Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Randall of Uxbridge Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to speak against Amendment 245. In so doing, I emphasise that I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and his superb work as Environment Minister in your Lordships’ House, as well as respect for the other signatories to this amendment. My opposition may be surprising if your Lordships recognise that I am an emeritus professor at the Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology at Oxford University —which is arguably the world’s leading ornithological research institute—as well as being a life member of the RSPB. So why am I against swift boxes? I am absolutely in favour of measures to halt the decline in swifts and in other species I will come to in a moment; my objection to this amendment is that it simply will not work.

The amendment refers to fitting swift bricks on houses or buildings over five metres tall. Let me describe the basis on which I suggest that this will not work. The Edward Grey Institute is home to the longest-running study of swift populations anywhere in the world: it has been running for 78 years. The first thing to say about this long-running study is that the swifts nest in the tower of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, which is not five metres tall but 58 metres tall. I will explain why that is important in a moment. I do not want noble Lords to think that this is my opinion alone. I consulted my colleague, Professor Christopher Perrins, who ran the swift study for many years and is a former director of the Edward Grey Institute. What he points out, and I agree, is that swifts are very specialised aerial feeders and flyers. They are superb flyers, and one consequence of their specialisation for flight is that in order to get into their nest, they need a very long, exposed flight path: like a jumbo jet landing at an airport, they need a long entry point. Equally important, when they leave the nest, they need a very large drop space in order to come out of the nest, drop and start flapping their wings to take off. That is why, when nesting in the tower of the university museum at Oxford, which is 58 metres tall, the swifts prefer to nest at the very top. Even boxes that are 15 or 20 metres from the top are not used by the swifts; only the ones at the very top.

This is a very well-intentioned idea, and I am all in favour of measures that will help reverse the decline in swift populations, but I do not think this is the right one. So what is the cause of the decline in swift populations in this country? We have to look at the fact that it is not just swifts, but other bird species that are aerial insect feeders: house martins, sand martins and swallows are all in steep decline. They all have very different nesting requirements. The swift is the only one that nests in a hole, as the swift brick amendment would suggest, or under eaves.

The real cause of the decline of these bird species is the decline in aerial insect populations. We all know, and it is an oft-repeated fact, that in the good old days when even I was young, if you drove down a country lane at night, your windscreen would be spattered with insect corpses. Now you drive down a country lane at night and your windscreen is completely clear. Yes, we should tackle the problem of declining aerial insectivores —swifts, house martins, sand martins and swallows—and declining insects, but swift boxes are really a bit player in this whole question. Although I support the intention of the amendment, I do not think it would deliver what is claimed and therefore, reluctantly, I do not support it.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I am a great admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I listened to what he said. I remember reading a book probably by one of his predecessors at Oxford, Swifts in a Tower by David Lack, which was a very interesting and useful piece of work. I understand exactly what the noble Lord is saying. There is not a simple answer; there is the matter of insects—it is not just the hirundines and swifts that we are talking about.

Swift bricks are well-intentioned things and, of course, would not be just for swifts. There are some other cavity nesting birds including house sparrows, which may not seem as exciting to people as swifts. They are in decline; I do not see many at all around in Uxbridge now.

As my noble friend Lord Goldsmith said, the Government seem to have done a reverse ferret or had a damascene conversion in reverse, but I am still hoping there may be another one. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has raised the point that we should be looking at all sorts of measures, and there may be an opportunity for the Government to look at higher buildings—perhaps not residential ones, but when new schools or hospitals are being built they could put in swift bricks; they can even be put under the tiles, I believe. I hope that by the time this amendment comes to a Division, if it does, or at Third Reading, there may be some thoughts about how we make this better. I think the Government would genuinely like to do it, but there are various things getting in the way. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has given them a perfect excuse, so I will take him aside and sort him out.

My noble friend Lord Goldsmith and many other noble friends and noble Lords have expressed their desire for something to be done, and this seems like a good way forward. It is something for us to digest.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I do not think anybody in this House does not want to achieve the objectives of this amendment and, indeed, others. We have to be realistic that our populations of native birds, and other flora and fauna, have been dropping for a long time. We, collectively, are partly responsible for this, because our involvement in land use and urbanisation naturally clashes with the requirements of birds such as swifts.

Without attempting to challenge in any way whatever the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, with his experience and background, nevertheless I feel that even if the swift population is not necessarily going to be dramatically affected or have its chances improved by this measure, other birds might find that they would be beneficiaries. I cannot see a downside to the proposal and, on balance, it is worth pursuing the amendment because if it does not affect swifts in some particular areas—their behaviour may obviously vary from one place to another —other birds would benefit.

It is surprising how many people are interested in this. In my own region, the Antrim area, a significant number of people are part of a swift group trying to help the native species recover. We should encourage that. I see no downside to the measure and I support it, albeit we have to accept the fact that no silver bullet will effect any one of these things; there is a combination of things. Their food source, insects, being fewer and farther between is always the biggest challenge for any native animal. But there is enough in this proposal to make it worth while, and I support it. I hope the House will do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, we should make our homes and houses and gardens as supportive to the lives of other species as is feasible, especially where the solutions are so low-cost. I was very happy to add my name to Amendment 140, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.

I refrained from wading into the swift box debate previously, but I consider this amendment to be swift box-plus, and I support it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Krebs about the behaviour of swifts—I have had the joy of filming them in the tower in Oxford. I also know that these boxes are heavily used by other species. Therefore, I support the use of swift bricks, nest boxes and anything that costs virtually nothing.

I recognise that the Government are not keen to change building regulations. I note that adding spaces is free and does not have to be under the name of nature. Perhaps we could change building regulations to add some spaces without specifically saying that it is for nature —for instance, leaving gaps under fences for hedgehog highways. We do not have to commercialise this; we can just say that leaving a gap is a good thing to do.

My Amendment 246, on bird-safe design, is supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and by the Animal Sentience Committee, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB. I have spoken about this in Committee, but I remind noble Lords that an estimated 30 million birds a year are killed by glass windows in the UK, and free or cheap solutions exist which can reduce these collisions by over 90%. Bird-safe design is already legislated for in many other jurisdictions, all based on good research done at major centres in the US and Europe.

I have spoken about bird-safe glass and how its patterned or UV coating can make it visible to birds. I want to make the additional point that these coatings, blinds or louvres, which we see often in glass office blocks, also help with thermal protection, so bird safety can easily be combined with net-zero building requirements, at no extra cost. That is just a little thought: the regulations that deal with one could also deal with the other.

I emphasise that most bird-safe design is free and does not get in the way of house or office building. For example, if a bird hits the office glass and falls into those little ventilation shafts or drainage grilles that you get at the bottom of big glass offices, they fall through the grille if it is too large and then come round in a space that they cannot get out of and can starve to death. Simply mandating that the grille size is smaller than 2 centimetres can stop birds getting stuck in them in the first place. These are the tiny things that can help. They are already specified in guidance in Canada, the US, Singapore and Switzerland. We have no such guidance here.

In Committee and in a helpful meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, the Government said that they were sympathetic to the principles but did not want to change building standards to encompass nature as well as humans. I have changed my amendment to specify an addition to the NPPF instead, as part of its updating. The NPPF already includes things such as swift bricks but does not address bird safety at all. This is a big surprise to people from other countries, where bird-safe building design is much higher profile. We have a duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 not to recklessly kill birds. Given that a simple and cheap change to building design could so dramatically reduce the number of birds being killed by our buildings, adding it to the NPPF and issuing a guidance booklet, as is done in so many other countries, is really necessary.

I very much hope to hear something positive from the Minister tonight. If the Government agree with the principles but have a different way that they would want to implement them then I am all ears, but this is the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I think that whatever their plans are should be in it. I reserve the right to ask the opinion of House next week if I am not satisfied with her answer.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I fully support Amendments 140 and 246.

I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about having a level playing field. I remember organising a round table in No. 10 a few years ago with developers and builders who all said that they would love to do various environmental things but, “We’re not going to do it if somebody else doesn’t”. In that case, it was because it was a bit more expensive. It was very often to do with boilers and so on. The measures that we are talking about here are very low-cost. I can understand Governments being loath to implement this, but when everybody has to do it, everybody will be happy. There are extra things that could be put on, I am sure, and that is going to be a danger, but we must look at this very seriously.