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.
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
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Winter fuel payments: Am I eligible and how much can I get?
In the latest U-turn after months of backlash, the government has announced a massive expansion of who will receive winter fuel payments. After weeks of speculation over what the changes would look like, it has now been confirmed that 9 million pensions will be eligible for the payment - a huge uplift from the 1.5 million pensioners who received the payment in winter 2024-25. Here, The Independent looks at how the new system will work and who will be affected by the uplift. How many people did the winter fuel payment cut affect? The winter fuel payment is a state benefit previously given to all pensioners to help with energy costs during the coldest months of the year. The decision to means-test the previously universal payment was one of the first announcements by Rachel Reeves when she became chancellor after Labour's landslide election victory last year, and it has been widely blamed for the party's collapse in support. The government has insisted the policy was necessary to help stabilise the public finances, and meant that the payment would only go to those on low incomes who received specified benefits such as pension credit. This meant the number of pensioners receiving the payment was reduced from 11.4 million to 1.5 million. Several charities, MPs and unions criticised the decision, with some blaming it for the party's disappointing local election results. In November, it was revealed that the government's own figures indicated it would force 100,000 pensioners into poverty in 2026. How was the payment linked to pension credit? Only those who claim pension credit were able to receive the winter fuel payment in winter 2024. Those who are above state pension age and have an income of less than £218.15 a week, or less than £332.95 as a joint weekly income with your partner, are eligible for pension credit. However, despite the government's campaigns and an increase in claims after the July 2024 announcement, it is estimated that half a million eligible people fail to claim the benefit. How will the new system work? The government has increased the threshold at which people over the state pension age become eligible for the payment, meaning that anyone with an income of or below £35,000 will receive it this winter. The government estimates that the new threshold will ensure that more than three quarters of pensioners in England and Wales - around 9m people - will receive the benefit. It is estimated that around 2 million pensioners in England and Wales have taxable incomes above £35,000 and will therefore be exempt. The payment of £200 per household, or £300 per household where there is someone over 80, will be made automatically this winter, meaning no pensioner will need to take any action in order to receive the payment. Those with incomes above the threshold will see the payment automatically recovered via HMRC, or they have the option to opt out. However, details of how this will work are yet to be confirmed. Ministers estimate the change will cost the taxpayer £1.25bn in England and Wales, saving around £450m compared to when the winter fuel payment was universally available. The Treasury has not yet set out how it will pay for the uplift, but has insisted the costs will be accounted for at the autumn budget and incorporated into the next OBR forecast. They have also promised it will not lead to permanent additional borrowing.
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
What is the spending review? Everything Rachel Reeves could announce to fix UK economy
Rachel Reeves will today make one of her biggest statements to MPs since Labour 's general election victory. The chancellor will unveil the results of her line by line spending review, setting out the budgets of government departments until the end of the decade. The review will be the first conducted by a Labour government since Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown 's comprehensive spending review in 2007. And it will see Ms Reeves walk the tightrope between delivering on the party's election promises while seeking to squeeze within her self-imposed fiscal rules. As a result, some departments are likely to face deep spending cuts, while others see their budgets increase for the years to come. The Independent looks at what the spending review is likely to include and the rows it is already causing. What is the spending review? Ms Reeves' spending review has taken place in two parts, with phase one set out in her October Budget - which included £40 billion of tax hikes and set out departmental spending until 2026. The second phase has seen departments ordered to set out how adopting technologies such as AI and reforming public services can free up government cash and support the delivery of Labour 's missions. Wednesday's review will set out day-to-day departmental spending for the next three years and investment spending for the next four. Reeves has ruled out borrowing for day-to-day spending and has insisted she will not raise taxes again, prompting questions about how the policies will be funded and whether cuts will be made. When is the spending review? The spending review will take place after Prime Minister 's Questions, so at around 12.30pm, on Wednesday, 11 June. What has already been announced? Ms Reeves hopes a government splurge on infrastructure will be enough to keep the cabinet and Labour backbenchers onside, with the chancellor touting changes to her fiscal rules allowing her to borrow more to invest. On Wednesday she set out plans to invest billions of pounds in public transport in the North and Midlands, with billions more expected to be unveiled next week. Reeves has also confirmed that the government will U-turn on its decision to take winter fuel payments away from 10 million pensioners, a policy change that is estimated to cost around £1.25bn. The government has also said that the overseas aid budget will be cut to fund a boost in defence spending, which will increase from 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 2.5 per cent by 2027. Labour is under pressure to raise it to 3 per cent by 2034. The chancellor has unveiled an £86 billion package for science and technology, while the NHS is set to receive a boost of as much as £30 billion and schools will get a £4.5 billion boost to cover higher pay for teachers. Alongside this, the government on Monday announced plans to invest an extra £1 billion into scaling up UK computer power 'by a factor of twenty' to ensure Britain is an 'AI maker not an AI taker'. And on Tuesday, ministers confirmed its intention pump billions of pounds into Britain's nuclear energy sector, putting £14.2bn towards construction of the new Sizewell C nuclear power station. In the final hours before the review was unveiled, Ms Reeves announced she would be putting £39bn towards affordable homes over the next 10 years, as well as announcing an extension of the £3 bus fare cap until March 2027. What else might be announced? Ms Reeves confirmed Wednesday's statement will not see another round of bumper tax hikes, as some had expected, meaning that we are likely to see sweeping cuts to unprotected departments. Only the protected defence, health and education departments are likely to be spared. Others will see spending slashed, with the days leading into the statement dominated by cabinet infighting over the cuts. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has already warned that 'sharp trade-offs are unavoidable'. With the government already having vowed more money for the Ministry of Defence to boost spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2027, the money will have to come out of other departments' budgets. Meanwhile, the ever-ballooning NHS budget will also see pressure piled on other departments, as Labour prioritises investment in the health service to cut waiting lists. But the trade-offs could undermine Labour's promises elsewhere, with police chiefs writing to Sir Keir Starmer warning him forces could face 'stark choices' about which crimes to prioritise due to potential cuts. How have the cabinet and others reacted? Yvette Cooper and Angela Rayner both refused to agree to the spending settlements with the Treasury until just 48 hours before the review was unveiled, with a senior Labour figure telling The Independent the cuts will lead to key manifesto spending promises being ditched. Areas that could be affected are border control, policing, and social care. But cuts are necessary due to the lacklustre growth forecasts for the UK economy, which may be further downgraded in the autumn as a result of Donald Trump 's tariffs. Metropolitan Police head Sir Mark Rowley was among those warning the prime minister of 'far-reaching consequences' if the Treasury pushes ahead with slashing costs, including cuts to frontline policing last seen under austerity. Downing Street had been enlisted to help in discussions over the Home Office settlement, with the department concerned an uplift in police spending would be offset by cuts elsewhere. Outside Whitehall, the mayor of London raised concerns the capital will get nothing in Wednesday's review, despite having called for major investments in transport projects and the power to introduce a tourist levy. Sources close to Sir Sadiq Khan were warning the government it risked returning to an 'anti-London agenda' seen under the Conservatives. How is Britain's economy looking? The government has claimed that an economic turnaround in recent months has meant it can finance changes such as the U-turn on winter fuel payments, with Sir Keir on Wednesday saying it is also why Labour backs the state pension triple lock. The economy performed unexpectedly strongly in the first three months of the year, with the chancellor highlighting that Britain had the fastest growth in the G7, with GDP rising by 0.7 per cent. But despite the positive figures, experts warned that the economic landscape has shifted considerably since the first quarter, particularly with the introduction of Mr Trump's tariffs.
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."
