Daniel Zeichner
MP for Cambridge · Labour · United Kingdom
“I recall, as a shadow Minister, visiting a major institution in the country and sending the management into panic when I asked them where the bus stop was to get back to the station.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the location of bus stops. I am so frustrated when I have taken the train to Cambridge, arrive at the station, see the bus, but have to walk 200 yards around the platform, come out of the station and walk 200 yards back to the bus stop, to find the bus has gone.”
“Devolution and local government reorganisation are different things. To be honest, they should probably be considered separately, but they have become so interlinked and intertwined in this debate that it is impossible to do so. If we are to have a stronger devolution settlement, it is right to spend more time getting it right.”
“I commend the Secretary of State and his team for their determination and resolve in the transfer to renewables. In the extraordinary and unprecedented weather that we are having at the moment I can assure the House that some shade would be really welcome in parts of the east of England.”
“I commend all the hard work that has gone into both the road map and the profitability review by the civil servants, the ministerial team and so many people across the sector, including Baroness Batters.”
“On that point about speculative building, I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is probably not a fan of big, bold projects of this kind, but does he agree that there is a very good example just down the road in Cambridge?”
The complete record
Every one of 5,991 lines we hold for Daniel Zeichner, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 65 of 120.
“We think this amendment is helpful, provides clarity and knits the Bill together. From the outset, our worry has been that the Bill is a rather disparate set of measures. Through the amendment, we could tie it all together and make it work better. Once again, the amendment is an attempt to draw out from the Minister the Government’s thinking on the issue, and we will not seek to divide the Committee.”
“We fear that, without that, there will be no means to measure how well the nature provisions are contributing to the overall goal of nature recovery. A clear link would ensure that each local nature recovery strategy delivered local and national objectives, as intended. Local nature recovery strategies need to be the primary means by which ambitious national environmental commitments, priorities and investments are targeted to deliver maximum public and ecological benefits—the whole range, from tree planting to nature-based flood defences. In combination with those clear national priorities and ecological advice, working with local knowledge and expertise, they can be channelled into delivering measurable achievements through the local strategies. That is the way to make these strategies a success.”
“I beg to move amendment 143, in clause 97, page 98, line 6, at end insert— “(c) a statement of how the strategy is expected to contribute to achievement of relevant environmental targets.” We move from pace to content. We would like to say a little about this—we have a number of amendments, which we can probably go through fairly swiftly—because we think that some things could be done to strengthen the content of local nature recovery strategies. Amendment 143 is to underline that we believe that there need to be clearer links between these requirements and the target-setting framework established at the outset of the Bill. We believe that the strategies should be required to be developed with regard to the need to contribute to delivery of the environmental targets.”
“As I have said, we think that linkage to ELM is absolutely key to ensuring a cohesive approach. Again, we think the amendment would strengthen the Bill, which is rather important. I have referred to the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, which I think needs to be strengthened. We are helping the Minister here; she could win many brownie points by pointing out to her colleagues that, given that COP26 is nature-based, this is an opportunity to absolutely deliver on nature recovery. I am offering her an early Christmas present, really, and I am afraid that on this occasion we will divide the Committee, because it is a perfect opportunity for her to show that she wants to join us in strengthening her very own Bill.”
“I beg to move amendment 144, in clause 97, page 98, line 16, at end insert— “(e) a description of how actions intended to meet the net gain objective and land management changes supported by public funds should be spatially targeted through Local Nature Recovery Strategies in order to contribute most effectively to environmental improvement.” This amendment clarifies the relationship between LNRSs, net gain, ELM and other policies. I suspect that we are trying to achieve the same things through slightly different means. Amendment 144 seeks to ensure that local nature recovery strategies are comprehensive and bring all an area’s environmental gains into a cohesive plan. They should co-ordinate all the local biodiversity net gains arising from planning as well as from the land management changes pursued under ELM schemes.”
“That was a helpful set of interchanges, but I have to say that we need something stronger than, “I’d like to think that we are going to see some action.” The urgency is much more pressing. There is a danger of ending up with perpetual pilots, and we want to go much more quickly and more strongly. On that basis, we will press the amendment to a Division. Question put , That the amendment be made.”
“The basic point we are trying to address is that there should be some integration. By linking strategies together, we believe they can form the building blocks of a national nature recovery network—a joined-up system of nature-rich places, as originally envisioned in the 25-year plan for the environment. We will not seek to divide the Committee on this amendment, but we want to get a sense of whether the Minister shares our aspirations.”
“Our understanding is that the intention is for local nature recovery strategies to be produced, as the Minister has already made reference to, in a bottom-up way, to create a nature recovery network at a national level by way of creating corridors of habitat across the country. I wonder slightly about the national level. As has already been referenced, we have quite clear regions and sub-regions, and it depends on the landscape. Our point is that there should be some coherence. There is a slight risk that there will be a lack of coherence. For instance, we could see a situation where a local authority prioritises a green space for people, quite rightly, but neglects the fact that it could be a crucial stepping-stone between two vulnerable habitats, which could be resolved by creating a corridor of trees that links those habitats.”
“I beg to move amendment 145, in clause 97, page 98, line 23, before “are” insert “an ecologically coherent network of sites that”. This amendment clarifies that local habitat maps should contribute to a coherent ecological network. Obviously, I am very disappointed that the Minister felt unable to accept my Christmas gift, but we will move on. Amendment 145 seeks to ensure that local habitat maps, which are included in local nature recovery strategies, are set out in an ecologically coherent way. It is important to get some clarity, because the sites should relate to each other in a coherent way to form part of a wider integrated network for nature’s recovery. We do not want to see local habitats stagnating in isolation; they should relate to one another.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. We probably have slightly different views on this issue, but we are both trying to get to the same place. My concern—it goes right back to the planning White Paper, where these issues are touched on very lightly—is about the lack of integration, rather than having a coherent, planned overall approach. That makes the whole approach less effective. We have heard what the Minister says, however, and we do not seek to push the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. — (Leo Docherty.)”
“Our amendment 146 would address these omissions by requiring the Secretary of State to “produce a strategy to inform the development of a Nature Recovery Network”; to “set out a process for review and approval of Local Nature Recovery Strategies by Natural England”; and to confirm that each one “would contribute adequately to the delivery” of the national nature recovery networks that we need. Those requirements would give the Secretary of State responsibility for knitting local nature recovery strategies together, which is what the Minister said she wishes to do, so that they function as a coherent national network. As this is a good opportunity to help the Minister in her endeavour to rescue and strengthen the Bill, I will give her one last opportunity to accept our assistance; we will seek a Division on the amendment.”
“The Government’s proposal is a start—it provides some of the information that authorities will need—but good planning for the natural environment requires more than the identification of isolated patches of nature on a map; it requires a strategy for enhancing and linking sites, throughout urban and rural areas, to facilitate nature’s recovery. What is missing from the clause is provision for the Government to undertake work to identify habitat opportunities. Nor is there any national system of review of the local and national recovery strategies put in place—any quality control to check that each one is making a meaningful contribution.”
“Predictably enough, we have one or two concerns and comments about that, which our amendment 146 allows us to address. If this national habitat map is to be effective in informing the preparation of local nature recovery strategies, it needs to be available in good time for the preparation of local nature recovery strategies. As we touched on earlier, we want that to be done speedily, so the national map needs to be done speedily. It will not be sufficient simply to present national conservation sites on the map. We will also need critical information—on, for example, the condition of sites and the opportunities for recovery—to help direct public authorities in their important work to improve and restore national conservation sites.”
“(3B) The Secretary of State must publish guidelines that set out a process for review and approval of Local Nature Recovery Strategies by Natural England to confirm the priorities and proposals identified in the Local Nature Recovery Strategy would contribute adequately to the delivery of a national Nature Recovery Network and relevant environmental targets.” The amendment requires the Secretary of State to undertake the mapping and planning work necessary to carry out their functions in relation to the national habitat map. We welcome the provisions of the clause. It requires the Secretary of State to assist public authorities in preparing their local nature recovery strategy by publishing a national habitat map for England, and to help identify national conservation sites and other areas of particular importance to biodiversity.”
“I beg to move amendment 146, in clause 98, page 98, line 45, at end insert— “(3A) The Secretary of State must produce a strategy to inform the development of a Nature Recovery Network, including a spatial description of the opportunities for recovering or enhancing the environment through actions to protect or restore biodiversity, in terms of habitats and species, in England.”
“Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“I am grateful for the Minister’s response and to her for reintroducing the OEP at this stage. As she will recall, this side were not entirely convinced of the efficacy of this new organisation, and some of us do worry that it will just be a desk in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the early new year, and we want it to be much tougher than that. I suspect her response on this has been the same as on many of these attempts from our side to strengthen and add vim and vigour to this process. However, I am afraid I am still not persuaded or convinced, but I do thank her for the charm and courtesy she has shown in our exchanges. I would still caution her to beware the bloke on the bulldozer, and we do think there is a danger that this Bill’s good intentions are undermined. We would like to press the amendment to a vote.”
“My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I find myself wondering what he thinks the purpose of all that is. He sets out clearly that the protections we have now can be swept away. Who benefits from that?”
“I come from a very dry region, which adjoins the constituency of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. Some water companies, such as Anglian Water, are already working with other parts of the country, and there are regional plans coming into place. Does the Minister agree that it would be much better to give legal certainty by specifying that as the amendment suggests?”
“The water companies operate in a tightly constrained regulatory framework, always having to balance bills, investment and shareholder returns. What impact does the Minister think her welcome initiative will have on that, and will she be directing them as to either what they do not do instead, or where that investment should come from?”
“Looking back at the Prime Minister’s “Build, build, build” speech in July, he did claim—spuriously in our view—that: “Newt-counting delays are a massive drag on the prosperity of this country.” We will discuss newts in more detail later, but when Government policy lurches from one approach to another, we need certainty that the commitment of the current Minister will not be trumped by future Ministers who might take a different view. Unless we get that certainty, we will certainly wish to press this amendment to a Division.”
“Amendment 169 would ensure that the only way the 10% net gain figure could be changed is by being increased after review by the Secretary of State. It would also lock in a timeframe to ensure the percentage is reassessed after an appropriate amount of time, within a maximum period of five years. I am sure the Minister will, as she has throughout, assure us that there is no need for concern. But to return to my whodunnit, I fear that there may be a villain in my story and Members might be able to guess who some of the contenders might be.”
“The Bill’s provisions read that “the relevant percentage” of biodiversity net gain for developers is 10%, and: “The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this paragraph so as to change the relevant percentage.” Our amendment is very clear: that must be amended to include a commitment to monitor and review practice, so that the level of gain can be increased in future if evidence demonstrates this is possible and needed. We also need a lock-in so that the percentage can only be increased by the Government, not simply decreased at a later date. There must be no mechanism in the Bill to lower the level of gain; that would seriously undermine the objectives of the system as a whole, and would likely result in little or no gain being achieved in practice.”
“I am told that Lichfield District Council already requires 20% net gain on new development, so although we welcome the Government’s statement and its response to the biodiversity net gain consultation, the 10% should not be viewed as a cap on the aspirations of developers who want to go further. I was pleased that the Minister reiterated this point on Second Reading. It would be very helpful if she could make a clear statement, to facilitate ambitious developers and to help them and local planning authorities, underlining that the aspiration is to go further. A number of changes need to be made. Under schedule 14, the Secretary of State has a number of powers to make regulations, including a Henry VIII power to amend the 10% biodiversity net gain objective and to amend the types of developments the net gain will apply to.”
“To turn to the detail of amendment 169, our fear is that we are in danger of being left with a rather unambitious percentage of biodiversity net gain that is all too easy for the Government to decrease if they choose to do so. At first sight, setting the condition for planning permission at 10% biodiversity net gain seems a reasonable thing to do, but it is important to note that the impact assessment published alongside the biodiversity net gain consultation in December 2018 said that 10% is merely the lowest level of net gain at which the Department “could confidently expect to deliver…net gain, or at least no net loss”. It does not appear that this is taking us very far forward. Indeed, 10% net gain is less ambitious than the current practice of some local authorities.”
“We want to address this problem. We have to be serious about it and not try to play with the figures, and our view is that at the moment the Bill is a lost opportunity to stop the decline. However, the new general condition has the potential to be an effective tool to boost biodiversity across the country, and there are many issues we want to address in the amendments to see how the Bill can be improved. I will touch on several of our amendments, including on the length of time for which habitats should be maintained, which is 30 years; the exemptions, too many, in our view, from the biodiversity gain condition; the relationship between the new system and irreplaceable habitats; and the lack of a mechanism to guarantee what is prescribed in the biodiversity gain plan to ensure it is actually delivered on the ground.”
“The principle of taking a more strategic approach to restoring nature and requiring a 10% net gain in biodiversity is one we fully support. That is what is addressed in this schedule. We know how important that is because, sadly, the UK continues to suffer rapid biodiversity loss. The Government have failed on too many metrics: 46% of conservation priority species in England declined between 2013 and 2018. This is serious. We welcome the fact the Government have begun to address some of the issues, although we think we need to approach this serious issue in an open and clear way. We note the Prime Minister’s announcement a few weeks ago about 30% of land being protected, but we also gently point out that some 26% of that is achieved through a counting mechanism that includes areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks.”
“Much of the schedule is about the planning system. I suspect many Members here have direct or indirect experience of our planning system and know how important it is. For the moment, the provisions for reducing environmental impact in the planning system are focused on preventing and mitigating harm. The net gain objective has been embraced in the national planning policy framework since 2012, when it replaced the previous policy objective of no net loss, which sought only a neutral outcome after losses and gains were accounted for. Thanks to the rules for site-based protection in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the net gain objective has been relatively effective in reducing loss of habitats and species without slowing down development, but it has been far from enough to turn the tide in nature’s decline.”
“One of the key things is that somewhere along the line, the planning White Paper came along, and there is an unresolved tension between the excellent ambition of the 25-year environment plan and those new suggestions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said at the beginning of our discussions, we think this is a good Bill, but we want to make it better. My task this afternoon is to try to help the Minister restore it to the Bill it might once have been. We could see this as a bit of a whodunnit. Who was it, and how did the changes creep in? Who did such harm to it, and how can we now help the Government make good? In some of the discussions on this schedule, the Government thought about going beyond net biodiversity gain towards net environmental gain, and we would really like that desire to be addressed.”
“We are coming to the bit that I have been looking forward to most since I first read the Bill: the exciting part around nature and biodiversity. Part 6 is fascinating. It is hard to imagine a more important and pressing subject when we all know that around the world, the targets we have collectively set ourselves continue, sadly, to be missed. At the same time, we look to find ways out of the economic crisis stemming from covid. Part 6 is a very important part of the Bill. As I looked at the Bill last night in revising for today, I reread some of the 25-year environment plan. What an optimistic, forward-looking and exciting document it is, full of “wills”, “shalls” and “musts”. The trouble is that some of that enthusiasm seems to have been mislaid en route.”
“I beg to move amendment 169, in schedule 14, page 207, line 26, leave out paragraphs (3) and (4) and insert— “(3) The relevant percentage is a minimum of 10%. (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this paragraph so as to increase the relevant percentage. (5) The Secretary of State shall review the relevant percentage after 5 years or sooner.” This amendment amends the power to vary the 10% level so that it can only be increased. I apologise to anyone who was expecting to continue to hear the mellifluous tones of my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. I am grateful to have a backing part; it is a huge honour. After all the excitement this morning, I hope we can have a similarly exciting afternoon.”
“This Bill might look lovely and sound great, but when we begin to delve down into the detail and look at the “mays” rather than the “musts” and at the exemptions and loopholes it introduces, we may find that, like on so many other occasions in the past, it is a great disappointment. That is why we want to absolutely tie this down. On that basis, we wish to divide the Committee. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“Inevitably, there is pressure —we know that there is huge pressure and we understand why—from local developers and a Government who want to build, build, build. That is why nature needs a voice: it needs the legislative protection that the Minister is so passionate about. There should not be any loopholes, because we know what will happen: if we leave loopholes, people will use them. That is why—and I will keep repeating this point—I want to understand what changed, who did it and why, because if we get an answer to those questions, we will understand what is likely to happen in future.”
“It seemed to us—we made this point very strongly—that this process is a complicated set of interactions that would have benefited from the detailed interrogation of experts. We will get into some quite detailed planning law issues in the coming hours, I suspect, and many of us possibly do not have the expertise that some of our witnesses might have been able to bring to these discussions. It is a great pity that we are not able to explore that in more detail. But we are where we are and we will have to do our best. The problem is that a lot of this goes back to the question of trust. Basically, the Minister is asking us to trust the Government. She says that they are introducing the OEP, but the OEP will work to the legislation that we are putting in place today.”
“I am grateful to the Minister. I suspect that a theme is already emerging from this discussion, whereby the Minister tries very hard to explain away the differences that have emerged. That is her job and she has made a very good attempt at it. However, it seems counterintuitive to argue that, on the one hand, the Government are going to introduce this level and, on the other hand, they will have the ability to reduce it. As for the argument that that somehow protects the measure, I think that the cat was slightly let out of the bag by the suggestion that there might be exemptions that will allow another way round it. We will come on to that in a moment. In some ways, this is a strange discussion, because the White Paper on planning emerged in the summer, after this Committee was in abeyance.”
“I beg to move amendment 168, in schedule 14, page 209, line 37, leave out “maintained for at least 30 years” and insert “secured in its target condition and maintained in perpetuity”. This amendment requires habitat created under net gain to be secured in perpetuity.”
“I have no doubt that the Minister secretly agrees with that; I suspect that she would like to see these things achieved. However, I suspect that she is constrained. Our amendment 168 would ensure that those habitats are maintained at their target condition. It is interesting to note that that proposal comes not only from the Opposition Benches but is broadly supported. I was delighted to see a similar amendment in this group from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), although I do not think that it goes quite as far as ours. However, there are clearly Government Members who see the significance and importance of achieving this for the long term. I have to say once again that, if we do not get the commitment we are looking for on amendment 168, we will divide the Committee.”
“One does not want to be cynical about some of these things, but one can well imagine that people wishing to build, build, build will try to find ways around them and will try, on occasion, to take advantage. The time taken for a habitat to reach its target condition—for example, for woodlands to reach maturity—could be specified in a biodiversity gain plan and included in planning conditions to ensure that it can be enforced. One can see so many possibilities here, and yet, even though the goal is within grasp, it seems that it is being clawed back. Again, I wonder by whom and for what purpose. Amendment 168 to schedule 14 and amendment 74 to clause 91 would change the provisions by requiring post-development habitat enhancements for the purpose of maintaining biodiversity gains in perpetuity, rather than for 30 years.”
“Thirty years sounds like quite a long time, but when one bears in mind that we are already two years down the line from the 25-year environment plan and that politics does not always move at a frightfully great pace, it is not hard to imagine things moving quickly and those gains being quickly lost. If biodiversity gains are to properly contribute to the 25-year environment plan commitments to a nature recovery network and to provide carbon sequestration, which is so crucial to our net zero targets, these areas must be secured and maintained for the long term, because only through that kind of approach will we secure long-term nature recovery. There really ought to be some binding mechanisms to ensure that the habitat condition target is reached in a timely way.”
“I am sure the Minister will explain in a moment the logic for the Government’s 30-year proposal, but this takes us back to the basic point about how serious and ambitious we are about embedding these changes for the future. There will be little point to the provisions if they do not work in practice. For instance, if someone gets rid of a pond that has been in place for hundreds of years, with all the richness in biodiversity it has developed, and replaces it with another pond nearby, that replacement could be let go after 30 years. Our concern is that the provisions do not give the necessary strong support. The danger is that too short a period could simply see the biodiversity gains swiftly lost.”
“The theme continues with this set of amendments because, in exactly the same way as I have just explained, there is a risk of not achieving the desired outcome and ambition of the 25-year environment plan. The amendment relates to the length of time that the biodiversity gain habitats should be maintained. Our amendment challenges the Government’s suggestion of 30 years. In our view, both schedule 14 and clause 91(2)(b) would allow protected sites potentially to be downgraded or destroyed after 30 years, thereby destroying the ecological gains and carbon storage benefits, and any prospect of those gains and benefits making a long-term impact. That is essentially the issue: we are talking about the long term.”
“I understand the debate around the 30 years—I was ploughing my way through the submissions to the net gain consultation and the Government’s responses—but I am sure that the Minister will concede that many people agree with our position, which is that this needs to be seen in perpetuity. An additional point is about how we monitor and check that progress in between. As we all know, it is all too easy for this place to pass legislation and think, “job done,” only to wonder why it has not had an effect in the real world. We will probably touch on some of those points as the debate continues.”
“The Minister, in explaining the logic behind the 30 years, has raised more concerns in people’s minds than she might have allayed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test for linking this issue to sequestration and our necessary attempts to achieve net zero by 2050. He seems to me to be absolutely right; we need these improvements. It is striking that, in this schedule, this is the key tool that the Government are adopting. They are using the planning process. If that is the key path to protecting nature in future, we do not want to start introducing loopholes and qualifications in this way.”
“I am not sure what a doctor looks like, but thank you. This has been a useful discussion, because it begins to show how complicated some of this is. It shows—we will come to this in subsequent discussions—that the interactions between the different pieces of protection legislation are complicated, as I have already hinted. This is possibly already a discussion for lawyers, and my fear is that it will become a discussion for lawyers in the future, because these things will be disputed. If we do not get the legislation clear now, it will lead, I suspect, to disappointment in the future. Perhaps I was overly gushing in my praise for the 25-year environment plan at the beginning, but I was seeking to make a broader point, which is that in too many cases we have stepped back. This is a case in point.”
“That is a part of the democratic process that we believe very valuable, although the planning White Paper seems to suggest that, for whole swathes of the country, that process may not be continued in future. We want to get the Minister’s thinking on this, because it is not clear why she would not want to accept the amendment. We will not press it to a Division, but we would like an explanation.”
“We also wish to raise the question of how the regulations will be decided here; again, we believe that they should be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow proper parliamentary scrutiny. They should also be subject to proper public consultation; because the issue is complicated, the input of biodiversity and planning professionals through public consultation would strengthen discussion and improve procedures. These are not simple matters—they have significant consequences and significant costs—but in due course such input would improve the overall planning outcomes. Improved procedures could ensure that all planning authorities’ biodiversity gain plans are sufficiently detailed, subject to public consultation, and made available in draft so as to inform planning applications.”
“We give them a huge range of things to take into consideration while trying to achieve balanced outcomes that can withstand scrutiny and appeal, and quite often—and rightly so—they have to take direction from their expert officers who have already made those calculations. The question is where we balance this issue as a priority against the other things that councillors take into account. My sense is that unless we strengthen the Bill, it will become one more on the list of things that they really ought to take into account. At best, it may become a line on an agenda that gets ticked: “Yes, we have taken it into account, because somebody raised it,” but will it actually be considered among the trade-offs in the decision-making process? I am not convinced.”
“I fear that many planning authorities that do not have to engage with this will look at it sympathetically, because people want it, but it will be the usual thing: when they are constrained by so many competing requirements, it is tough to do something unless they have to, which is what we are in this place to ensure. Regulations may specify the details of the “time by which a determination must be made…factors which may or must be taken into account in making such a determination”, and appeals against the planning’s authority’s decisions. I suspect that we are all familiar with the dilemmas that local councillors often face.”
“The amendment would strengthen the Bill, which states only that “The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the procedure which a planning authority is to follow in determining whether to approve a biodiversity gain plan”. I fear, yet again, that the devil is in the detail. I remember being quite impressed as a district councillor some years ago that there was an interest in biodiversity. We had a biodiversity committee, which meant that we had some fascinating discussions, but I fear that nothing much happened. That is so often the problem: that there is concern but no means of translating intent into action. Whether the Secretary of State “may” or “must” make regulations is therefore quite important.”
“I beg to move amendment 22, in schedule 14, page 212, line 15 leave out “may” and insert “must”. Amendment 22 would make it a duty for the Secretary of State to provide a clear procedure to planning authorities. Here, again, we come back to the realms of local government. I should perhaps have said earlier that some years ago I was a district councillor in rural Norfolk. I very much enjoyed the experience, and spent many hours—as, I suspect, did many other members of the Committee—on local planning processes. I learned that planning law is lengthy, complicated and sometimes controversial, but very important when it comes to protecting and developing local communities. This is another one of those “may” and “must” issues.”