forcefully by witnesses in oral evidence that the discretionary grounds for eviction are far too limited and that we need to see further discretion given to the courts. This would not prevent evictions continuing or the courts from making the decisions in accordance with the Bill’s provisions, and it would provide discretion to the courts. I urge the Government to consider widening the categories of discretion for the courts in evictions. I hope that the Government will consider that issue during the passage of the Bill, and I am happy to withdraw the amendment on that basis.

[David Simmonds]

I certainly do not want to imply that there would be any degree of political love-in, but on this matter, I agree with the Minister. It is worth saying for the record that we in the Opposition understand that when the courts are considering this matter, the first issue will be an evidential test: has the necessary threshold for the mandatory ground to be triggered been met? If the court’s opinion is that there is some doubt about that, clearly it has the discretion to act differently because it considers through an evidential test that the threshold has not been met.

In practice, courts deal with this matter with a high degree of discretion, as they do with all other matters that are alike. As Members of Parliament, we will be aware of situations where constituents have been victims of serious, persistent, long-term antisocial behaviour. The grounds outlined are examples where evidence has been accumulated and a court can swiftly make a decision to grant possession in order for the situation to be resolved for the wider benefit of other people affected.

We therefore support the Government’s position that the mandatory grounds should be framed in this way and that moving to make all grounds discretionary would add an element of doubt over and above the evidential test. That would, in turn, enable those who wish to perpetrate long-term antisocial behaviour to get away with it for a longer period of time.

[Mr Amos]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Amos]

The Minister says that the amendment does not include what would happen if the evidence was not provided—clearly, the evidence would not be there and the case would be weakened on that basis. I contest the idea that this is an onerous or burdensome requirement. The statement of truth is an extremely simple document—many on the Committee will have seen them—that can be produced easily and at little expense. I also contest the idea that courts need separate processes to look at statements of truth. They look at statements of truth all day, every day; new processes are not required.

The engagement of a solicitor in the sale of a property is not a particularly onerous requirement on someone selling their property. I assume that the person selling the property would, in any event, have to engage a solicitor, and would therefore need a letter of engagement. It is not an onerous requirement in any shape or form. The Minister said that judges would have less discretion. Again, I contest that, because judges would simply have more evidence in front of them; it would not have any effect on the amount of discretion that judges have. I urge the Minister to continue considering the issue, but I can do the maths, so I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

[David Simmonds]

Again, I agree with the Government on this matter. A lot of residential property transactions are undertaken by licensed conveyancers rather than by solicitors. That is a much more affordable and efficient option, often done on a fixed-fee basis, and that is particularly relevant to smaller landlords. Introducing a requirement that a solicitor must be used would be unduly onerous and would inhibit the number of transactions in the market.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I wish to provide further reassurance to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, because I fear that we are dancing on the head of a pin here. Under the provisions in the Bill, judges will have to consider evidence to justify the use of mandatory grounds 1 and 1A. When I gave evidence to the Committee, I provided examples of the types of evidence that judges may require. It is up to individual judges to ask for that evidence and to make a decision on the basis of what is put in front of them. We trust judges to do that. With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, I do not accept the idea that judges are not looking at evidence and not ensuring that the use of these grounds is properly justified. That is misplaced, so I am glad he has indicated that he will withdraw the amendment.

[Mr Amos]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[David Simmonds]

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 4, page 6, line 14, leave out “1A,”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Amos]

I rise to support the Government on this issue, as Liberal Democrats did in the context of the Renters (Reform) Bill in the previous Parliament. To my mind, introducing a definition of antisocial behaviour that is simply about what is “capable” of causing annoyance and disturbance is tantamount to an authoritarian approach. When the Minister talks about crying babies, I cannot help being reminded that my own crying baby was complained about by the next-door neighbour when I was in rented accommodation. She does not cry so much now—she is 32. The very idea that anything capable of causing annoyance should be regarded as formally antisocial behaviour in law is an extreme concept, and it is an extremely good thing that this new Bill has left such thinking behind. This amendment should not be accepted.

[David Simmonds]

I will withdraw the amendment, because again the numbers are against me. It is important to recognise as we consider it, however, that there are examples—loud music is one—that might not within the definition of “likely” to cause nuisance or annoyance, but potentially would fall within our proposed definition.

I hope that the Minister and the Government will consider this issue. We know that a children’s party—I speak as a guilty individual in this regard—can be a very noisy occasion that generally takes place in the middle of the day for a brief period of time, whereas playing loud music for one’s own freedom of enjoyment all day and night may cause significant issues. Most of us, as Members of Parliament, have seen examples of behaviour that of itself and on an individual, case-by-case basis would not cause a nuisance, but that can cause significant upset to neighbours when repeated. That can range from the environmental impact of an activity such as servicing cars or maintaining vehicles to things such as loud music, and people can do those things at times of the day and night that are antisocial in the context in which the home is located. It is important that the Government give further consideration to the matter, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 9, in schedule 1, page 172, leave out lines 29 to 32.—(Matthew Pennycook.)

This is in consequence of Amendment 5.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.