Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Perkins]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. The Lords amendment is sensible and well-intentioned. Even if it is rejected, as the Government are minded to do, he makes an important point: we need to get clarity that, in the majority of cases, the approach would be of this narrower type. The Minister has given us some assurance that, in the event we start seeing certain EDPs misused, we will be able to scrutinise that process, so it will be interesting to hear what he has to say in response to my right hon. Friend’s point.

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 urge the Minister to consider proactively providing a list of environmental issues that might be considered suitable for EDPs. That would provide reassurance that this new and powerful tool will be directed only towards diffuse pollution issues such as those set out in amendment 40, where EDPs will have environmental benefits and provide the most value for development.

Amendment 39 would embed a brownfield-first approach in the new SDS. Building on brownfield land can help to revitalise towns and cities, as well as avoiding 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 Chesterfield, the additional factors in developing brownfield land can make development unprofitable, so sites sit undeveloped, as the Robinsons site in my constituency has for more than 20 years now. It would therefore 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 are enormously important to people, and our constituents deserve both: they deserve to breathe clean air, to live in safe and healthy homes, and for their children to be able to play in a local river, free from pollution, but they also deserve to have affordable housing in the communities in which they live. That is the balance that the Government must strike. Although the EDPs introduced by the Bill are an important tool, they are only part of the answer to solving the housing crisis and to improving our natural environment.

This is an important Bill and is much improved. We need to ensure not only that we get it passed as soon as possible but that the work of protecting nature does not begin or end with this Bill and carries on long after it.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I will focus my comments on Lords amendment 38. I have 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 2024-25 chalk stream annual review, 83% of England’s chalk streams are failing to achieve good ecological status, which is disgraceful. That is why Lords amendment 38 is so important to my constituents and to communities across the country who live alongside these extraordinary habitats. There is no reason why we cannot have a thoughtful planning process that protects our precious natural environment and delivers the social and affordable housing that our communities desperately need, with the infrastructure to support it. We have an opportunity to show that development and environmental responsibility are not competing interests, but shared objectives. By embedding these principles in the Bill, we can address the housing crisis while 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 issue when I visited with representatives of the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust this summer, when I was able to test the water quality of the River Itchen. With the help of experts, we saw at 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 welcome the fact that, under Lords amendment 38, local spatial development strategies would vary according to the needs of the particular area, allowing strategies to set different balancing points between local conservation and development needs in different places. It is disappointing that the Government are unwilling to retain the amendment. Will the Minister instead commit to strengthening existing planning mechanisms and ensure that water companies are held to account, so that 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.

People across the country deeply value and treasure our natural environment. We need to deliver the housing and infrastructure that are vital for our communities, but let us not treat our chalk streams, wildlife and habitats as an afterthought.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I 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 are probably worth reiterating. There need be no conflict between house building and nature; the real conflict is between greed and the sort of country we want to build. After 20 years of planning deregulation, time and again we see profiteering trumping public need and the protection of the countryside; cost cutting where communities deserve quality; and low-density, high-price housing while families wait for council homes.

Since we last debated the Bill in this place, Key Cities has published a very useful report, which highlights that in a survey of its members, only 6% cited the planning system as the primary obstacle to house building. 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 that are 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 programme 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 and identify the best sites for new homes—building not grey estates that are shaped by the defeatism of low expectations, but cohesive, thriving communities that are built for life to flourish. That is the solution to the housing crisis and would create a country that puts people and nature before profit.

I welcome the several important amendments tabled by the Government in the other place. In my view, the most important is the stronger overall improvement test for nature recovery, which I campaigned for on Report. It is very good news that these amendments have substantially allayed the concerns of the Office for Environmental Protection. Nevertheless, it is clear that environmental experts and conservationists continue to have some concerns, which the other place has sought to address through Lords amendments 40 and 38 in particular.

Our Labour Government were elected on a clear manifesto promise to reverse the nature crisis in this country, so it is essential we get this right. That is particularly urgent for our endangered species and irreplaceable habitats, including chalk streams such as the Rib, Beane, Ivel and Mimram, which criss-cross North East Hertfordshire and bring joy to so many people’s lives. I genuinely welcome the comments that the Minister has made to allay the concerns of nature experts, and I will dedicate my remaining time to a few short questions that I hope he can address in his wind-up.

First, 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 that they consider would be irreplaceable?

Secondly, can the Minister confirm whether any EDPs are currently under consideration or development by Natural England, or proposed by the Government? If so, will any of them be affected if Lords amendment 40 remained part of the 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 record that the Government recognise the difference between diffuse landscape issues such as nutrient pollution, where strategic scale action is best suited for nature restoration, and protected sites and species that cannot easily be recreated elsewhere?

Fourthly, given the widespread interest in this Bill shown by many of our constituents and by the wider nature sector, will the Minister consider providing further transparency and accountability through a Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 40 to ensure parliamentary approval of EDPs beyond diffuse issues such as air, water and newts?

Fifthly, given that the “Catchment Based Approach” annual review published this autumn found that a third of chalk streams do not have a healthy flow regime, that over-abstraction due to development pressures is one of the main threats facing these crown jewels of our natural heritage and that there are currently no planning policies specifically protecting chalk streams, can the Minister set out in more detail how the Government foresee 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 through the Bill?

Sixthly, will the Minister provide further certainty from the Dispatch Box about 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 that an update of those provisions has been delayed since 2023?

Seventhly, as one reason put forward for Lords amendment 40 is that it would mitigate concerns about the weakening of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, what reassurances can the Minister give my constituents that these iconic animals will not be at risk from widespread licences to kill in EDPs paid for by developers in the absence of Lords amendment 40?

Eighthly, can the Minister confirm whether the Government have assessed the potential impact of proposed biodiversity net gain exemptions on the private finance for nature markets that will be essential for the delivery of EDPs?

Ninthly and finally, can the Minister reassure those who have raised concerns that the current legislation may allow money committed to the natural restoration fund to be redirected to other purposes?

Supporting High Streets

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Britain’s high streets are the beating hearts of our communities. They serve as social hubs, cultural landmarks and vital sources of jobs and prosperity. Yet in my constituency, as in the rest of the country, our high streets are under immense pressure. Local residents are concerned when they see empty shopfronts in the town centre and in our local shopping centre.

As we know, the growth of online shopping has changed the culture of retail, and that trend has only worsened as a result of the pandemic. According to Eastleigh business improvement district, footfall in Eastleigh town centre is 56% below pre-pandemic figures, which shows the depth of the decline that our high street has faced. Cuts to local bus services by Conservative-controlled Hampshire county council have left many residents without bus services. The impact on our high streets has been an afterthought for the county council, and our local businesses are starting to feel it.

It is not just declining footfall hurting our local businesses; there is also the growing threat of retail crime. According to the Office for National Statistics, shoplifting increased by 13% in the year ending June 2025. I recently met a local retailer who had been the victim of shoplifting and lost thousands of pounds-worth of stock. We have all heard stories of staff members at retail shops being subjected to verbal abuse. The Government must tackle that issue head-on and with more urgency. We need a return to proper community policing to deal with that type of crime, which is why I have long campaigned for the reopening of Eastleigh police station.

Pubs—of which there are 32 in my constituency—are perhaps the greatest symbol of our high streets. They are vital social gathering hubs for people to come together and feel part of their community. According to the British Beer and Pub Association, increases in costs after last year’s Budget mean that pubs now face a 9p loss per pint unless they raise prices by 21p. If the Government continue on this path, we risk losing the very pubs that enrich our high streets.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

The Loft bar in Street—a locally owned and run business—contributes so much to the social fabric of the town but has been crippled by business rates and rocketing utility and national insurance costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must support the hospitality sector, through the fundamental reform of business rates, so that it can thrive?

[Liz Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will address shortly.

Independent businesses face an incredibly tough environment. The reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure relief from 75% to 40% effectively leaves small businesses subsidising large chains. We are incredibly lucky to have many thriving independent businesses in Eastleigh, including AC Models, O’Briens, Artisan, the Coffee Cabin and Choices sandwiches. My constituent David, who is the owner of Steam Town Brew Co., told me that higher staffing costs are hitting his business hard. The employer national insurance contributions increase disincentivises businesses from investing in local jobs.

I have also spoken with local hairdressers, including Jemma from Jemma George Hair Artistry and Jane from Elite Salon in Chandler’s Ford, about the challenges they are facing. They are worried about structural flaws in the VAT system for labour-intensive businesses, challenges to the employer model within the industry, and the lingering impact of the covid pandemic. Those small businesses enrich our high streets, but they are having to fight so hard and work incredibly long hours to make themselves viable. We should be celebrating entrepreneurship, not putting more roadblocks in their way.

The previous Government left business rates unreformed, negotiated a disastrous Brexit deal, and oversaw a massive spiral in energy costs, rents and interest rates, all of which piled incredible pressure on high street businesses. So many of the challenges that those businesses are facing have been caused by policy choices made over the past decade. For all of the Reform party’s showboating, we have seen no coherent plan from it. Indeed, its Members have not even bothered to show up to this debate.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for business rates to be replaced with a commercial landowner levy, so that we tax the land value, not the productive investment. That would give struggling high streets the breathing space that they desperately need. It is wrong that households and high streets are being punished while big banks, gambling companies and social media giants get away without paying their fair share. We must shift the tax burden away from small and medium-sized businesses and on to those with the broadest shoulders.

Our communities deserve better than short-term stunts and uncosted Tory headlines. They deserve a long-term plan to revive our high streets, restore pride in our towns and put small businesses at the centre of Britain’s economic recovery.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this incredibly important debate. When I was a little girl, I spent quite a lot of time in hospital, and during one stay I became friends with Paula, the girl in the next bed. Paula and her family had been in a terrible car crash, and her mum had her arm in a sling. One day she was rubbing her arm, and I noticed that on her skin there were several small black numbers. “What are those?” I asked. She explained that as a child she had been in a place called Auschwitz, and the numbers were there so that her mum and dad could find her if they ever became separated. It was a few years later, when I was learning about the Holocaust at school, that I finally understood what those numbers were and what they meant.

Monday will be the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, and it was incredibly humbling to hear the testimony of Holocaust survivor Yisrael Abelesz, now 94 years old, at the Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony yesterday. Hearing the accounts of survivors, including Alfred Garwood, who was a baby in Bergen-Belsen, is crucial to ensure that we learn the lessons of history. I would like to thank the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for everything it does to educate, to speak out against Holocaust denial and distortion, and to challenge prejudice. We should all take inspiration from the survivors of the Holocaust who have bravely shared their stories in the hope that genocide and violations inflicted on defenceless people across the world will never happen again.

I also pay tribute to those who liberated the camps and all those from Eastleigh who have served, including in the Balkans. I was at school with several children from the former Yugoslavia, and I often wonder what became of them. This year we also mark the 30th anniversary of the Bosnian genocide, including the Srebrenica massacre, where 8,372 Muslims were killed. It is difficult to understand what drives a human being to murder another, but for all the victims and survivors of genocide, it is vital that we continue to learn about man’s inhumanity to man and where hatred and othering can lead.

As we reflect on these atrocities, I am deeply proud of my constituency’s long-standing history of providing refuge to those escaping persecution and conflict. During the Spanish civil war, nearly 4,000 Basque children were sheltered in North Stoneham. In the aftermath of the second world war, resettlement camps were built in Velmore and Hiltingbury to house Polish families, and in 2021 Eastleigh became one of the first authorities in England to house Afghan refugees fleeing the Taliban. These acts of compassion and solidarity remind us that, even in the darkest of times, humanity can prevail.

On Holocaust Memorial Day we honour the memory of those who were murdered in the Holocaust, and in subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. We have a responsibility to learn from the past, to speak out and never to forget. Today we pay tribute to all those who died and all those who survived.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Liz Jarvis Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

What Tony said in the ’60s remains true in 2025. I am disappointed that the Bill will not address affordability head-on, but I give it my wholehearted and enthusiastic support in the name of progress.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, which is important to my constituents, and to me personally, as I grew up in rented accommodation.

New clause 1 would limit the maximum rent that landlords can request or receive in advance to no more than two months-worth of the tenancy. Excessive deposits mean that far too many people face exclusion from the housing market altogether. For families on lower incomes, younger tenants or those receiving benefits, that practice can make finding a home almost impossible. Landlords increasingly use methods such requiring rent in advance to exclude those they deem undesirable tenants. According to the charity Shelter, 52% of private landlords refuse to let to tenants receiving housing benefit. By capping rent in advance, the new clause would help to level the playing field and reduce the financial burden on those who are looking for somewhere decent to live but cannot get in the door because they are living pay cheque to pay cheque.

Amendment 1 would ensure that any rent increase is capped at a maximum rate in line with the Bank of England base rate. Unchecked rent increases are driving families in Eastleigh and across the country into financial hardship. In the current system, unscrupulous landlords can impose excessive hikes that effectively force tenants out. One couple in my constituency, who are already working two jobs to provide a home for their young children, were forced out of their rented accommodation when their landlord hiked their rent to an unaffordable level. They had no choice but to move to a smaller property that does not cater as well to their family’s needs. Allowing that practice to continue undermines the stability and security that the Bill seeks to provide. Linking rent increases to the Bank of England base rate is both logical and fair. It would create predictability for tenants, while allowing landlords to adjust rents reasonably in response to economic conditions. Office for National Statistics figures show that private rents in Eastleigh rose by 7.6% in 2024. The amendment would provide more protection for people who are struggling because of the cost of living crisis and cannot pay extremely high rents.

New clause 23 would ensure that landlords approve necessary home adaptations for disabled tenants where a professional home assessment has been carried out. One in three disabled people in private rented properties live in unsuitable accommodation. The failure to secure appropriate housing can be life-limiting and make regular activities such as accessing a bathroom or moving between rooms very difficult. In England, 8.8% of disabled people rely on the private rented sector because of the chronic shortage of social housing, yet private rented properties are rarely accessible or adaptable, and only 6.6% of disabled facilities grants are used to make such homes suitable for disabled renters. Unsuitable housing not only hinders independence, but increases reliance on social care, leads to higher hospital admissions and reduces participation in work and community life. The amendment would ensure that disabled tenants have the autonomy and dignity to live independently in homes suited to their needs.

Finally, I express my support for amendment 10, which would extend protections to students in HMO properties. Students are some of the most vulnerable renters, often dealing with insecure housing, high rents and landlords who fail to maintain properties. This amendment would ensure that landlords of student HMOs are held to the same standards as other landlords, providing greater security and accountability. I also express my support for new clause 6: all young people deserve somewhere safe to call home, and as much support as possible to help them find it.

I welcome this Bill as an opportunity to reset the balance of power in the rental market. My constituents in Eastleigh and renters across the country deserve a rental market that works for them, not against them. I urge Members to support the amendments to which I have spoken, to ensure that the Bill delivers the fair deal that renters have been waiting for.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

I note for the record my interest in this area, because I am a landlord. As the Member of Parliament for Northampton South, I come to the Chamber today to speak strongly in support of the Bill and many of the amendments. The private and social rented sectors account for around a third of all households in my constituency—that is 35,000 people who will directly benefit from this legislation.

My constituents work hard. Northampton South has a higher economic activity rate than the UK average, yet despite working hard, many people still face incredibly high levels of housing insecurity, high rents and low housing standards. Housing remains the No. 1 issue in my inbox, and the Renters’ Rights Bill will help to address the insecurity and unfairness that my constituents have faced when renting. This Government are taking the decisive action that people in Northampton have long asked for.

I will speak to the amendments, but I have to start by addressing section 21. Ending no-fault evictions will protect my constituents. Right now, millions of renters across the country live with that sword hanging over their heads—that they could be forced to leave their home through no fault of their own. That means parents lying awake at night, worried that they will have to move their children mid-term; it means nurses and teachers being forced out of the communities that they work in; and it means families being unable to put roots down or plan for their future because they can be uprooted at any moment.

The numbers impacted by this insecurity are shocking, and it is really positive that the Government have not only recognised this, but included further protections through their amendments to strengthen protection for renters. I am particularly pleased by the amendments that limit rent to be paid in advance. We have heard some shocking stories today—my mouth dropped when I heard some of the rents being asked for in advance in certain parts of the UK. Protecting renters in this way is definitely the right thing to do.

I welcome the provisions that expand the decent homes standard. I have heard from people in my constituency who live in properties plagued by damp, mould and electrical hazards. Having spent nearly 20 years working in the construction industry and having worked with some great private and social landlords, I can say that it is not that difficult for people to maintain and look after the properties that they run. The fact that 21% of private rented homes in this country fail to meet basic standards is simply unacceptable. Landlords who do not properly maintain safe properties are irresponsible and deserve to be held to account, and this legislation will make sure that that happens.

I am particularly pleased that the Bill will recognise the impact on guarantors in the awful situation where a tenant who they support passes away. The new clauses that have been tabled will mean that guarantors are protected, while also providing fair recourse and support for landlords in that awful situation. I encourage Members to support those amendments.

I am encouraged by the provisions relating to the landlord redress scheme, which provides a clear route for tenants to resolve issues without costly court proceedings. However, I have had extensive conversations with students in Northampton and the Northampton Landlords Association, and with a number of my constituents who are part of the HMO action group, and they told me that, while they support the aims of the scheme—and they have been following the stages of the Bill up to Report in detail—they have concerns that the courts system or the justice system just will not be up to scale. I am encouraged by the Minister’s statement that this is being looked at, but it is critical for professional HMO landlords in my constituency, who will need quick resolution to disputes, and measures to deal with antisocial tenants and tenants who negatively impact on their co-habitees.