Gideon Amos MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 20 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. New clause 5 would require building regulations to be made that require new homes to meet the zero carbon standard and to include renewable energy. Back in 2006, the then Labour Government rightly set out plans to achieve zero carbon in new housing. The same Government made a commitment in the carbon plan that there would be a regulatory requirement for zero carbon homes from 2016, which was the key date. That 2016 commitment was renewed by the coalition Government in 2011 and was included in the 2014 Infrastructure Bill. However, all the commitments to on-site efficiency standards and allowable solutions—the extra bit to make new homes zero carbon—were cancelled by the incoming Conservative Government in 2015, in a shocking retrograde step in addressing carbon emissions. We came so close to achieving the zero carbon homes standard back then. A cross-sector ministerial taskforce had been in place from around 2008. Two preparatory upgrades to building regulations had already been made—by the Labour Government in 2010, and by the coalition Government in 2013—and regulations were drafted for the 2016 upgrade that would have delivered zero carbon homes. Labour housing and planning Ministers who are now in the Cabinet—I will not name them in case they do not want to be named—chaired the ministerial taskforce and took the programme forward. Under the coalition Government, a predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), Andrew Stunell—to whom I pay tribute, and who introduced his first Bill on this subject back in 2004—continued the zero carbon homes programme as a Minister until 2015. We then had the complete cancellation of the programme in 2015. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has estimated that, had the zero carbon standard been reached, residents would have paid £5 billion less in energy bills since 2016 as a result of living in better insulated and more energy-efficient homes. My noble Friend Baroness Parminter tabled a zero carbon homes amendment to the 2015-16 Housing and Planning Bill on Report, but the then Government did not support it. The Minister at the time in the Lords said that the Government would “introduce nearly zero energy building standards”. —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2016; Vol. 771, c. 925.] Of course, that falls well short. Undeterred, the Lords voted in favour again; the then Government ultimately tabled their own amendment that committed to reviewing energy performance requirements under building regulations, but they never did so—and, again, that fell a long way short. Almost 20 years on, we still do not have a zero carbon standard for new homes. It was, and still should be, a cross-party and cross-sector issue. There is a legal commitment to reduce carbon emissions in this country, and mandating zero carbon new homes would ensure that we do not make the task even harder for ourselves than it already is. Zero carbon homes insulate households not just in terms of energy but from fluctuations in energy prices. They reduce demand for electricity from the national grid and obviously reduce carbon footprint. Much more recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) tried again to acquire a degree of solar generation on new homes with a private Member’s Bill—his sunshine Bill. When the Minister responded to that debate back in January, he said that “the Government already intend to amend building regulations later this year...that will set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes.” —[ Official Report , 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 652.] I am not sure why I am quoting the Minister to himself, but he will no doubt recall saying that rooftop solar deployment will increase significantly as a result. We look forward to a response on the new clause, which moves us towards and helps to deliver zero carbon homes. It would give the Government six months to set out regulations, and it merely seeks to hold the Minister to his word on the topic. The Minister ought to emulate once more the forward-looking approach of the Labour Government back in 2006, who committed this country to a trajectory of zero carbon homes. Almost 20 years on, we and many others want the certainty of a legislative provision to secure a zero carbon future for British housing and bring the benefits of solar generation to all residents. After all, we could have avoided building an entire new power station had this standard been introduced in 2016, as was proposed through cross-party agreement at the time. It is now almost a decade since the first zero carbon homes plan would have been introduced. This will be a lost opportunity if Parliament does not commit, finally, to taking that last step to make all new homes zero carbon.

• 20 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Ms Jardine. You have reminded me that I have the right to sum up, which I am happy to forgo in the interests of time. We will not push new clause 9 to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

• 20 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 20 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 7, which would require schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to be commenced. My Liberal Democrat colleagues have pressed on this matter repeatedly over recent months and years, including in Westminster Hall. The schedule, which was never commenced, would require sustainable drainage systems—SuDS—to be provided in all but the most exceptional cases. It would establish a proper authority for regulations to ensure they are properly designed and maintained. It is not right that because of inadequate regulation and safeguards, the burden of poorly constructed drainage systems should fall on individuals who have saved for years to get their first home. Without proper enforcement of sustainable drainage, there is a real risk that the drive to increase housing numbers will exacerbate the current problems with drainage and flooding. After the 2007 floods, Sir Michael Pitt recommended the introduction of the provision. It was duly passed as part of the 2010 Act, but it was never commenced. By 2014, the Government had consulted on the necessary guidance and were on track for commencement before the end of 2015. In 2015, the consultation came to an end, the work came to an end and it was not commenced. The policy approach taken by the then Conservative Government was that we would deal with sustainable drainage through policy, and policy would be sufficient. A little later on, in their 2023 review of the implementation of schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, they set out that a previous review had concluded that “non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems should be made statutory: as the ambiguity makes the role of the planning authority very difficult. The review also found that in general there were no specific checking regimes in place to ensure that SuDS had been constructed as agreed, leaving concerns about unsatisfactory standards of design and construction, and of difficulties of ensuring proper maintenance once the developer has left the site.” If only that schedule had been brought into effect, a great deal of flooding of people’s homes would have been avoided. In the past, we have had a body of law to control our sewage and drainage system, originally from the Public Health Act 1936, which dealt with any kind of drain that is “communicating with a public sewer”, in the words of the Act. But SuDS are a new way of doing things, and they do not have the same body of regulation. There is therefore no longer any reason why schedule 3 should not be commenced as soon as possible, if not immediately. It should not take another flood to make that happen. It is time to implement the recommendations of the 2008 review, the Government’s consultation response in 2014, the 2023 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs review that I quoted, and schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 before our constituents find themselves forced into communicating with a public sewer in their homes and gardens in a way that is all too close and personal.

• 20 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 20 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Those provisos on the regulations are helpful. They are important because to go on to someone else’s land without their agreement initially is a significant power. We agree with the Minister that it should be used only as a last resort, once all the alternatives set out in the guidance have been explored. Question put and agreed to. New clause 42 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 43 Changes to, and revocation of, development consent orders “(1) Schedule 6 to the Planning Act 2008 (changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4). (2) Omit paragraph 2 (non-material changes to orders granting development consent) and the italic heading before it. (3) In paragraph 3 (changes to, and revocation of, orders)— (a) in sub-paragraph (3)(b), omit “or paragraph 2 of this Schedule”; (b) in sub-paragraph (5A), after “should” insert “, when considered in conjunction with any other changes already made,”. (4) In paragraph 4 (changes to, and revocation of, orders: supplementary), after sub-paragraph (6) insert— “(6A) If a development consent order is changed in exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1), the development consent order continues in force. (6B) If a development consent order is changed or revoked in the exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1), the change or revocation takes effect on— (a) the date on which the order making the change or revocation is made, or (b) if the order specifies a date on which the change or revocation takes effect, the specified date. (6C) Except in a case within sub-paragraph (7), the Secretary of State must publish an order making a change to, or revoking, a development consent order in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.” (5) In section 118 of the Planning Act 2008 (legal challenges)— (a) omit subsection (5); (b) in subsection (6)(b), for “notice of the change or revocation” to the end substitute “the order making the change or revocation is published.” (6) In consequence of the amendment in subsection (2), omit— (a) paragraph 4(6)(a) of Schedule 8 to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, (b) paragraph 72(4) to (7) of Schedule 13 to the Localism Act 2011, (c) section 28(2) of the Infrastructure Act 2015, (d) paragraph 8(3)(b)(i) of Schedule 7 to the Wales Act 2017, and (e) section 128 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.” — (Matthew Pennycook.) This clause amends the Planning Act 2008 concerning changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent. The key change is to repeal the procedure for making non-material changes that is currently in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to that Act. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 20 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to say a few words about new clause 1, but I will principally speak about our new clause 55, which is a mechanism to incentivise the building of housing developments that have lain unbuilt and undeveloped for three years. On new clause 1, I am very sympathetic to the proposal made by the hon. Members for North Herefordshire and for North East Hertfordshire—we are only missing Hampshire—but, frankly, we prefer our approach. There is a long-standing principle in planning law that the person of the applicant is not a relevant consideration, and by and large we wish to stand by that. There is scope for the new clause to be used to prejudice particular applicants. There is also a practical consideration. Land changes hands very quickly and, whoever owns it, different applicants can make applications. I am reminded of the famous case in Oxford of university students applying for a nuclear power station on Christ Church meadow, because a person can apply for anything on any land, whether they own it or not. In fact, the Town and Country Planning Association applied for permission for an airport on Maplin Sands, even though it was probably not going to be able to build it. Those bizarre examples demonstrate that the person of the applicant is not a relevant consideration. Under new clause 1, a different applicant with a different name or a different agent of the same landowner could immediately come forward, so I have practical concerns about it. Our approach is to introduce a “use it or lose it” principle into the planning system. Specifically, where a development of 100 homes or more has been granted permission but not started within the applicable period—usually three years—the land will transfer to the relevant local authority. We expect that in those circumstances, the usual provisions of the Land Compensation Acts and the principles of fairness in compulsory acquisition, which I referred to in a previous debate, would apply. We accept the principle that developers and house builders need a pipeline—a plan for their land—but three years is a significant amount of time. The recent moves to encourage the build-out of homes that have not been built have not succeeded. We have had a reduction from five years to three years in the lifespan of planning permissions, but there has not been a significant change in the build-out rate, so we need significant measures if we are to make these major schemes happen. This is not about penalising people; it is about dealing with an issue that is clearly undermining our ability to tackle the housing crisis. Across the country, there are permissions for 1.5 million new homes that have not been built—13,000 in my authority area of Somerset alone. Those homes could house thousands of families. Research from TerraQuest, which operates the planning portal—not a particularly radical or out-there organisation —shows that a third of all homes given planning permission since 2015 have not been built. Ten years on, that shows that unbuilt permissions are an enduring problem that needs to be tackled. If all those permissions had been built out, the Government would have hit their annual 300,000 homes target in eight out of the last 10 years, and yet the approach so far focuses almost entirely on allocating more and more permissions in the hope that that will result in more homes being built. There is no lack of planning permissions; the problem is that developers are not building out the ones they already have, because the current system does not penalise delay. Two big things could be done to improve housing supply: funding social housing and funding infrastructure. If those things were funded in a range of areas around the country, there would be almost unlimited build-out rates on stalled sites. Developers clearly, and I think reasonably and rationally, will only build out at a rate that sustains the price of their product and their viability. They have fiduciary duties to their shareholders, and they need to maintain the viability of their companies. So they will not build out at a rate significant enough to flood the local market with housing and depress the price. We cannot blame them for wanting to make a profit—that is what we expect them to do—but we need to fund social housing publicly, as it was funded in the past, to get out of that bind. That is why I believe we need a stronger lever than we currently have.

• 20 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I simply make the brief point that there is a whole swathe of statutory requirements on planning—good design, sustainable development, mitigating climate change—and such legal duties can be included in planning legislation.

• 20 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 9 concerns healthy homes, and would ensure that national and local government plans are designed with a clear and explicit aim of improving the physical, mental and social health and wellbeing of people in those homes. We cannot afford to keep building homes that make people ill. It is instructive to recall that the original planning system and the original planning Act emerged from the garden city movement, the public health movement and the desire to enable people to escape from slums. The first planning Act was the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act 1909, which was mainly concerned with public health. We need to re-establish the link between planning and health if we are going to improve our health outcomes, prevent health inequalities and address the sicknesses in our society. Right now, 3.5 million homes, which are lived in by around 15% of households, fail to meet the decent homes standard. That is not just a housing issue; it is a public health issue. According to the Resolution Foundation, poor-quality housing doubles the likelihood of someone experiencing poor general health. It costs the NHS £1.4 billion a year to treat to treat and costs society an estimated £18.5 billion, because it damages productivity, education outcomes and life chances. If we are serious about levelling up and addressing health inequalities, we must start with the homes that people live in. We know that deregulation has not worked. The extension of permitted developments under the last Government allowed the conversion of offices and shops into substandard housing, flats without windows, and rooms too small for someone to stretch their arms out without touching the walls. Those were “homes” in name only. If the Government enact any further changes to permitted development rights, they should at least adopt this new clause to ensure that those homes are healthy, regardless of how they are built. Even the revised national planning policy framework, while nodding towards health inequalities, includes no effective levers to address them or to force those making development decisions to consider health outcomes. A vague instruction to have regard to local health inequalities is simply not enough. Similarly, while the decent homes standard refers to health outcomes, it deals only with fixing the dangers in the existing rental stock. We need to consider health outcomes during the development stage to prevent dangers, rather than considering them only when they have already become a problem. This new clause would do that. It is about designing out risks from the start and embedding health into the DNA of planning once again, and into development policy. This new clause is backed by the Town and Country Planning Association, which says it will establish clarity on housing standards and wider development quality, setting a level playing field for industry. That is fundamental for promoting positive health outcomes across all new homes and communities. Surely, it is time that we moved from building homes quickly and at any cost to building them well and making them healthy for the people who live in them. I urge the Committee to support new clause 9.

• 20 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Before I respond to the Minister, I note that I should have spoken to new clause 11. I will not do so at length, but it would improve accessibility for new homes, make sure they are adaptable and introduce a minimum standard for them. On the zero carbon standard, I am grateful for the Minister’s generally positive response about the direction of travel, but so far, the rhetoric has been about getting us nearer to zero carbon. We need to be bold and decide that we are finally going to make new homes zero carbon. It is a small step to take. In previous legislation, there was an allowable solution that would compensate for the final balance of emissions in any new house that could not achieve it through fabric first. It is achievable, it needs to be done, and we will push new clause 5 to a vote. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.

• 20 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I genuinely appreciate the Minister’s constructive response; I know that he is interested in and concerned about the issue. We all know that the industry will have objections to new regulations—back in the day, house builders objected to being required to put bathrooms inside houses. Objections will come as surely as night follows day. Previous Governments responded by saying, “Don’t worry; we can just change policy—it will be fine.” The 2023 report explicitly states that the policy approach has not worked. We have had 10 years of experimentation and a full Government review by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the response was that the current ambiguity makes the role of the planning authority very difficult—essentially, it has not worked. Relying on policy is also a departure from the tried-and-tested approach in which things to do with the physical structure of the building—drainage and all those matters—come under the building regulations. All drainage matters come under the building regulations, so why would sustainable drainage not be covered by regulations but be a matter of policy? That leaves the ambiguity that the DEFRA report points out, and it simply has not worked. For all those reasons, I cannot see any alternative to our pressing the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 20 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 19 May 2025 · Defence Procurement: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  Somerset’s defence-related SMEs help to make the south-west the biggest region for defence after the south-east. Will the Secretary of State take a particular look at how SMEs are supporting Somerset Armed Forces Day? They are a backbone of that operation. Will he also look at the fact that Armed Forces Day is run by veterans and volunteers who sometimes do not receive funding until six months after they have held the event, and will he agree to support the biggest Armed Forces Day in the country, which is Somerset Armed Forces Day?

• 19 May 2025 · Gender Self-identification · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do more to protect trans people? In Somerset, for example, trans hate crimes have increased from 119 to 179. While providing women-only spaces where they are needed, we need to do more to stand up for trans people who feel frightened and afraid and who are being attacked.

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

  More

  Broken Tory promises!

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 58, page 89, line 38, at end insert— “(2A) An EDP may not be amended if the amendment would reduce the amount, extent or impact of conservation measures that are to be taken to protect the identified environmental features.” This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could not amend an environmental delivery plan so as to reduce the measures to be taken to mitigate the negative environmental impact of a development.

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

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

  More

  I appreciate the Minister’s explanation. He addressed a number of the points in our amendment, including that an EDP should not be amended to reduce the amount or extent of conservation measures. He explained that in circumstances in which there is a reduction in development, there might be a need to reduce the amount or extent of such measures. I do not feel that he addressed the need to make sure that the impact of conservation measures is protected. We feel that it is common sense that changing an EDP should not lead to a reduction in the impact of conservation measures proportionate to the amount of development going ahead. The Committee will be delighted to hear that, in the interest of getting on to other clauses, I will not press the amendment to a vote, but we feel no less strongly that it is an important amendment, and we will reflect on its wording and maintain our interest in the topic. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  It is with great excitement that we move on to another clause. I will speak briefly, but this is an important amendment. In the same way that protests from developers, in another part of the planning system, about viability end up affecting the outcomes of planning applications by, in particular, reducing social housing numbers, we are concerned that protests from developers could lead to calls to change EDPs. If EDPs are to be changed—this is a very simple point—that should not mean a reduction in the environmental protection therein. Amendment 15, also tabled in my name, is in line with our amendments 14 and 11, to which I have already spoken, which were about strengthening the environmental tests. The Government have made it clear that they seek to achieve a win-win here, but in our opinion that will not happen without that additional wording and strengthening. We have heard from the Minister that his point of reference, like ours, is to improve the status quo. At the moment, we are not convinced that the status quo will be improved. I am grateful to him for being extremely generous with his time on all the clauses by accepting numerous interventions, and for his assurances that he will reflect. I am sure that he will do so, but for such a, dare I say, common-sense amendment—that changes to an EDP should not mean a reduction in environmental protection—he might do even more than reflect: perhaps reflect positively on it. We feel that the amendment is entirely pragmatic, sensible and difficult to refute, although no doubt attempts will be made to do so.

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

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister; I will give him an opportunity to move on to our amendment 14, which I hope he agrees is in the spirit of that approach. I sympathise with the point made by the shadow Minister, and I understand the qualitative difference with a site-by-site approach, in which outcomes may more easily be predicted than in a nation-wide or region-wide approach. Does the Minister agree that wording that retains “are likely to” but introduces “significantly” raises the bar in a way that is in tune with the Government’s approach in the Bill?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. Some points have already been made on the underlying point of amendment 14, so I will be reasonably brief, but clause 55 goes to the heart of the overall improvement test and is crucial to the structure of the Bill. In many ways, amendment 14 has a similar target as amendment 20, but I would argue that it is more in the spirit of the Bill and how the Government are going about it. Amendment 14 would require that the conservation measures within an EDP would “significantly”—it would add that word—outweigh the negative effect of development. Clause 55 sets the overall improvement test that an EDP must pass before the Secretary of State can approve it. At the moment, in order to pass, the conservation measures in the EDP must be “likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect, caused by the environmental impact of development”. As the Wildlife Trusts has argued: “The lifting of the bar to ‘significantly outweigh’— through this amendment— “is needed to secure a level of gain for nature capable of meaningfully improving conservation outcomes.” That approach aligns explicitly with the Government’s stated intentions for the nature restoration fund. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government factsheet describes the proposed system as being a “marked change from the current approach which, at most, requires development to offset its impact and no further”— on that, the Minister and I are agreed. Instead, the Government say the approach will deliver “a positive contribution to nature recovery”, but saying “likely” to outweigh simply will not deliver that marked change, as “likely” is neither a high bar nor a strong test. The higher bar of “significant improvement” that we propose is also in line with well-established environmental law. The Environment Act 2021, for example, is notable; now four years from receiving Royal Assent, its use of the robust benchmark of “significant improvement” has not experienced a single legal challenge. There is no reason to expect that any would arise from applying that test in this EDP legislative framework. An EDP that passes that high bar and is made by the Secretary of State would, by definition, be environmentally robust as a result, and less vulnerable to a legal challenge than one that passes only the lower bar currently in the clause. It is in everyone’s interest that the EDPs deliver the promise of positive contributions and that step change—that marked change—the Government have stated they intend to achieve. Finally, if we are not raising the bar through this amendment, can the Minister explain, in his summing up, why the wording is only “likely” to outweigh? Why not use “will”, as the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire proposes, or “significantly” outweigh, as in our amendment? Those who are familiar with the habitats regulations will know that the test there is that “no reasonable scientific doubt” should exist. There is a marked difference between that established approach and the current wording in the Bill, which is not simply strong enough.

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

  More

  rose—

• 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.