Matthew Pennycook

I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but when a Bill is this flawed—I will come in detail to how it is flawed in several other respects—it is too much to ask the Government essentially to redesign it in Committee, with all the capacity that would require. I will come to what the Government are doing on these issues in due course. The community right to buy already provides for a 12-month moratorium and a right of first refusal. Extending those effects across a wider class of land might also increase compensation claims against local authorities, including claims arising from delay to a sale or diminution in value following listing. Although the Bill now includes additional evidential requirements and chief planning officer scrutiny, those safeguards do not resolve our fundamental concern about the implications arising from expanding the purpose and reach of the regime. The national planning policy framework already provides strong support for community-led development, including community-led exception sites, and the August 2026 revisions strengthened and clarified that support. Members are saying that such things are not working, but that measure was introduced only a few months ago. Our considered view is that those changes need time to embed before further primary legislation is considered. Clauses 2 and 3 concern the identification of land in neighbourhood development plans, and the acquisition of land required to enable affordable housing respectively. Again, we understand the intention behind the clauses, but they seek to add further statutory processes and powers where relevant ones already exist—several hon. Friends made that point in their speeches. Clause 4 seeks to provide a safeguard in respect of the new provisions in clauses 1 to 3, in the form of a limit of one hectare of land for every 1,000 people in an adjacent settlement over each five-year period, thereby aggregating land listed as an asset of community value identified in a neighbourhood plan or authorised for compulsory acquisition. I understand fully why the hon. Member has included that clause in the Bill, and I commend his efforts to try to tweak it to reassure the Government about the effects of clauses 1 to 3, but I am afraid it does not resolve our fundamental concerns about those provisions.