Paul Holmes MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  If he has a quote, then I am not giving way. I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow East that the local housing plans that we are proposing must also include social housing. Local authorities need to put forward a proper housing mix.

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

  More

  Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine—I do not wish to waste any more of the Committee’s time—for my part, I am content for the Committee to sit until 5 pm to ensure that business gets through. However, given my own diary, I would take a dim view if the Government should seek to continue beyond 5 pm.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Who can say the Conservative party is divided when we have a bromance like this? My hon. Friend and I agree with each other all the time. He says that my speech is better than his, which is untrue, but he makes a serious point. The whole point of the Bill, and of our being here, is to ensure that housing is deliverable and accountable, and that it adapts to the will and the needs of local people. We are in Parliament and we stand for election predominantly to make our areas better and to leave the world in a better place, with people feeling better. In my constituency, we have many four-bed and five-bed family homes. We also have a huge housing waiting list. Those homes cost £250,000 each. Of course, I aspire to being able to afford a house like that myself one day, but we need to ensure that the right housing is being built for people in Eastleigh and Fareham town centres. Often, they are displaced down the road to Southampton and Portsmouth, or to other areas of the country with which they have no connection. That is simply not fair. We tabled the new clause to see, first, whether the Minister agrees with it—I suspect he will do more resisting—and secondly, whether he will try to ascertain how we genuinely improve the method for assessing local housing need. We had a brief debate about whether housing targets were warranted and whether people think they are good or bad. The Minister knows my position: I think they have been set for a particular reason, but that was a debate on a different clause. We want new towns to contribute towards meeting housing targets. As the Minister knows, new towns do not currently do that and are not included among those that can meet housing needs in local plans. New clause 49, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner tabled, would change that to include new towns, for several reasons. First, that would give certainty to constituents that once a local plan had been developed and proposals had gone forward for consultation, they would not be surprised by the Government’s suddenly announcing a new town. The Government are prone to doing that at the moment—I say that neutrally. When that happens, an area seems to have to take much more housing because the new town does not, on paper, contribute to the targets. I believe that, because new towns do not contribute to those targets, they suffer in terms of their services and infrastructure. The new clause would help with fairness in the system and with housing targets and planning. It is not nimbyism—I agree with the Minister that the terms yimby and nimby are reductive. To provide clarity for the consumer, as well as stability for local areas, the Government should make new towns contribute to housing targets. The Minister should view new clause 50 as productive. If he is worth his mettle, he will see that. Its purpose is to require local authorities to have a housing plan for their areas to inform their local plans. The housing plans would cover types of home, demographics and first-time buyer homes. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides that the local housing plan “must outline the number and type of homes…(a) required, and…(b) proposed to be built…in the authority’s area.” That would strengthen local authorities’ and local people’s ability to have a say about what they want to be built for them in their areas. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and I had an interesting meeting with several house builders. The Government should embrace and look to expand retirement villages in local plans. People are getting older, and many older people prefer to stay at home, but the system is slightly broken in terms of service charges and the leasehold model. That is not working.

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

  More

  I am a pragmatist, so if the Minister says that he will make announcements in due course to strengthen what he already has a track record of doing, which is what the new clause seeks, we will welcome that. I must press him slightly, however. I grant that he has only been in his position for 10 months, but if the 10% is already in the NPPF and has not made any real change, and if he is reluctant to make legislative changes to enforce it, what other measures can he introduce to increase the number of houses that SME builders can build?

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

  More

  I completely understand why the new clause has been tabled, and we support the premise behind it, but can I ask the hon. Lady for clarification? She may not know, and that is perfectly acceptable. Say an application went in for a nursing home, but the business went bust before the initial build out was delivered. If the developer wanted to change the application to allow it to build a block of flats, how would the new clause prevent that from happening? It is a genuine question, and I do not know what the answer is.

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

  More

  I appreciate the Minister’s being so open and genuinely—I wouldn’t say I didn’t believe him before—promising to go away and look at this issue. We would like to take him up on that; we will not press our new clause today, but there are conversations to be had further down the line on this topic. Will he just confirm whether his Department holds any statistics on how many unauthorised developments we are talking about? Is there is a reporting structure for local authorities, which may be held by the Planning Inspectorate? We would like to know how his Department is monitoring the number of unauthorised developments that are using the powers that were given to local authorities, if that makes sense.

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

  More

  Yes, the lifetime ISA is still in operation—the last Government brought it in—but it does not deliver the real numbers that we need, as the Help to Buy and stamp duty relief systems did. We brought those in, but they have been reversed.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Huq. I am also pleased to see everyone here this morning on the Committee. Last night, after buying the Minister a coffee to keep us going, I promised to buy one for the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I declare that I did intend to stick to that promise—

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

  More

  I am just trying to be helpful. Clause 58(4) clearly sets out the process where a Secretary of State directs Natural England to consult, and the detailed consultation procedure is set out in clause 54. We have had a big debate on consultation procedures, which are not necessarily what we would like in other clauses of the Bill, but consultation is clearly set out in clause 58(4).

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 126, in clause 57, page 88, line 31, at end insert— “(c) at five yearly intervals, a report on an EDP covering the previous five-year period.”

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

  More

  I thank the Minister for that explanation of the clause. We have tabled no amendments, but we do have some questions for him. We welcome the Government’s recognition that there should be the right to challenge an EDP—that is perfectly sensible and we appreciate it—and we welcome the fact that an EDP can be challenged by judicial review. We have all seen examples in our constituencies of large-scale projects in the planning system; in my area, although I disagreed with the people who were against an extension of Southampton airport’s runway, they had the right to go to judicial review. We also see—I declare an interest given what I said on Tuesday about Hamble quarry —communities wanting to assess whether they can take cases to judicial review. We absolutely welcome that provision in clause 60. However, we have a concern about the six-week window. The Minister will know—and we have all seen these cases, for good and bad—that people who may want to bring a judicial review, or at least investigate one, cannot always afford it. They are not always well-organised or large-scale businesses with the resources to afford that very expensive and complicated process. We are concerned that such a short window may hinder meaningful access to justice, particularly for local communities, smaller organisations, or individuals or charities, which may lack the resources or legal expertise to respond quickly enough. I know that this is in legislation, but is the Minister confident that the six-week window is sufficient, given the potential complexity of EDPs, and will he look at reviewing it or consulting interested parties on it? We have been very clear that we expect robust public engagement and clear communication obligations. Especially on something as substantial as an EDP, and bearing in mind the charities or small activist groups that may be affected by it and that may, whether we back the principle of EDPs or not, have genuine disagreements, I invite the Minister to outline his thoughts on the six-week period.

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

  More

  No, Dr Huq, but on the assurances that the Minister gave in relation to amendment 128, which he said he expected we would take in the spirit in which he intended them, let me say that we will seek further clarification from him on CPO. Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 60 Challenging an EDP Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  —but the hon. Member was not in the café. He has nicked my joke; I was about to say that I hope that that does not go on a focus leaflet somewhere as a broken Tory promise. It takes two to tango.

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

  More

  Missing in action and not winning here. I know that the Minister is very keen that we expedite this Committee today because of the semi-final play-off with Charlton tonight. I hope that his team does well in that, because we would like to invite him down to the Den to watch a match between Millwall and Charlton, if Charlton are promoted. The Minister is always welcome down to the Den. I turn to amendment 126, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). We absolutely agree with the Minister’s sentiments on EDPs, and we wholeheartedly agreed with the majority of what he said on the previous clause. We accept that EDPs will be a step change in environmental delivery across the United Kingdom. One of our concerns, and the reason why we tabled amendment 126—I will come to amendment 127 in a minute—is that at the moment the legislation says that there will be two reviews into the EDP: one at the mid-point and one at the end. We simply want to see whether the Minister would entertain the idea of review periods at five-yearly intervals and a report on an EDP covering the previous five-year period. That is for a number of reasons. First, with only two reports—one at the mid-point and one at the end—there could be long gaps during which important issues or shortcomings in implementation go unaddressed. In rapidly evolving environmental contexts, more frequent reporting would allow for timely adjustments and a greater responsiveness to emerging challenges. What would happen under the current proposals if a mid-term report showed a failure to deliver in conservation outcomes? Also, are the two required reports sufficient for long-term monitoring and public accountability? We have a slight concern that the clause does not seem to specify the content or required level of detail in those reports. I hope that the Minister will be able to elaborate slightly on what he and the Secretary of State would expect in terms of the detail when a report is published. It is also important to state that although the Bill will have to meet equality legislation, it does not meet the standard for public accessibility or independent review. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that. Without these safeguards, the report could become a box-ticking exercise rather than a meaningful tool for transparency and continuous improvement. I turn briefly to amendment 127, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley. Given what the Minister said in our discussion of the last clause about the impact that the wording will have on legal definitions and measurements if those were to be challenged, I do not intend to press amendment 127 to a vote. We think that the wording “the local economy and community of the relevant area” is not defined enough, so we will have to look at whether we need to tighten it up, bearing in mind what the Minister said about the language in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. But I would like to press amendment 126 to a vote. On amendment 127, I hope the Minister will say something about community benefits and the local economy in the relevant area. I hope he looks favourably on amendment 126, which stipulates more transparency and a clearer guideline for the process of reviewing EDPs. I look forward to his response.

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

  More

  I thank the Minister, as always, for his clarity on the amendments. He has said many times in Committee that he will be reflecting; I hope that he finds time to do things other than reflect. Given his assurances, I will have a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley so that he might have a proper look at where in the Bill the timescales are already set out; that may be a lesson for cross-shadow ministerial working in the future. Given the Minister’s assurances, I will not press the amendment; as I have said already, we are content with what he said on amendment 127. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 58 Amendment of an EDP

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

  More

  I rise to speak to amendment 128, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley—let us hope this one goes slightly better. We understand the reason for clause 58 and for outlining the provisions for amending an environmental delivery plan. The clause clearly lays out the process the Secretary of State must go through to amend an EDP, which they may do either on their own initiative or at the request of Natural England. The reason why my hon. Friend tabled amendment 128 is that, in some cases, the Secretary of State may choose to revoke an EDP. We will come to compulsory purchase orders later, but we would like to tighten up the wording of the Bill, so that when an EDP is revoked, the Secretary of State must seek to return any land obtained under a CPO for the purposes of that EDP to the original owner. Will the Minister outline his thoughts on those proposals, which relate to cases where land has been CPO-ed and what happens to it afterwards? I hope he will see amendment 128 as a minor adjustment to the Bill and that he will give me some satisfactory answers, as he has this morning. We support the clause in general, but we just seek to tighten the language.

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

  More

  I have a brief question. I understand that the Minister wants to bring forward regulations backed by the affirmative procedure, and that is welcome. I am slightly concerned by the wording in subsection (3): “In any proceedings for judicial review of a decision on an appeal, the defendant is to be such person as is specified in the regulations (and the regulations may also specify a person who is not to be the defendant for these purposes).” I seek reassurance from the Minister that once the Bill receives Royal Assent, he will err on the side of being liberal about who can bring an issue to judicial review, and that he will not seek to restrict a category of person from taking such actions. I would be grateful if he could give that assurance.

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

  More

  The Minister is shaking his head, so I will give way.

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

  More

  We are satisfied with and appreciate the Minister’s response, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 5 Compulsory acquisition of land under Part 3: supplementary provisions Amendments made: 112, in schedule 5, page 148, line 36, at end insert— “5A (1) Paragraph 3(2) does not apply to— (a) any right vested in statutory undertakers for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking, (b) any apparatus belonging to statutory undertakers for that purpose, (c) any right conferred by, or in accordance with, the electronic communications code on the operator of an electronic communications code network, or (d) any electronic communications apparatus kept installed for the purposes of any such network. (2) In sub-paragraph (1) ‘statutory undertakers’ means persons who are, or are deemed to be, statutory undertakers for the purposes of any provision of Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and ‘undertaking’ is to be read in accordance with section 262 of that Act (meaning of ‘statutory undertakers’).” This amendment secures that the things mentioned in the inserted paragraph 5A are not affected by paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 5, which would otherwise provide for their extinguishment or acquisition when land is compulsorily acquired under clause 72. Amendment 113, in schedule 5, page 152, line 10, leave out “or restrictive covenant”. This amendment and amendment 114 remove erroneous references to a restrictive covenant from paragraph 11 of Schedule 5. Paragraph 11 relates only to the compulsory acquisition of a new right over land under clause 72. Amendment 114, in schedule 5, page 152, line 14, leave out “or enforcing that covenant”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 113. Amendment 115, in schedule 5, page 152, line 14, after “sections” insert “11A (powers of entry: further notices of entry), 11B (counter-notice requiring possession to be taken on specified date),”. This amendment secures that the modification of section 11 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 made by paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 affects sections 11A and 11B of that Act, as well as sections 12 and 13. Amendment 116, in schedule 5, page 152, line 29, at end insert— “New rights: application of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 13A The Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (‘CP(VD)A 1981’) applies to the compulsory acquisition of new rights under section 72— (a) with the modifications specified in paragraph 13B; and (b) with such other modifications as may be necessary. 13B (1) The modifications of CP(VD)A 1981 referred to in paragraph 13A(a) are as follows. (2) References to CPA 1965 are, in appropriate contexts, to be read (according to the requirements of the particular context) as referring to, or as including references to— (a) the right acquired or to be acquired; or (b) the land over which the right is, or is to be, exercisable. (3) References to CPA 1965 are to be read as references to that Act as it applies to the compulsory acquisition of a right under section 72. (4) Section 8(1) (vesting, and right to enter and take possession) is to be read as securing that— (a) a general vesting declaration in respect of any right vests the right in the acquiring authority on the vesting date; and (b) as from the vesting date, the acquiring authority has power, exercisable in the same circumstances and subject to the same conditions, to enter land for the purpose of exercising that right as if the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) and (b) of section 8(1) had arisen. (5) Section 9(2) (right of entry under section 8(1) not exercisable in respect of land subject to certain tenancies unless notice has been served on occupiers of the land) is to be read as requiring a notice served by the appropriate authority under that provision to refer to the authority’s intention to enter land specified in the notice in order to exercise the right. (6) In section 10(1) (acquiring authority’s liability on vesting of the land), the reference to the acquiring authority’s taking possession of the land under section 11 of CPA 1965 is to be read as a reference to the authority’s exercising the power to enter the land under that provision as modified by paragraph 11 of this Schedule. (7) Schedule A1 (counter-notice requiring purchase of land not in general vesting declaration) is to be read as if— (a) in paragraph 1(1), for ‘part only of’ there were substituted ‘only the acquisition of a right over’; (b) paragraph 1(2) were omitted; (c) references to the land proposed to be acquired were (subject to paragraph (e) below) to the right proposed to be acquired; (d) references to the additional land were to the house, building or factory over which the right is proposed to be exercisable; (e) in paragraphs 14 and 15, references to the severance of land proposed to be acquired were to the acquisition of the right; and (f) in paragraph 15, after ‘in addition to’ there were inserted ‘or in substitution for’.” This amendment secures that the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 applies in relation to the compulsory acquisition of a new right over land under clause 72, subject (a) to the specific modifications in paragraph 13B (designed to secure that certain provisions of that Act work correctly in relation to that case and (b) any other modifications necessary to secure that result. Amendment 117, in schedule 5, page 152, line 32, leave out “with the necessary modifications, in” and insert “— (a) with the modification specified in paragraph 15, and (b) with such other modifications as are necessary, in”. Paragraph 14 of Schedule 5 secures that the enactments relating to compensation for the compulsory purchase of land apply to the acquisition of new rights over land under clause 72 with the modifications necessary to make them work correctly in relation to that case. The amendment makes clear that the modifications include the particular modification of the Land Compensation Act 1961 set out in the new paragraphs 15 inserted by Amendment 118. Amendment 118, in schedule 5, page 152, line 35, at end insert— “15 Section 5A (relevant valuation date) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is to be read as if for subsections (5A) and (5B) there were substituted— ‘(5A) If— (a) the acquiring authority enters on land for the purpose of exercising a right in pursuance of a notice of entry under section 11(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (as modified by paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025), (b) the acquiring authority is subsequently required by a determination under paragraph 13 of Schedule 2A to the 1965 Act (as substituted by paragraph 9 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025) to acquire an interest in the land, and (c) the acquiring authority enters on and takes possession of that land, the authority is deemed for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) to have entered on that land when it entered on that land for the purpose of exercising that right. (5B) If— (a) a right over land is the subject of a general vesting declaration, (b) by virtue of paragraph 11(2) or 16(2) of Schedule A1 to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981, the declaration has effect as if it included an interest in the land, and (c) the vesting date for the right is different from the vesting date for the interest in the land, the first of the vesting dates is deemed for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) to be the vesting date for the whole of the land.’”— (Matthew Pennycook.) This amendment sets out a modification of section 5A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 as it applies in relation to the compulsory acquisition of new rights over land under clause 72. The amendments ensure that section 5A works correctly in relation to its application to the acquisition of such new rights. Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 73 and 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 75 Duty of co-operation Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  I am grateful for the useful clarification. I rise to speak to clauses 67 and 68. As I have outlined to the Minister, we are concerned that a number of these clauses in the 60s—if I can refer to them as a group—are very broad in scope. The Minister will say to me that we will come on to scrutinise that, and he has confirmed that the affirmative process will apply. I fully accept that, but it concerns me that the broad brushstrokes in the Bill do not have meat to their bones. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, has made a genuine point about democratic accountability and oversight. In a previous amendment, it was proposed that an independent body should be overseeing some of the actions in Natural England. I gently say to the Liberal Democrats that it is clear from this group of clauses that Natural England is being supervised, instructed and scrutinised by the democratically elected Secretary of State. So two clear bodies, if I can call the Secretary of State or their office a body, are providing scrutiny. It would be a very dangerous precedent to legislate to essentially protect the public from a democratically elected Secretary of State, just because somebody is fearful about where they come from, what party they represent or their policies.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 150, in clause 72, page 101, line 7, at end insert— “(2A) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to land which is, or forms part of, a legally occupied dwelling or a private garden.”

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

  More

  At the insistence of the general noise coming mostly from Government Members, I will plough on. The serious point behind what I was saying is that the Conservatives, alongside the Liberal Democrats, do have some concerns about the regulations and the responsibilities of Natural England. On clause 68, we welcome the ability to make payments in instalments or in forms other than money. That provides some adaptable and accessible elements for developers. However, we worry about the overburdening of other public bodies that might be asked to pay into this fund. We would argue that some of the process is not clearly defined. On enforcement, the clause lacks specifics regarding the consequences for late or failed payments. Additionally, it does not address how flexibility will be built into the enforcement process for developers. We think that developers deserve clarity about that. Although we had a brief moment of levity earlier, there is a serious point about the responsibilities. We hope the Minister will be able to respond to our concerns.

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

  More

  We will not press amendments 130 to 132, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, to a vote. On clause 66 more generally, we accept that it sets out how funding collected by Natural England through the nature restoration levy must be used. In broad terms, it is to be spent on relevant conservation measures, as well as on the administrative costs that arise. However, there is an absence of clarity that could lead to potential concerns about the transparency and accountability of fund distribution. Without clear guidelines, there is a risk that administrative costs could disproportionately consume the funds meant for conservation, thereby undermining the levy’s effectiveness in achieving its environmental objectives. Furthermore, we have a concern that the clause provides no safeguards to ensure that the funds are spent efficiently or effectively, and nor does it establish any oversight mechanisms to monitor the use of the funds. We would argue that a more detailed breakdown of how the funds will be managed, with clear priority given to conservation over administration, would help build trust in the system and ensure that the nature restoration levy delivers the intended environmental benefits. Additionally, and lastly, there should be a requirement for periodic reporting on how the funds are used, which would provide necessary transparency and reassurance to stakeholders.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse; welcome back to the Committee. Good afternoon to all colleagues. We are generally supportive of clause 61; I recognise the intent behind the amendment, but I would like to speak to clause 61 stand part. Although the clause introduces a streamlined mechanism for fulfilling environmental requirements, it raises several questions that I shall put to the Minister on some of the detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner may have some specific questions too. First, the discretion given to Natural England to accept or reject a developer’s request lacks clarity. There are no outlined criteria or standards for decision making, which could lead to an inconsistent or opaque outcome. I ask the Minister: what criteria will Natural England use to accept or reject a developer’s request to pay the levy? Does he think there needs to be more specificity in the accompanying regulations, if not in the Bill? Secondly, although the clause references charging schedules and payment phasing, it does not address how those charges are calculated or whether they reflect the environmental impact of the development. Could the Minister assure the Committee—not necessarily today or in the legislation—how he will provide more specific details on the charging regime? Without that, there would be a risk of turning the levy into a transactional tool rather than a meaningful mechanism for ecological restoration. Additionally, there is no mention of how Natural England will ensure that payments are effectively translated into real conservation outcomes. Without clearer safeguards, the process could be perceived more as a pay-to-proceed option than as a robust tool for environmental accountability. If the Minister could provide some specifics on those two main points, we would be content to support clause 61.

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

  More

  You will be pleased to hear, Mrs Hobhouse, that I will be very brief. I just want to ask some questions and speak to amendment 150 and the clause. I will also speak to new clause 107. I will listen to the Minister’s answers before deciding whether to divide the Committee on the amendment. We know that clause 72 gives Natural England the power compulsorily to acquire land, including “new rights over land”, subject to authorisation by the Secretary of State. Although this provision ensures that Natural England can secure the necessary land for environmental conservation and restoration projects, the use of compulsory land acquisition raises several concerns. The Minister should not be surprised to hear that, because we have raised them before. First, compulsory acquisition can have significant social and economic impacts on landowners, potentially displacing communities or affecting livelihoods. A clear and transparent process must be in place to ensure that landowners are fairly compensated and that their interests are adequately considered, yet the clause does not specify the conditions in which the compulsory powers will be exercised, which could lead to concerns about the fairness or necessity of such actions. The requirement for authorisation by the Secretary of State introduces an additional layer of oversight that might provide a safeguard against the misuse of these powers, but the clause would benefit from more detail of the criteria and process for granting authorisation, to ensure that the Secretary of State's decisions are transparent, accountable and based on clear, consistent guidelines. Without such clarity, there is a risk of arbitrary or inconsistent use of compulsory acquisition powers. That is notwithstanding the defence that I gave, believing that the Secretary of State should have those powers in earlier clauses. The clause also does not address potential challenges from landowners or local communities affected by the acquisition, such as disputes over compensation or the environmental justification for land use. It would be beneficial to outline a clear appeals or mediation process to resolve such issues, which I know we come on to later in the Bill. Overall, while the power to acquire land may be necessary for some conservation efforts, careful safeguards are required to avoid potential negative consequences and to ensure that the power is exercised appropriately and fairly. Amendment 150 stands in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle. I would not say this is a probing amendment, but will the Minister clarify the parameters on the exercise of a compulsory purchase order when it comes to “a legally occupied dwelling or private garden.”? We do not expect him to completely eradicate the use of such an order, but we would appreciate his guidance on where the regulations point in respect of when Natural England should and could be able to take private dwellings in a CPO process. Turning to new clause 107, I note, in the interests of transparency, that I do not think we will move the clause, but we want to press the Minister as we remain concerned about compulsory purchase. We believe that compulsorily purchased land should be returned to the person from whom it was compulsorily purchased if certain conditions are met. Those are that “the owner of the land has refused to agree to a contract offered by Natural England”— that gives power to the individual— “any works specified under the contract have been undertaken on behalf of Natural England and relate to an environmental development plan…a compulsory purchase order has been made by Natural England in…relation to the land; and…the cost of work undertaken on the land by Natural England exceeds the value of the contract offered by Natural England to the owner.” I hope the Minister sees why we have tabled the amendments. I am not being obtuse, Mrs Hobhouse, in not saying yet whether we will push them to a vote. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about them, but as soon as we have, we will give you a steer.