Gideon Amos MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister know that the same “significant” test under the Environment Act 2021 has not been subject to a single legal challenge?

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to Committee members for responding to our amendment about payment of the restoration levy up front. The Minister raises the objection that it might prevent multi-phase payments. In response to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage made very clear that the intent of our amendment is to ensure that works occur up front, at the early stage, and that funds are there to make that possible. I recognise that, for the Minister, resisting amendments is the order of the day, week, month and all the rest of it, but I did hear him refer to regulation. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we earnestly hope that those regulations will take account of the principles that we have advanced in this amendment—that funds should be provided up front and early enough for mitigation works to happen early in the process. We will be looking carefully: if that occurs, we shall be very pleased to have had raised those issues in this debate. We shall be watching the regulations carefully. Given the assurance that regulations are coming forward, which we hope will achieve the objectives of our amendment, we will not seek to push it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clauses 67 and 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 69 Compensation Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to our amendment 121. Our primary concern is that the Bill’s proposed amendments to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 will, for the first time, introduce permission to kill badgers, in addition to the power to interfere with their setts. Badgers are a much-loved British species of wild animal, and one that humans have not so far managed to make an endangered species. That could change with the Bill’s broadening of the legislation. It is a significant change in the law, from a power to interfere with badger setts to a power to kill badgers—the word in the Bill is “kill”—where there is an “overriding public interest”. In our view, “overriding public interest” is not a clear justification. There are other legal tests: for example, the test of “imperative reasons of overriding public interest” appears in the habitats regulations, and the test of a “compelling case in the public interest” appears in compulsory purchase legislation. The “overriding public interest” does not seem, to us, a clear test; it is in the eye of the beholder and could be justified by any particular development. If the provision is not going to be used to make development quicker, it is difficult to understand why it is needed, since current legislation provides for interference with badger setts. Such interference can, in any event, lead to the death of badgers. I am tempted to say that this is not a black and white issue, but perhaps we cannot say that about badgers—I thought I would get that in before someone else did. Our concern is that the Bill would significantly weaken the legal safeguards. In this country, we have provisions to protect wild animals from being killed, and we Liberal Democrats do not understand why badgers are now to become an exception to that. Laws to prevent killing wild animals are an important part of our legislative system. Making badgers an exception is not something that we are able to support. We also believe that the provision is unnecessary. Under the 1992 Act, a licence can already be obtained to “interfere with any badger sett…for the purpose of any development”. In this context, “interfere” means: “As a registered user you can interfere with badger setts under this licence to carry out development work or stop badgers causing serious damage” by “monitoring setts”, “evicting and excluding badgers” and “destroying setts”. I do not understand why that is not sufficient for a developer, and why they need to go out and kill them. It would seem more challenging and problematic to try to find badgers to shoot them, when all those powers already exist. In all the numerous development projects in which I have been involved—over more years working in planning and development than I care to remember—it has been possible to relocate and remove badgers. None of the applicants I represented, or any of those I listened to as a planning inspector, complained that they were not able to go out and kill badgers, or that they were allowed only to move and interfere with their setts. We therefore do not understand why it is necessary to introduce this power to kill badgers. Paragraph 41 of schedule 6 also contains a provision to allow badgers to be killed to preserve “public health or safety”. Again, it is unclear why that is necessary, given that the current legislation already allows badgers to be killed “for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease”. If that power already exists, why do we need the new power? It seems unnecessary, and a distraction from the main purpose of the paragraph, which is to allow the killing of badgers for the purposes of development. For all those reasons, we do not feel that it is justified to introduce the power to kill badgers, which are, as the Minister himself said, a much loved British species.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 66, page 96, line 20, at end insert— “(1A) The regulations must require Natural England to ensure that use of money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy is not unreasonably delayed.” The amendment would ensure that funding would be available for upfront nature restoration and mitigation on development sites.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to continue to serve the Committee with you back in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. The mitigation hierarchy is incredibly important. In fact, the Liberal Democrats were aiming to put down an amendment very similar to this one, but the hon. Member for North Herefordshire beat us to it—congratulations to her on that. Clearly, the mitigation hierarchy is an important feature of the playing system, which has endured for a long time. One of the principal concerns with EDPs is that they will not ensure that oversight measures are taken first and foremost. The principle of “first do no harm” must guide everything we do in protecting the environment and in dealing with development that may affect the environment. We will support the amendment.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As always, I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. I would argue that it is possible to carry out the actions that he described without unreasonable delay, which is what our amendment seeks. The Government cannot have it both ways: on the one hand, it is ambiguous; on the other hand, it would definitely mean that timeliness is to the detriment of the quality of the actions. I do not think those two arguments stack up. I believe in the amendment as strongly as I did a few minutes ago. However, in the interest of the progress of the Committee, and based on my understanding of maths, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will be reasonably brief—the Committee will be pleased to know that I have been striking sections out of my speaking notes as the Committee days wear on. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Louder! Amendment 9 would ensure that funding was available up front from the nature restoration levy and to provide mitigation on development sites. It is important, in terms of the effectiveness of any mitigation provided, that it happens up front, and not later on or after works have happened. In terms of nature and biodiversity, the UK is one of the most depleted countries in the world. One in six species is threatened with extinction. In partnership with our pump-prime funding amendment—amendment 6 to clause 67—the amendment seeks to ensure that the levy, upon receipt by Natural England, is used as soon as possible, in order that the nature recovery fund can go some way towards ensuring that overall species abundance is increasing, rather than decreasing, by 2030. It would not be legitimate for money to sit unused in Natural England’s coffers when there is an ongoing crisis and action urgently needs to be taken. Amendment 10 is consequential on new clause 18. It would ensure that nature restoration levy money is reserved for future expenditure—it “may” be reserved, but again that is very uncertain. That funding needs to be there and it needs to be protected. In line with our amendment to ensure that the nature restoration fund levy is not unreasonably delayed, amendment 10 would ensure that the money is put to use as soon as is reasonably practicable and is reserved for planned future expenditure.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for the Government’s response to the proposals. I can only restate some of the concerns we have about potential conflicts of interest in relation to Natural England administering, collecting and spending the money, and judging its own effectiveness. The fact that the Secretary of State is the only arbiter above it would not necessarily bring confidence to those who are most concerned about the natural environment. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire reminded us of a cast list of former Secretaries of State for the Environment. I am a little older, so I remember another one: Nicholas Ridley. Or let us think about the future: perhaps there could be a Secretary of State from the Reform party—goodness me, wouldn’t that be a prospect? What reassurance would that provide on regulating and overseeing the effectiveness of the nature restoration fund, the levy, the spending of the levy and the actions of Natural England? For such a broad range of significant Government functions, and the significant spending of public money, it makes eminent sense to have an oversight body. It might add somewhat to the cost, but, in our opinion, that cost should be borne by developers. It is a worthwhile amount to be spent for a small regulatory function. We wish to press that point further, because it is an important way of strengthening the system, making it more robust and giving it more integrity in delivering its outcomes.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that interference with badgers is sometimes necessary for development or perhaps for environmental measures, but can the Minister explain why the existing powers are not sufficient? These are powers that enable interference with a badger sett, which may indeed mean the badgers are killed, and the sett to be destroyed. All those powers are there. Why is it necessary to have the additional power to kill them?

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 66, page 97, line 13, leave out “separately” and insert “to the body established under section [ Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy ]”. This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on the use made of nature restoration levy money.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I note in particular the Minister’s concern about proceeding with undue haste—I am sure that that is the furthest thing from the mind of this Committee. Without wishing to proceed with undue haste, I suggest that he is imputing to our amendment words that it does not contain. He is suggesting that it would deprioritise effectiveness and prioritise timeliness over the measures taken being effective. However, our amendment actually says “not unreasonably delayed”, which is well-known legislative wording. It does not prevent things being done well and, if not with undue haste, in a timely fashion. We believe that the amendment is eminently sensible. I believe in it as strongly as I did when I stood up a few minutes ago.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to respond to our concerns, but, as I said, such a concentration of functions so closely related to each other—establishing the EDP, collecting and spending the funds, and monitoring its effectiveness—in what is a single system surely requires some separate oversight, rather than relying on future Secretaries of State. We will press the amendment to a vote. Question put , That the amendment be made.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will spend a few moments on these amendments, because they concern the important oversight body, and I will speak to them together, so Committee members need not fear—I do not have five separate speeches. I know how disappointed they will be. The amendments are about an independent oversight body for Natural England. As the Bill stands, the effectiveness of the environmental outcomes will be determined solely by the effectiveness of Natural England in administering its own EDPs and its nature restoration levy. That is a large amount of power and responsibility, and it requires a system of monitoring and evaluation. A single public body should not be able to evaluate its own actions without independent scrutiny. As drafted, the Bill would ensure that Natural England would be the regulator, fundholder, implementer and monitor of the nature restoration fund without any independent oversight. This is a very important part of the Bill. The lack of external oversight risks weakening the accountability of the system. Independent oversight is essential to ensure impartiality, manage conflicts of interest and guarantee effective use of the funds. Without criticising the hard-working staff at Natural England, there are already serious concerns about the organisation’s ability to meet its obligations. It is under-resourced and overstretched, with its budget declining 72% in recent years. It is struggling to fulfil its statutory duties. Some 78% of sites of special scientific interest have not been monitored in the last six years. In the biodiversity net gain credit scheme administered by Natural England, the total income from statutory credits was £247,000 last year, while the projected administrative costs were £300,000, surpassing the income and resulting in no actual conservation from the scheme. Frequently, other Government levies, such as the water restoration fund and the community infrastructure levy, have been historically underspent and badly managed. Lessons from those past failures must be incorporated into the new levy system. Natural England’s district-level licensing for great crested newts has also faced delays and unclear outcomes. The Government have already committed to an extra £14 million to Natural England—we Liberal Democrats thoroughly welcome that—to increase capacity to develop an initial tranche of priority EDPs. However, this is question not just of funding and resourcing, but of using the funds effectively. Ensuring that the money is spent well, in the words of the Minister a few minutes ago, is incredibly important. If he is committed to that, there should be independent oversight so that the public scrutiny and transparent reporting mechanisms essential to building trust in the system are in place. I emphasise that this is not a criticism of Natural England. It is a way to make sure that Natural England is resourced and empowered properly to fulfil the major and significant responsibilities given to it in part 3 of the Bill.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Both are possible.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is being characteristically generous with his time; I wish we had more. There are genuine concerns about the timetabling of the measures. I invite him to confirm that the Government are considering how to tackle the issue of ensuring that measures are taken in a timely fashion. That appears to be what he is saying, and I am encouraging him.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of amendment 13, which would require that the conservation measures undertaken within environmental delivery plans should significantly protect environmental features. It is one of a number of similar amendments that I will not speak to at length. Together, they would strengthen the thrust and strength of environmental delivery plans. I say gently to the Government that if none of these strengthening opportunities is taken, we will end up with a Bill that provides environmental delivery plans that do not have the confidence of environmental bodies in this country or those who represent our environment. I hope that the Minister will consider that as we debate these amendments, which may seem to concern minor matters of wording but could really strengthen the structure of EDPs. We look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about amendment 18, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. We are concerned about irreplaceable habitats, and we look for some reassurance on that topic before considering how we respond to that amendment.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I very much sympathise with the amendment. Indeed, I have air quality management areas in my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, including two that breach the lawful limits of air pollution. We desperately need the bypass for Thornfalcon and Henlade, which would solve that particular issue. In brief, I feel that the approach in amendment 93 is not quite right, because it would be better directed at local plans. As I understand it, spatial development strategies are not site-specific or area-specific in their proposals. We do not feel that the amendment is quite the right approach, but we are very sympathetic to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire’s motivation for tabling it.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We wish to press the amendment to a vote, because we believe in the right to be heard and, in general, we are highly concerned about the potential erosion of the democratic planning system by the Bill. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but I remain concerned. The Bill states: “A spatial development strategy may specify or describe infrastructure the provision of which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance”. Particularly if the Government will not accept the amendment discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, on the provision of infrastructure, surely spatial development strategies must specify or describe that sort of infrastructure.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 3 Section 47: minor and consequential amendments Amendment made: 48, in schedule 3, page 146, line 4, at end insert— “Habitats Regulations 11A (1) Regulation 111 of the Habitats Regulations (interpretation of Chapter 8) is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph (1), in the definition of ‘land use plan’— (a) in paragraph (a), for ‘(the spatial development strategy)’ substitute ‘(the spatial development strategy for London)’; (b) after paragraph (a) insert— ‘(aa) a spatial development strategy as provided for in Part 1A of the 2004 Planning Act; (ab) a spatial development strategy of a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, not being a spatial development strategy within paragraph (aa); (ac) a spatial development strategy of a combined county authority established under section 9 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, not being a spatial development strategy within paragraph (aa);’. (3) In paragraph (1), in the definition of ‘plan-making authority’— (a) in paragraph (a), after ‘replacement’ insert ‘of the spatial development strategy for London’; (b) after paragraph (a) insert— ‘(aa) a strategic planning authority (within the meaning given in section 12A of the 2004 Planning Act); (ab) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 when exercising powers in relation to a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ab) of the definition of “land use plan”; (ac) a combined county authority established under section 9 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 when exercising powers in relation to a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ac) of the definition of “land use plan;”’; (c) in paragraph (c), before sub-paragraph (ii) insert— ‘(ia) section 12P or 12Q of the 2004 Planning Act (Secretary of State’s powers in relation to spatial development strategy);’. (4) In paragraph (2)— (a) in sub-paragraph (c), after ‘strategy’, in both places, insert ‘for London’; (b) after sub-paragraph (c) insert— ‘(ca) the adoption or approval of a spatial development strategy or of an alteration of such a strategy under Part 1A of the 2004 Planning Act; (cb) the adoption or alteration of a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ab) of the definition of “land use plan”; (cc) the adoption or alteration of a spatial development strategy specified in paragraph (ac) of the definition of “land use plan”;’.”— (Matthew Pennycook.) This amendment revises the Habitats Regulations 2017 so that the new kind of spatial development strategy (see clause 47 of the Bill) counts as a “land use plan”. The effect is that an assessment under those Regulations will be required in certain cases before the strategy is adopted. Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to. Clause 48 Overview of EDPs

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support amendment 1 and speak to amendment 30, which my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage will talk about, and amendment 28, in my name, which relates to local wildlife sites. Amendment 28 would require spatial development strategies to take account of local wildlife sites and include policies that would avoid development on them. Local wildlife sites are some of the country’s most valuable and important spaces for nature. They are selected locally using robust scientific criteria. Those critical sites for biodiversity create wildlife corridors that join up other nationally and internationally designated sites, improving ecological coherence and connectivity. It is a misconception to think that all the best sites for nature conservation are designated sites of special scientific interest—that is not true. SSSIs cover only a representative sample of particular habitats, which means that only a certain number of sites are covered by the national selection. Local wildlife sites, in contrast, operate by a more comprehensive approach, and all sites that meet the criteria are selected. Consequently, some local wildlife sites are of equal biodiversity value to SSSIs. Where there is little SSSI coverage, local wildlife sites are often the principal wildlife resource for the area, as well as an important place for communities to access nature on their doorstep. In my constituency of Taunton and Wellington, there are 213 local wildlife sites covering almost 23.5 sq km, compared with 16 sq km of land designated as sites of special scientific interest. In the interest of time, I will cut short my remarks, but it is important to say that the current protection for local wildlife sites in the national planning policy framework is not strong enough, and 2% of sites have been lost or damaged in recent years. My amendment would improve the recognition of local wildlife sites and provide clarity to allow plan makers and decision makers to make the appropriate provision to protect and enhance local wildlife sites within spatial development strategies.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We are concerned about this issue. Our set of amendments in these areas is small; they are in the spirit of the Bill and of what the Government want to do with environmental delivery plans. They are designed to provide the strengthening that environmental groups are calling for clearly and strongly. We will not push the Committee to a vote, but we remain concerned and we will return to similar points, which are also in the spirit of the Bill, on later amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 77, in clause 48, page 83, line 8, at end insert— “(1A) An environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document. (1B) Where an environmental delivery plan is prepared by a local planning authority, references in sections 48 to 60 to Natural England should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.”— (Paul Holmes.) Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for correcting me on that point. He is absolutely right that there is a provision stating that consultation responses must be taken into account, but there is no duty to consult and no requirement, and it is the same for community involvement. In fact, the Bill explicitly states that there will not be a right to be heard in the examination in public. We should be clear that what is called a public examination of the strategy does not mean that the public are allowed to take part. They are allowed to watch and listen to it—that is what it means—but they are not allowed to take part. A clause specifically states that there should not be a right to be heard, so those affected—members of the public, landowners, businesses and so on—will not have a right to take part in that examination. There is effectively no right to take part in any of the process. We propose a modest approach that is less onerous than what is required of local planning authorities: a statement of community involvement, in which mayoral authorities would establish for themselves what categories of persons have the right to be heard in examinations of their plans. I believe that is a sensible measure that would provide a different level of involvement, which is appropriate given that a strategic authority obviously covers many more people and it would be difficult to provide a right to be heard to every member of the public. A provision to allow mayoral authorities to set out their own consultation and involvement standards seems eminently sensible to us, and that is why we have tabled the amendment.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 48, page 83, line 2, after “to” insert “significantly”. This amendment would require that conservation measures undertaken within Environmental Delivery Plans (EDP) should significantly protect environmental features.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister’s supportive comments about the delivery of infrastructure, how it will unlock housing and how it needs to come forward to do so mean that he must be lending his support to the reopening of Wellington station in my constituency, which would unlock several thousand new homes? It was ready and construction was starting when it hit the review in July, when the Chancellor had said that such stations would go ahead.