Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) (Urgent Question): To
ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and
Communities if they will make a statement on the Government’s
decision to use the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to scrap
environmental protections on nutrient neutrality. The Minister of
State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel
Maclean) The Secretary of State for Levelling Up tabled a written
ministerial...Request free trial
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling
Up, Housing and Communities if they will make a statement on the
Government’s decision to use the Levelling-up and Regeneration
Bill to scrap environmental protections on nutrient
neutrality.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and
Communities ()
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up tabled a written
ministerial statement yesterday on the Government’s plans, but I
am happy to provide an update to the House. In proposing these
amendments, we are responding to calls from local—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that it is very good of you to offer to
give that update? I decided that it was an urgent question—I
expect Ministers to come to the House, as I did not think a
written ministerial statement was the way to inform the
House.
I am delighted to be here to answer this urgent question.
In proposing the amendments, we were responding to calls from
local councils, which want the Government to take action to allow
them to deliver the homes their communities need. At present,
legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality are blocking the delivery
of new homes, including in cases where planning permission has
already been granted. This has affected home building of all
types, whether that is the redevelopment of empty spaces above
high street shops, affordable housing schemes, new care homes or
families building their own home. The block on building is
hampering local economies and threatening to put small and
medium-sized local builders out of business. Nutrients entering
our rivers are a real problem, but the contribution made by new
homes is very small compared with that of other sources such as
agriculture, industry and our existing housing stock, and the
judgment is that nutrient neutrality has so far done little to
improve water quality.
We are already taking action across Government to mandate water
companies to improve their waste water treatment works to the
highest technically achievable limits. Those provisions alone
will more than offset the nutrients expected from new housing
developments, but we need to go further, faster. That is why, as
well as proposing targeted amendments to the habitats
regulations, the Government are committing to a package of
environmental measures. Central to that is £280 million of
funding to Natural England to deliver strategic mitigation
sufficient to offset the very small amount of additional nutrient
discharge attributable to up to 100,000 homes between now and
2030. We have also announced more than £200 million for slurry
management and agricultural innovation in nutrient management and
a commitment to accelerate protected site strategies in the most
affected catchments.
In our overall approach, there will be no loss of environmental
outcomes, and we are confident that our package of measures will
improve the environment.
Nutrient neutrality was only ever an interim solution. With
funding in place, and by putting these sites on a trajectory to
recovery, we feel confident in making this legislative
intervention.
I find it extraordinary that the Minister can stand there and
make that statement with a straight face. Over the past eight
years, Ministers have stood at that Dispatch Box and promised
time and again that leaving the European Union would not lead to
a weakening of environmental standards. Those of us who raised
our concerns have repeatedly been told that we were
scaremongering. As recently as 12 June, the Solicitor General
said in relation to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform)
Bill that
“we will not lower environmental protections.”[—[Official Report,
21 June 2023; Vol. 734, c.
828.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=734&ColumnNumber=828&House=1)
Yet here we have it: proposals to unpick the habitats directive
and to disapply the nutrient neutrality rules that protect our
precious rivers and sensitive ecosystems.
The Office for Environmental Protection has itself made clear
that the proposals
“would demonstrably reduce the level of environmental protection
provided for in existing environmental law. They are a
regression.”
I underline that point to the hon. Member for Redcar (), who is chuntering from his
seat on the Front Bench. The proposals go directly against the
“polluter pays” principle by forcing the taxpayer, rather than
house builders, to foot the bill for mitigating increased water
pollution from house building in environmentally sensitive areas.
What is particularly infuriating is that, as the name suggests,
the nutrient neutrality rules were not even about improving our
environment, but simply about trying to prevent pollution from
getting worse.
Let me ask the Minister some important questions. On
transparency, will the Government follow the OEP’s call for them
to make a statement, as required by section 20(4) of the
Environment Act 2021, admitting that they can no longer say that
the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill would not reduce
environmental protections in law? Will the Minister explain how
the Government will meet their objectives for water quality and
protected site condition when they are at the same time weakening
environmental law? What advice did Ministers receive from Natural
England before the amendments were tabled? Will she explain why
there has there been a complete lack of consultation with
environment groups? Will she also explain what consultation there
was with house builders, whom Members will have noticed are
cock-a-hoop about the announcement and the subsequent boost to
their share prices?
Will the Minister admit that it is a false choice to pit house
building against environmental protection when there are
successful projects under way to address nutrient pollution? Will
the Government provide evidence for their unsubstantiated claim
that 100,000 homes are being delayed as a consequence of these
rules? Will she recognise that money, which can easily be taken
away at a later stage, is not the same as a legal requirement to
stop pollution getting into our rivers?
I thank the hon. Lady for her long list of questions; I am happy
to respond to all of them in detail. On our approach, I stand by
what I and the Government have said: we stand by our pledges to
the
environment, and we do not accept that, as she stated, we will
weaken our commitment to the environment at all. It is important
to consider what we are talking about here, which is unblocking
100,000 homes that add very little in terms of pollution. To be
clear, our approach means that there will be no overall loss in
environmental outcomes. Not only do the measures that we are
taking address the very small amount of nutrient run-off from new
housing, but at the same time, we are investing in the
improvement of environmental outcomes. We do not agree that this
is regression on environmental standards. We are taking direct
action to continue to protect the environment and ensure that
housing can be brought forward in areas where people need it.
The hon. Lady asked about engagement. Ministers across
Government, the Secretary of State and I have had numerous
meetings with all parties involved, and we have had meetings with
environment groups as part of Government business. It is worth
the House noting the significant enforcement steps taken on the
water companies by colleagues at the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs. Since 2015, the Environment Agency has
concluded 59 prosecutions against water and sewerage companies,
securing £150 million in fines. The regulators have recently
launched the largest criminal and civil investigations into water
company sewage. We are taking action against water companies to
protect our rivers, leave the environment in a better state than
we found it, and build the affordable houses that the country so
desperately needs, including in her constituency.
(Ludlow) (Con)
The Minister will recognise that I and many other colleagues on
the Government side of the House share the admirable objectives
of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion () in ensuring that the water
quality of our rivers improves year by year under the Government
and their successors. The Minister’s proposals to amend the
Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill are not about damaging the
status of our rivers; as I understand it, they are about dealing
with a particular and specific interpretation of the EU habitats
directive by the European Court of Justice in connection with a
case in Holland prior to the time we left the EU. If that is the
case—she has referred to the litigation and measures she has
undertaken—does she agree that in special areas of conservation
such as the River Clun catchment in my constituency, where no
planning consent has been granted for nine years, these measures
will help to unlock that while preserving the quality of the
river in the catchment?
Mr Speaker
You have taken longer than the person who asked the question.
I thank my right hon. Friend very much. He is right in his
observation that this has been a judgment imposed on the United
Kingdom after we left the European Union. This is not a
long-standing convention in any shape or form. He is also right
to highlight the measures we are putting in place to protect our
rivers and the environment more broadly. We are also putting in
place a substantial package to help farmers to farm more
sustainability, manage their slurry infrastructure more
effectively and be able to drive the circular economy in farming
that we all want. He mentioned specific
catchments in his area. We have committed to bring forward a Wye
catchment plan shortly, which I hope will address the issues he
is referring to.
Mr Speaker
I call . [Interruption.]
(Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
I am happy to go, but the shadow Minister—
Mr Speaker
Oh, sorry. It has taken so long, I thought we must have moved on
to Back Benchers. I call the shadow Minister.
(Greenwich and Woolwich)
(Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a result of the Government’s failure
over many years to make decisive progress in tackling the main
sources of problem nutrients, namely farming and waste water
treatment works, the requirements for nutrient neutrality in
sensitive river catchments present a challenge to securing
planning permission for new housing development. It is therefore
right in Labour’s view that the operation of the rules around
nutrient neutrality is reviewed with a view to addressing
problematic delays and increasing the pace at which homes can be
delivered in these areas.
However, we have serious concerns about the approach that the
Government have decided on. Not only does it involve disapplying
the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, but it
does not legally secure the additional funding pledges to deliver
nutrient management programmes and does not provide for a legal
mechanism to ensure that housing developers contribute towards
mitigation.
I put the following questions to the Minister: what advice did
the Government receive from Natural England about potential
reform of the laws around nutrient neutrality? Did it offer a
view on the Government’s proposed approach? Given the amount of
mitigation currently available in the pipeline, which is
estimated at allowing for approximately 72,000 homes, did the
Government consider an approach based on the habitat regulations
assessment derogation and a revised credit mitigation system to
front-load permissions and provide for future compensatory
schemes? If so, why did they dismiss that option? What assessment
have the Government made of the impact of their proposed approach
on the nascent market in mitigation credits, and investor
confidence in nature markets more generally? Why on earth do
Ministers believe developers will voluntarily contribute to
mitigation under the proposed approach?
Finally, the Government claim their approach will see 100,000
planning permissions expedited between now and 2030. Given that
house building activity is falling sharply and the pipeline for
future development is being squeezed—not least as a result of
housing and planning policy decisions made by this Conservative
Government—what assessment has the Department made of the number
of permissions that its disruptive approach will unlock within
the first 12 months of its operation?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and remarks. I take
them to mean that he will support the measures when they come
before the House. I am delighted to hear his support for our
sensible, practical and pragmatic approach to unblock much needed
housing across the country. He asked about our engagement with
Natural England; we have had detailed discussions. He asked about
the current legal framework;
we have looked at and discussed a number of options to make the
changes, and we are taking what we believe is the right approach
to unblock planning permissions more quickly than the current
situation allows.
The hon. Gentleman referred to nature markets; he is right to
highlight the groundbreaking work we are doing across that piece.
We are continuing with our commitment to those nature markets,
which are a very important part of the Government’s plan to keep
our environment, protect it and leave it in a better state than
we found it. That is what the Conservative Government have always
been committed to and continue to be.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have spoken to
developers, who, of course, support our objectives. We have very
constructive dialogue with the developers, who are happy to
contribute. We will have those discussions with industry, as I am
sure he has heard from developers, because I know he has spoken
to them all. We are on the side of those builders. It is
important to say that the developers most affected by the
disproportionate ruling from the European Court of Justice are
not the big developers but the small and medium-sized
enterprises—the small builders—some of which have gone bust. It
is right that we stand behind them.
Sir (Middlesbrough South and East
Cleveland) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Government on taking action on this
very serious issue. I welcome sincerely the remarks from the
Opposition spokesperson offering qualified support for what is
being done. We have an issue whereby 100,000 homes, spanning 74
council areas, are being blocked. Those homes have planning
permission already granted, but cannot be built because of the
perverse legacy ruling. More to the point, could my hon. Friend
confirm that there is no environmental impact, because we are
doubling investment in the nutrient mitigation scheme? That is as
well as developing protected site strategies for those catchment
areas affected most severely by the nutrients issue, which
overwhelmingly is not caused by new housing. Does she agree that
the real challenge should be laid down to the hon. Member for
Brighton, Pavilion () on what she would say to
all the hundreds of thousands of young families out there who
cannot buy a home in the places they need and want, at a price
they can afford?
My right hon. Friend has considerable expertise in this matter.
He is right to focus on the mechanisms we need to bring forward
to enable the much needed planning permission to take effect. His
region in particular is affected by this issue, and I know his
constituents and people across the region will be desperate to
see those homes built, to allow people a step on the property
ladder. We are about building a property-owning democracy.
My right hon. Friend is also right to say that we can do that at
the same time as protecting the environment, which is why we have
doubled the funding for Natural England’s nutrient mitigation
scheme. We are investing £200 million in slurry management
infrastructure and we are helping farmers with a £25 million
sustainable package to help them invest in innovative farming
techniques to manage their nutrients more sustainably,
which can be of benefit to their farms and agricultural
processes. We are going much further on those protected sites, so
that we deal with the problem at source. That is what we need to
focus on.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
Committee.
(Sheffield South East)
(Lab)
This is hardly a new problem, is it? The Court decision was in
2018, yet last year we had the levelling-up Bill, which was
really a planning Bill with a bit of levelling up added on—no
mention of the issue there. In December we had major
consultations on changes to the national planning policy
framework—no mention of the issue there. The Committee wrote to
the Minister and asked how many more consultations on planning
issues there would be this year. We were given nine of them—no
mention of the issue there. If it is such a serious issue, why
has it taken the Government so long to act? It looks like the
Government are making it up as they go along. This is a panicked
response from the Government to the collapsing numbers of housing
starts which the Minister simply wants to do
something—anything—about.
I very much value the hon. Gentleman’s scrutiny of the
Government’s record and I very much enjoy coming before his
Committee. We have discussed this issue, and many others, with
his Committee in the past. It is right that we are taking this
action. It is a serious and complex issue, and we needed time to
consider all the legal aspects of it. However, what I come back
to time and time again is that we need to unblock planning
permissions. We need housing all over the country. We are doing
that at the same time as protecting the environment and I very
much hope to have further dialogue with him about this in the
future.
(Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
It is always baffling to hear those who believe in environmental
improvement saying that only the EU way works. Does the Minister
agree with me that outside the EU we have been able to adapt our
laws to what works for this country, and also make improvements
such as marine protected areas and provide support to agriculture
outside the common agricultural policy? To say that leaving the
EU has meant a degradation in our approach to the environment is
simply nonsense.
My right hon. Friend speaks from vast experience on this issue. I
can do no more than agree strongly with every word. Leaving the
EU allows us to make the laws that are right for our country,
most specifically in the area of building the homes we need
across his area and across the whole country. The point here is
also that the EU legacy judgment has not improved the quality of
the water. That is why we are taking further steps to mitigate
the problem at source. Everybody who cares about the quality of
water should welcome that.
(Putney) (Lab)
The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world.
The Government have just set up the Office for Environmental
Protection—I was on the Environment Bill Committee when we did
that—which says that this planning change is a regression in
environmental protections. We should
not just throw out the rules when they are a bit difficult. What
advice did the Government receive from Natural England—the
Minister said she spoke with it—on its approach to problem
nutrients? Did Natural England green-light the proposals or is it
being ignored, along with the Office for Environmental
Protection?
Natural England is a Government partner. We work very closely
with it, as well as with local planning authorities. We rely on
Natural England to carry out some of the mitigation schemes, the
nutrient credit schemes, and many others. In response to the
Office for Environmental Protection, we have a different view.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)
set out very clearly her response to the Office for Environmental
Protection. We do not agree with it. Fundamentally, we do not
agree that this is a regression in environmental outcomes
overall.
(Meon Valley) (Con)
It is perfectly possible to make housing development nitrate
neutral in the first place. Bearwood development in my
constituency contains over 2,000 new houses and is nitrate
neutral through sustainable drainage and building techniques, so
we can have new homes without compromising our environment and
without taking good-quality farm land out for mitigation. Will my
hon. Friend ensure that planning law matches that ambition?
I thank my hon. Friend very much. She is right to focus on some
of the very good work that is already taking place through some
individual projects I am aware are being brought forward. She is
also right to highlight the role that sustainable drainage can
take and we have committed to looking at that more broadly to see
what more can be done with that particular policy. Planning law
is very clear. It has to leave the environment in a better state
than it finds it, not only in her area but across the
country.
(Hemsworth) (Lab)
Of course we need more housing, but in my constituency the sewers
are over capacity, Victorian and clapped out. I invite the
Minister to meet some of the households where in times of heavy
rain raw sewage not only pollutes the environment but floats
around the streets, the gardens and even the kitchens. It is
simply not acceptable to imagine we can somehow wave a wand to
solve the housing problem. Finally, may I draw the attention of
the House to an excellent website called “Top of the Poops”,
which states that in my constituency there were 4,468 hours of
sewage last year alone? That is completely unacceptable.
DEFRA Ministers have been at this Dispatch Box multiple times to
update colleagues on the work that the Government are proud to do
as part of the plan for water. This is the most ambitious and
stringent package that has been brought forward to tackle this
abhorrent issue. We agree with the hon. Gentleman that storm
overflows and sewage overflows are wrong. That is why the £2.2
billion of new accelerated investment will be directed into vital
infrastructure. We are clear that the volume of sewage discharge
into our waters is unacceptable and that is why we have taken
action in terms of stronger regulation, more fines and
tougher enforcement across the board to tackle every source of
river and sea pollution.
(Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
As the Minister knows, the levels of Somerset are some of the
most environmentally enhanced areas in the UK. Natural England
has destroyed chances for development. We are about to start
building the Tata factory, the largest factory that this country
has seen for a long time. That needs to be sorted and I would
like the Minister’s thoughts. Conversely, the reality also slips.
South West Water, which is an abomination, has just announced it
will stop pollutants from 120,000 hectares by 2025. Can we please
have a grip on the reality of both sides of this issue? If we do
not, nothing will be developed in parts that are environmentally
sensitive.
I am aware that my hon. Friend represents an area with acute
environmental sensitivities and he is right to raise those
concerns on the Floor of the House. We work across Government not
only to tackle the storm overflow issue to which he refers, but
to find a way to allow house building and other types of building
that is much needed to drive jobs and investment, and to support
businesses in his constituency, without that having a weakening
effect on our environment.
(Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I wonder if I could pick up on something the Minister said a
moment ago. Natural England is not a Government partner; it is a
Government agency. So far as this issue is concerned, it is
literally the Government. This rule has existed since 2019 and
the Government’s guidance on it has indeed got in the way of
genuinely affordable, environmentally sustainable housing schemes
in the Lake District and, I am sure, elsewhere. The answer was
not to scrap it but to change the guidance to make it more
intelligent, so that we protect our waterways and our landscapes
from pollution without preventing vital development. Why did the
Government spend four years dithering before panicking,
overreacting and then acting in line with their own nature by
damaging British nature?
The hon. Gentleman makes his points in his usual way, but without
confronting the reality of the situation that affects his
constituents. Of course Natural England is a Government partner
and a Government body. We work in partnership with Natural
England. We work constructively with it to tackle these complex
legal issues. I am sure he would be the first to jump up and
complain if we took action too quickly without considering the
consequences. As it is, what we are doing is a sensible,
proportionate measure to allow much needed development in the
Lake District: homes for his constituents that have the planning
permission to be built—finally.
(Colne Valley) (Con)
Labour-run Kirklees Council is sitting on millions of pounds of
unspent section 106 developer contributions for local
infrastructure. Much of that unspent cash is for environmental
projects. What confidence should we in my area have that our
shambolic Labour-run Kirklees Council will be able to deliver
these mitigation environmental projects when it is actually not
delivering for our local environment as it is?
My hon. Friend is completely right to raise the record—in his
words, the shambolic record—of his local Labour-run council. What
I can say to reassure him and other colleagues is that I have
engaged with local authority leaders to explain to them exactly
what this change means for them, what we expect them to do, and
what they should be doing on behalf of their residents to make
sure the money is spent properly to protect the rivers, seas and
lakes, and get houses built.
(Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Is it not the case that the only ones blocking the development of
the houses that we need, including genuinely affordable social
housing—a pitiful number were built last year; I think it was
just over 7,000—are those on the Government Benches? It is the
Tory Government who are the blockers of housing development to
meet housing need. That is the case, is it not, Minister?
It might sound very nice on the hon. Gentleman’s Facebook clip,
but if he actually looks at the facts he will find it is
Conservative-run councils that have, on the whole, delivered more
houses over the last few years in responding to the needs of
their constituents, and Labour-run councils that are experiencing
significant failures in delivering the houses that their
residents need.
(New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister has lifted a blight from my constituency, but as a
result of these measures we are all going to be swimming in
cleaner water as well, aren’t we?
We are, and I look forward to joining my right hon. Friend in
swimming in some cleaner water very soon.
(Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister rightly said that too many house building companies
were going bust, but may I gently suggest that that is a
consequence of the Government’s crashing the economy last year,
inflation pushing up the cost of materials, and a skills
shortage? The Government claim that their approach will see
100,000 permissions expedited between now and 2030, but given
this context, what is that assessment actually based on, and has
the Minister consulted local authorities?
Yes, we have consulted local authorities, and I make no apologies
for standing up and taking action when it is needed to help small
builders in particular. The diversity of the sector in this
country, unlike that in other countries, is disproportionately
skewed towards larger developers, and it is therefore right for
us, as a Conservative Government, to back small businesses. We
understand what people go through to start a business, which is
why we are taking action to help them.
(Ashford) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s balanced approach, which will improve
the long-term quality of the River Stour in my constituency while
allowing much-needed planning permissions for new homes to start
again. Thousands of people, very sensibly, want to live in
Ashford, and they want to see new homes built, not least in
accordance with the local plan rather than being built
opportunistically around the place, which is what the delays in
permissions have
led to. Can the Minister give us some indication of a timescale
and when councils such as Ashford can start granting planning
permissions again?
My right hon. Friend is entirely correct and I thank him for his
support. We need to wait for the Levelling-up and Regeneration
Bill to achieve Royal Assent—it must, of course, undergo
parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses—but we are working apace.
We have already started that engagement with local authorities
and partners, Natural England and others, to ensure that they
have all the operational detail that they need. What we need to
see are spades in the ground as soon as possible.
(Exeter) (Lab)
It is clear from the Minister’s replies that her statutory
adviser, Natural England, opposed this move, so will she please
publish its advice? Instead of letting developers and water
companies off the hook and pouring even more sewage into our
waterways, why does she not take the advice of her right hon.
Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir
) and reverse the Prime
Minister’s disastrous decision to scrap local housing targets,
which has given nimby councils carte blanche to do nothing?
What I take issue with in the right hon. Gentleman’s
questions—plural—is his comment that we scrapped housing targets.
We have done no such thing. We are committed to building 1
million homes during this Parliament, and we have the target of
building 300,000 homes every year. That is a very important
target that we stand by. What we are doing, unlike the Labour
party, is taking account of local communities. What Labour would
do is build all over the green belt, and I can tell the House
that its own MPs are not in favour of that: they are blocking
developments in their constituencies. What we have is a sensible,
proportionate approach—to build the right houses in the right
places.
(Stroud) (Con)
What the negative social media debate about all this has masked
is the fact that a significant amount of work is being done to
create, conserve and improve wetlands around the country. The
all-party parliamentary group for wetlands, which I chair, is
supporting the drive by the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust to
create 100,000 additional hectares of wetlands in this country,
and we would also like to see a dedicated domestic wetlands team
in DEFRA to repeat its successes in peat productivity. Will my
hon. Friend give us more information about how expert
organisations such as the WWT in Slimbridge, in my patch, can
apply for the £280 million to continue positive progress on
environmental matters, and will she assist my efforts to get the
wetlands team up and running?
I know that my hon. Friend does extremely good work on behalf of
Slimbridge and other wetlands in her area. I should be delighted
to meet her, and to read any of the reports produced by her APPG.
I think it important to stress again that the packages to be
delivered through the work of Natural England and the credit
scheme must continue, and we will be boosting them because we
know of the benefit that they have for my hon. Friend’s area and
many others.
(Bristol East) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that the proposed investment in the
Natural England nutrient mitigation scheme covers only 15% of the
total mitigation requirement to 2030? Where will the additional
funds required to address the shortfall come from?
I do not accept that figure, and I do not know where the hon.
Lady got it. Those schemes are very much in progress at the
moment, on an ongoing basis. We are working through some of the
details. I should also mention that as well as the Natural
England scheme we have the Government’s own scheme, administered
by my Department, which we will be able to deliver throughout the
country.
(Blackpool North and
Cleveleys) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that there is a flaw in the way in which
the Office for Environmental Protection has reached its
determination in this matter? It can take into account only what
is in the Bill. It cannot take into account the other measures
that the Minister has mentioned, the Natural England nutrient
neutrality programme and the investment in slurry management.
Surely, to form a more coherent view of the environmental impact
of these measures, it is necessary to look at all measures in the
round, not just legislative measures.
My hon. Friend is of course extremely perceptive and he is
absolutely correct. We presented an ambitious package overall,
and that means we can meet head-on the challenge of delivering
the much-needed planning permissions that my hon. Friend will no
doubt welcome in his area—which I know needs more housing—and
also protect and enhance our environment. In its recent comments,
the Office for Environmental Protection has interpreted this in a
very narrow fashion, and we do not necessarily agree with its
assessments.
(Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that the Minister has struggled previously with what
constitutes retained EU legislation, but what we are talking
about today is an amendment to the Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations 2017. The challenge before the Minister is
that this Government pledged, on the record, not once but seven
times during the debate on the Bill that became the Retained EU
Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, that they would not reduce
those explicit environmental protections. Will she say now
whether that pledge to match those environmental protections
directly remains, or does she want to take this opportunity to
correct the record and admit that the Government’s word on the
environment is not worth the paper it is written on?
I think that what I am struggling with is the fact that the hon.
Lady clearly did not listen to my previous comments on this
matter. I have said a great many times that we do not agree that
this is a regression in environmental outcomes, and we stand by
that. We are the Conservative Government, and we are committed to
leaving the environment in a better state than the one in which
we found it. That is backed up by a strong package of action
across numerous areas.
(North Norfolk) (Con)
My constituency was one of the worst-affected places in the
entire country, with 2,000 planning applications held up and
thousands
of people at risk of losing their jobs. We are talking not about
large construction companies, but about everyday jobbing
builders—people with families to feed. This is a great step
towards getting the country moving again and solving an
intractable problem.
May I ask the Minister a very simple question? If I build a small
house, or put a little extension on the side of my current house,
am I really damaging the watercourses to the same degree as pig
farming and chicken farming? Are these well-intended laws
completely missing the mark of what they were intended to do in
the first place?
The simple answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that he is
right. The existing legal framework that has been hindering us
has had a disproportionate effect on planning permissions and
house building when the main source of the pollution lies
elsewhere. Overall, this package will be able to deliver house
building and extensions in my hon. Friend’s constituency, help
the smaller builders and, of course, protect our rivers.
(Stockton North) (Lab)
In an industrial area such as Teesside, environmental standards
are critical, including around water quality and our riverside.
Will the new policy framework lead to increased funds for the
Canal & River Trust, which has seen its budgets decimated in
recent years, leading to huge cuts in its activities and the
removal of every single litter bin on its land around the River
Tees?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the concerns of the Canal
& River Trust. I am sure that his comments will have been
heard by DEFRA Ministers, but I will be happy to take those
concerns back to them and ask them to provide an answer.
(Kingston upon Hull West and
Hessle) (Lab)
Following the question from the hon. Member for Stroud () on mitigation, the
Government’s focus seems to be on wetlands, but if we are honest
it will take a long time to fully mitigate the possible
additional pollution. What will be done in the interim to deal
with this pollution before the wetlands become fully
operational?
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that there is a
focus on wetlands but other projects are in scope of the credit
scheme. However, she has hit the nail on the head: the key point
is that some of these things take a very long time to come on
stream but we need to start unblocking those houses now, which is
why we have taken this proportionate approach with the
amendments.
(Bedford) (Lab)
Over the summer, I met members of the Bedfordshire Great Ouse
Valley Environment Trust. They are concerned that our river is
the fifth most polluted in England with forever toxins—the level
is a shocking 10 times that considered safe—not to mention raw
sewage and nitrate and phosphate contamination. Can the Minister
explain to my constituents why the Government are decreasing
protections for our beautiful river when what is needed is an
urgent plan to clean up our dirty waterways?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman and anyone else listening to
this, including his constituents, that the package we are
bringing forward will protect the river and enable it to be in a
cleaner state. That is backed up by our plan for water and the
further announcements we are putting in place today. What is
more, I know from his correspondence that his constituents also
want to see affordable housing being built, and that is what this
will enable.
(Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
My constituents, whether they live in urban Lancaster or in one
of the rural Wyre villages, recognise the need for housing across
north Lancashire, but they also recognise the ripping up of
environmental protections when they see it, and they do not like
that. The Minister seems to be very concerned about small house
builders who are going bust, so will she take this opportunity to
apologise on behalf of her Government, who crashed the economy,
pushed up inflation and made materials more expensive and who
have not dealt with the land banking that is really holding back
house building?
What I would like to see from Members on the other side of the
House is an apology for talking this country down, which they
have done repeatedly. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was
able to tune in to Treasury questions recently when the
Chancellor set the record straight on how we now have one of the
fastest-growing rates in the G7. It is this Conservative
Government who will get every industry going, including the house
building industry and small and large builders. We are on the
side of the builders, not the blockers.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
The Minister refers to the doubling of investment in a nutrient
mitigation scheme, with £200 million put into slurry management,
yet 80% of phosphates in the UK’s rivers are from households and
only 15% are from
agriculture. Is this just another example of this Government
passing the buck and blaming farmers for pollution in our
rivers?
I would be happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman and explain
to him what is meant by slurry management grants. We are helping
farmers to build a circular economy. He will know that this is a
valuable resource. Farmers will welcome this intervention because
they know that it could help them to farm more sustainably. Most
farmers I talk to want to work in harmony with nature. That is
what we are doing. I do not know what the Liberal Democrats’
policy is, though.
(Cardiff North) (Lab)
This Tory Government are failing on housing and the environment
pays the price. It is not an either/or. Our Welsh Labour
Government are delivering on both in Wales. They have been
working strategically with all stakeholders, with high-level
nutrient management boards set up to tackle precisely this issue,
sometimes chaired by the First Minister himself—they are always
chaired by Ministers—as well as bringing through regulations to
improve agricultural water quality and getting homes built as
well. If the Welsh Labour Government can do both, why can’t this
Government?
The Welsh Labour Government have a shocking record on house
building, as they have on many issues. What is more, they are not
tackling the issue at source, which is why we are bringing
forward our catchment plans and our protected site strategies. A
lot of the rivers that are draining from Wales are impacting
negatively on constituencies in England. The only thing I agree
with in the hon. Lady’s rather stilted comments is that this is
not an either/or. If she had listened to what I was saying, she
would know that we are doing both. We are protecting the
environment, protecting our rivers and bringing forward
housing.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.
|
