Member

I understand that the Government accept the case for a legislative solution in response to Day as part of a wider consideration of the statutory protections of open space—but that they intend to bring forward that solution in another MHCLG Bill in the near future. The obvious candidate, I would suggest, is the English devolution Bill. That is encouraging to hear, but I must confess that I am a little disappointed that the Government have not grasped the nettle now, just as they have not on my amendment in relation to the Hillside judgment. It seems ironic—as the Home Builders Federation and the Land, Planning and Development Federation observed in a letter to the Chancellor last week—that, in relation to those two Supreme Court decisions that add to planning regulation, the acknowledged need for a solution is left to a later Bill, but in relation to last week’s Supreme Court decision in CG Fry, which reduces planning regulation, the Government have immediately amended this Bill so as to reverse it straight away. I did not speak in the debate on Amendment 208 because I was leading counsel in Fry, and I did not vote on it either, but it seems to me that the Government will live to regret their decision to extend the habitat regulations to Ramsar sites to which the parent EU directive does not apply.