Labour rebel forces Commons vote amid fears of housebuilding reforms ‘wreckage'
Housing minister Matthew Pennycook said developers will be able to pay into a new nature recovery fund to bolster conservation efforts, which he denied was a 'cash to trash model'.
But North East Hertfordshire MP Chris Hinchliff forced a division on his amendment 69, which would compel developers to improve the conservation status of environmental features on their land before causing 'damage'.
MPs voted to reject the amendment, with 180 in favour, 307 against, majority 127.
Mother of the House Diane Abbott, Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) and Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) were among the 14 Labour MPs who rebelled against the Government.
In addition to Mr Hinchliff, Labour's Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam), Richard Burgon (Leeds East), Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby), Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth), Clive Lewis (Norwich South), Rachael Maskell (York Central), Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East), Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East), Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill), Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston), and Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) also voted in favour of the amendment.
Mr Hinchliff told the Commons that the fund was a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.'
The money will help Natural England set up new environmental delivery plans (EDPs), which Mr Hinchliff said should come with a timeline for their implementation.
He said the proposal will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'.
He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'
Mr Hinchliff had also called for a residents' right of appeal against green-lit large developments, if they are not on sites which a council has set aside for building, and new town hall powers to block developers' plans, if they have failed to finish their previous projects.
Mr Pennycook had earlier said the 'status quo' for the environment and development was not working, and instead proposed reforms which he described as a 'win-win' for both.
He said: 'The Nature Restoration Fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.'
He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on.
'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite.
'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the Nature Restoration Fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.'
Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which is set to get powers to acquire land compulsorily to put its EDPs into practice.
Labour MP Neil Duncan-Jordan criticised the Government's rhetoric, and argued it was 'too simplistic to argue that this is a debate of builders versus blockers'.
He said 'there's no amount of killing badgers or red tape bonfires which is going to fix' what he described as a 'developer-led model' of planning, when housebuilders 'drip feed developments into the system, prioritising properties which maximise profit and are far from affordable for local people'.
The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing'.
Conservative shadow housing minister Paul Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a Nature Restoration Fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?'
Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'.
Several MPs had called for swift bricks – hollow bricks where small birds can make their nests – in new builds, in amendments drafted by Labour's Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) and Barry Gardiner (Brent West), and Liberal Democrat housing spokesman Gideon Amos.
At the despatch box, Mr Pennycook said that 'changing national planning policy is the more effective route to securing swift bricks as a standard feature of the vast majority of new builds', through a regularly updated set of planning rules.
'We are specifically giving consideration to using a new suite of national policies for decision making to require swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings unless there are compelling reasons which preclude their use, or which would make them ineffective,' the minister said.
'This would significantly strengthen the planning policy expectations already in place, meaning for example that we would expect to see at least one swift brick in all new brick-built houses.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wales Online
an hour ago
- Wales Online
Lords' objections to Data Bill over copyright threatens its existence
Lords' objections to Data Bill over copyright threatens its existence – minister Sir Chris Bryant said the continued parliamentary ping-pong, where a bill bounces back and forth between the Lords and the Commons could "imperil" the Bill Protesters in central London in May called on the Government to ditch plans to allow AI tech firms to steal their work without payment or permission (Image: PA Wire/PA Images ) The continued refusal by the House of Lords to pass the Data Bill threatens its existence altogether, a minister has said, as the Commons passed an amendment to head off a challenge from peers. Sir Chris Bryant said the continued parliamentary ping-pong, where a bill bounces back and forth between the Lords and the Commons could "imperil" the Bill. The critical stand-off arose as artists and musicians including Sir Elton John and Sir Paul McCartney, raised concerns over AI companies using copyrighted work without permission. Baroness Kidron, who directed the second Bridget Jones film, had put forward an amendment aiming to ensure copyright holders could see when their work had been used, which was overwhelmingly passed by the Lords for the second time last week. However this has not won Government backing. In a concession to win around the Lords, the Government has instead said it will give a parliamentary statement six months after the passage of the Bill, where it will update MPs and peers on an economic impact assessment, and a report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI. A parliamentary working group will also be established. Article continues below Technology minister Sir Chris said the amendments showed the Government had "unequivocally heard concerns". However Conservative chairwoman of the Culture, Media and Sport select committee Dame Caroline Dinenage said MPs had been "gaslit". MPs voted in favour of the Government's amendment, which replace the changes put forward by Lady Kidron, by 304 votes to 189, majority 115. These will now go back to the Lords for peers to approve. During the last session in the Lords, where Lady Kidron had successfully forward her amendment, she told peers it she would not hold up the Bill further if the Commons chose to disagree with it. MPs heard the Bill will help establish digital verification services, a new national underground asset register which could speed up roadworks, and allow better healthcare and policing. It would also renew UK and EU data protection laws. The current agreement with Brussels will run out in December. Speaking at the start of the Bill, Sir Chris said: "Double insistence would kill the Bill, where ever the Bill has started. I take people at their word when they say that they don't want to kill the Bill." Sir Chris added: "Its provisions have the support of all parties in both Houses. "Which is why I urge this House to accept our amendments in lieu. "And I urge their Lordships not to insist on their amendment, but to agree with us. "It is worth pointing out, that if their Lordships do persist, they are not just delaying and imperilling a Bill which all parties agree is an important and necessary piece of legislation. "They are also imperilling something else of much greater significance and importance economically; our data adequacy with the European Union." He said he was "mystified" by Liberal Democrat and Conservative opposition to the Bill. "These amendments show our commitment to ensuring considered and effective solutions as I have just outlined, and demonstrate that we have unequivocally heard concerns about timing and accountability." Conservative shadow technology minister Dr Ben Spencer said the creative industries and peers "were not buying" the Government's approach. He said: "They're not buying it because the Government has lost the confidence of their stakeholders that it will bring forward legislation to enact effective and proportionate transparency requirements for AI models in the use of their creative content." Dame Caroline said Sir Chris and the Government were not engaging with the central issue. She said: "By being cloth-eared to the legitimate concerns of the world-leading creative industries for month after month after month; they have been virtually dragged kicking and screaming to this position now, where they bring forward a couple of tiny amendments. "By gaslighting members of all parties at both ends of this building who have attempted to draw attention to this. "By somehow pitting our world-leading creative industries against AI, almost somehow presenting them as luddites, that they are somehow allergic to innovation and technology when actually these are some of the most groundbreaking and innovative sectors out there; they are using AI every single day to produce world-breaking pieces of creative content." Responding, Sir Chris said: "I would just say to her (Dame Caroline) that she clearly has forgotten that the previous government actually introduced plans which would have brought forward a text and data mining exemption for commercial exploitation of copyrighted materials without any additional protections for creative industries at all. "That seems to have slipped her mind. Article continues below "We have moved a considerable deal since this Bill started. "We have moved and we have listened to what their lordships and, more importantly, what the creative industries have to say in this."
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Spending review live updates: Rachel Reeves to reveal how Britain will splash the cash with NHS, defence and schools in line for windfalls
Chancellor Rachel Reeves will today unveil her spending review in Parliament. The review, which will set out day-to-day spending plans for the next three years and capital spending plans for the next four, is expected to see boosts for the NHS, defence and schools. But it is also likely to involve squeezes for other departments as the Chancellor seeks to keep within the fiscal rules she has set for herself. Her room for manoeuvre has also been further constrained by the Government's U-turn on winter fuel payments, which will see the benefit paid to pensioners receiving up to £35,000 per year at a cost of around £1.25 billion to the Treasury.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
When is the spending review and what might Rachel Reeves announce?
All eyes are on the Treasury this week as Rachel Reeves is set to lay out her spending review to Parliament on Wednesday. She'll announce the Government's day-to-day spending commitments up to 2028-29, and investment spending plans to 2029-30 – but there have been varying reports of what we can expect. Here, Telegraph Money takes you through what we know and what the plans could mean for you. What is the spending review? Spending reviews take place every few years, and it is when the Government lays out all spending that can be reasonably planned. The plans account for around 40pc of all public spending, according to the House of Commons Library, with the rest dependent on demands such as the benefits bill. The last multi-year spending review was in 2021 under Boris Johnson's Conservative administration. In the run-up to the review, government departments have been in negotiations with the Treasury to try to secure as much funding as they can. The current review process was launched in December last year, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said it could be 'one of the most significant domestic policy events of this parliament'. However, Ms Reeves has warned that 'not every department will get everything that they want', as she has had to 'say no' to things that she would support in an ideal world. Many departments are expecting a real-terms cut in their funding. The Government previously said that the review is 'zero-based', meaning that decisions will be made based on an assessment of spending line by line, rather than an overall increase or decrease to the current budget. What time will Rachel Reeves announce it? The Chancellor will stand up in the House of Commons on Wednesday June 11 after Prime Minister's Questions, at roughly 12.30pm. Once Ms Reeves has finished speaking the review will be published on the government website, along with any accompanying documents. What is likely to be included? Some government spending plans have already been announced. Last week, Reeves announced £15.6bn of funding for regional transport, and the Government has confirmed a partial U-turn on the decision to remove winter fuel payments from all but the poorest pensioners. The Treasury has today announced that nine million pensioners will receive winter fuel payments this winter as a result. It has also been reported that the Chancellor will focus on three priorities in the spending review: health, security and the economy. This means spending on the NHS, defence and infrastructure, with Home Secretary Yvette Cooper understood to be putting in a final plea for more police funding. There are also suggestions that the two-child benefit cap may be lifted, and schools are understood to be in line for £4.5bn uplift. Funding these plans may be tricky, however. Ms Reeves has confirmed she will be sticking to the Government's non-negotiable fiscal rules on borrowing. At the same time, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said 'momentum is weakening' in the economy, as they told Ms Reeves that efforts to cut government borrowing must be 'stepped up'. If more borrowing is off the table, it may mean cuts for some departments. The IFS has warned that 'because headline real growth rates [over the period] are relatively modest, sharp trade-offs are unavoidable. Achieving stated objectives in some areas will likely require real-terms cuts elsewhere.' Deutsche Bank is a little more optimistic. In a recent analyst note Sanjay Raja, senior economist, said the bank is seeing more 'resilience than expected' in the UK economy, and their forecasts for growth until the end of 2027 currently sit above the consensus. But, in short, Reeves still needs to find more money. Will any tax changes be announced? No, there will be no tax rises in the spending review on Wednesday. As tax increases demand new legislation through a finance bill, we won't hear about any changes until the Budget in the autumn – but there is already speculation that any additional spending will necessitate a higher tax burden unless a spur in economic growth helps to boost the Treasury's coffers. Tom Selby, director of public policy at AJ Bell, said: 'Of course, a lot can happen between now and the Budget and we have a number of economic data points that could influence the Chancellor's decisions come the autumn, but speculation about what may be on the table is naturally already rife. 'Perhaps the most drastic decision the Government could make would be to walk back on its manifesto commitment not to tax 'working people' and consider increasing income tax, national insurance or VAT.' Mr Selby added that ideas for a wealth tax may also be considered, along with speculation of further pensions reform. Another option Ms Reeves could be weighing up is extending the current freeze on income tax thresholds. The Finance Act 2025 extended the freeze on inheritance tax thresholds until 2030 – and the Chancellor will be under pressure to do the same to other allowances and thresholds, too. The latest forecasts suggest eight million workers will be pulled into higher rates of tax by 2028, raising an extra £38bn per year for the Treasury. Extending the threshold would also allow the Chancellor to keep to Labour's manifesto commitment not to raise taxes on working people. Lindsay James, investment strategist at Quilter, said as there were no tax rises in the Spring Statement, investors are expecting to see rises in the autumn Budget if growth continues to 'lag'. Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, made a series of suggestions in a leaked memo – including reinstating the pensions lifetime allowance and removing more inheritance tax reliefs, which were calculated to raise approximately £3bn in total. Chris Etherington, tax partner at RSM UK, added: 'It may already feel pretty claustrophobic at the Treasury, with limited headroom below the fiscal ceiling. The hope will be that economic growth will ease this pressure, and the next few months could be crucial to the Chancellor's plans. 'As it stands, the foundations may need further stabilisation and another sizeable rise in tax receipts to fund that.'
