Gideon Amos

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proper statutory protection for the internationally valuable resource that is our chalk streams is long overdue. I welcome the Minister’s words in his opening remarks, but until we see those designations we will continue to advocate for proper statutory protection for chalk streams. We urge the Minister to go further on that. I now turn to the amendments on democratic and parliamentary accountability. The Bill does not just tinker at the edges but fundamentally concentrates power into the hands of Secretaries of State. Lords amendment 33 would ensure that if and when the Government implement their proposed regulations to remove powers from local planning committees and councillors, they must come to this House under the affirmative resolution procedure. Clause 51 gives unlimited power to all future Secretaries of State to remove any and all decisions from planning committees—there is no limit imposed on that power. The very least that the Government should be willing to accept is a commitment to meaningful parliamentary oversight when they bring forward the regulations to remove powers from planning committees. No amount of consultation on a national scheme of delegation will change the extraordinary power in clause 51 and what it takes away from local planning committees, locally elected councillors and local communities. Lords amendment 33 offers only a small safeguard against that centralisation. For such powers to not even be affirmed by Parliament would make a mockery of the democratic process. Similarly, Lords amendment 1 would ensure that the Government continue to be fully accountable to Parliament on their changes to national policy statements. NPSs govern the biggest projects in the land, from Hinkley Point to Sizewell, from rail freight terminals to the largest solar and wind farms in the world, and transmission lines. It is the fact NPSs are approved by Parliament that provides them with the efficacy they have in guiding decisions on such projects. In the Commons, we proposed a compromise that case law could, for example, be reflected without parliamentary processes, but policy changes on matters as significant as future plans for nuclear power stations should remain fully subject to the decisions of Parliament. We therefore oppose the Government’s attempt to remove scrutiny of national policy statements. Amendments 2 and 3 are about protections for reservoirs, and we oppose the Government’s attempt to remove those provisions. We also oppose the Government’s intention to remove protections for assets of community value. We remain concerned about proposals for badger shooting on building sites, which remain unamended in schedule 4. The Liberal Democrats have set out our proposals for housing and planning. Our programme for public housing, which is far more ambitious than the Government’s, is for 150,000 publicly-funded and genuinely affordable social and council rent homes per year for local people, not the 20,000 that the Government have established as their target. It is a mistake to pit development against nature and communities. On Second Reading, only the Liberal Democrats voted to stop the damaging effects on nature this Bill could have. The Government have made some changes, which we welcome, but the amendments that remain before us today could be accommodated. They are essential to ensuring that the people and nature affected by building the homes and infrastructure that we need are heard and have their place in shaping that development. We must not give up—the Liberal Democrats will not give up—on ensuring that nature and people are protected in the rush to build the homes that we need.