Peter Black

It only took twenty-four hours after Chancellor, Rachel Reeves sat down in the House of Commons in the wake of delivering the outcome of her comprehensive spending review, for the UK economy to kick back with some serious questions as to how sustainable her plans really are.

The first sign of this was the news that the Office for National Statistics had reported gross domestic product fell by 0.3 per cent in April, compared with growth of 0.2 per cent the previous month, marking the biggest contraction since October 2023.

This has now led to a warning by the influential Institute for Fiscal Studies that any more bad economic news will “almost certainly” spark fresh tax rises. They have claimed that Council tax will already have to rise at its fastest rate in a generation, adding to concerns that the chancellor has left herself with little room for manoeuvre a day after she unveiled her spending plans for the rest of the parliament:

Paul Johnson, the outgoing director of the IFS, said council tax is set to rise at its fastest rate for 20 years as local government tries to close its funding gaps with annual increases of up to 5 per cent. More councils could also reach a “tipping point” unless demands on their resources fall, the think tank warned.

Rachel Reeves insisted she would not need to increase taxes on the same scale as in her first budget, but declined to rule out rises altogether (PA) Mr Johnson also raised the spectre of many more people being forced to pay higher rates of income tax, under so-called ‘fiscal drag’, where the threshold at which workers begin to pay more stays frozen even as wages rise with inflation.

Mr Johnson described this as "the most politically straightforward thing to do” and said it would bring in about £10bn a year by 2029.

In response, government sources did not deny they could extend a freeze on thresholds, saying only that future tax and spend decisions are taken at the Budget.

In a scathing assessment, he suggested that the Treasury was at times “making up the numbers” and described Ms Reeves’ speech to the Commons on Wednesday as “baffling”.

There are also doubts whether the review will deliver what it promises. Most of the uplift in expenditure has gone to health and defence, with other departments getting little or nothing. The failure to address the growing crisis in higher education is particularly concerning. The capital investment is welcome, but the story on revenue expenditure is different.

The increases in health spending well make very little difference without a significant investment in social care to relieve the pressure on hospitals, while here in Wales Ministers are going to have to make some difficult choices just before the next Senedd elections, that could see imflation-busting council tax increases.

As for the investment in rail, the capital money for Welsh railways is spread over ten years and comes nowhere near what we are owed in Barnett consequentials from HS2 and other English projects.

The Mirror reports that the UK Government will finally tear up the "shameful" 200 year old laws criminalising rough sleepers.

They say that deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has announced she will abolish the Vagrancy Act, which makes rough sleeping illegal in England and Wales:

The 1824 legislation has long been criticised by homelessness charities, and the move has been branded a " landmark moment that will change lives".

It will be included as an amendment to the flagship Crime and Policing Bill - with new laws instead targeting organised begging by gangs and trespassing. The Act will be scrapped by next spring, ministers say. Ms Rayner said: “We are drawing a line under nearly two centuries of injustice towards some of the most vulnerable in society, who deserve dignity and support.

“For 200 years the Vagrancy Act has meant that people who are homeless are treated as criminals and second class citizens. It has punished people for trying to stay safe and done nothing to address why people become homeless in the first place.

“Ending the use of the Vagrancy Act recognises a shameful history of persecuting people for poverty and destitution, something that figures like William Wilberforce and Winston Churchill warned against in their opposition to the Act.

“It is of great credit to the UK Government that they have shown such principled leadership in scrapping this pernicious Act."

And St Mungo’s CEO Emma Haddad said:"The repeal of the Vagrancy Act, which criminalises rough sleeping, cannot come soon enough.

"Right now, we are supporting thousands of people who are rough sleeping; everyone facing this issue has their own heartbreaking story to tell of how they ended up on the streets - from complex mental and physical health issues to an increasingly unaffordable housing market."

This is a matter that Liberal Democrats MP, Layla Moran has been campaigning on for some time, as have many homeless charities, so it is very welcome. As she said five years ago:

“Even one person sleeping rough in this country in 2020 is a disgrace. We need to be taking a more compassionate approach to tackling this crisis. The Vagrancy Act, a Dickensian law from 1824 that criminalises rough sleeping, represents the first hurdle on that journey."

It's abolition is long overdue.

The Guardian reports that more than 300 Foreign Office staff have been told to consider resigning after they wrote a letter over fears the government had become complicit in Israel’s alleged war crimes in Gaza.

The paper says that this is the fourth internal letter from staff about the offensive in Gaza, which started in October 2023 in response to Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel:

In their letter of 16 May the staff, from embassies around the world and at various levels of seniority, questioned the UK’s continued arms sales and what they called Israel’s “stark … disregard for international law”.

The Foreign Office said it had systems for staff to raise concerns and added the government had “rigorously applied international law” in relation to the war in Gaza.

The reply to the letter was sent by the permanent under-secretary, Oliver Robbins, and Nick Dyer, the second most senior civil servant in the Foreign Office. They told the signatories: “If your disagreement with any aspect of government policy or action is profound, your ultimate recourse is to resign from the civil service. This is an honourable course.”

The reply did not address the substantive complaints by staff.

The letter, first reported by Novara Media, said: “In July 2024, staff expressed concern about Israel’s violations of international humanitarian law and potential UK government complicity. In the intervening period, the reality of Israel’s disregard for international law has become more stark.”

It also cited the killing by Israeli forces of 15 humanitarian workers in March and Israel’s suspension of all aid to Gaza in the same month, “leading many experts and humanitarian organisations to accuse Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war”.

It said the UK government’s position had contributed to the “erosion of global norms”, citing continued weapons exports and the visit to London in April by Israel’s foreign minister, Gideon Sa’ar, “despite concerns about violations of international law”. The Foreign Office described Sa’ar’s visit as private, even though he met the foreign secretary, David Lammy.

The staff letter added: “Supported by the Trump administration, the Israeli government has made explicit plans for the forcible transfer of Gaza’s population. Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, recently stated that he envisions Gaza being completely destroyed. The Israeli security cabinet has approved plans to expand its military offensive to include the capture of Gaza. Any such transfer would be in clear breach of the fourth Geneva convention.”

The letter called on the UK government to uphold international law by promoting accountability at the international criminal court and implementing the judgments of the international court of justice. It also called for a suspension of the free trade deal, a complete suspension of arms sales, the publication of legal advice to ministers, an evidence-based review of the UK government’s response to the conflict, and encouragement of a Foreign Office speak-up culture by establishing an internal challenge mechanism.

The staff said there would be an impact on the UK’s reputation if it maintained its existing relationship with Israel.

Being civil servants of course, foreign office staff are there to do the bidding of their political masters, but their concerns about the direction of UK policy are legitimate and need to be listened to.

The Mirror reports on warnings by a major food bank charity that tens of thousands more people will be pushed into poverty by the Government's welfare cuts than previously feared.

The paper says that the Trussell Trust has claimed that 340,000 people in disabled households will be forced into severe hardship by the end of the decade:

Keir Starmer faces a rebellion from his own party over a string of measures, including cutting access to the personal independence payment (PIP) and sickness-related elements of Universal Credit.

The Government's assessment found 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, will fall into relative poverty in England, Scotland and Wales after housing costs are taken into account. But Trussell's analysis said the true picture is even worse, with 440,000 likely to need a food bank - although an increase in the basic rate of Universal Credit will move around 95,000 people out of severe hardship.

Helen Barnard, director of policy at Trussell, said: “This UK government was elected on a promise of change, and with a commitment to end the need for food banks. If the government goes ahead with these ill-considered and cruel cuts to social security, this promise will not be kept – and instead, they will risk leaving behind a legacy of rising poverty and hunger.

"Tackling fiscal challenges should not be done at the expense of people already facing hunger and hardship. These cuts will force 440,000 people in disabled households into severe hardship and leave them at risk of needing a food bank.

"We urge the government not to continue down this damaging path." The PM faces fierce opposition from Labour backbenchers, dozens of who say the proposals - expected to save £5billion a year - are "impossible to support".

Charity the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has backed Trussell's calls for the Government to rethink the disability benefit cuts. It said: "This analysis shows they are likely to create more deep poverty and hardship than even the bleak forecast from the Government's own limited assessments."

Trussell has also demanded the Government brings forward the planned increase to the basic rate of Universal Credit to April 2026, instead of waiting until April 2029.

Labour may have fixed their mistake over the winter fuel allowance but these changes could have a far more damaging impact on poverty levels.

The Guardian reports that Ministers have asked the British Council to draw up spending plans that would force it to close in as many as 60 countries in the latest sign of the impact of Keir Starmer’s decision to cut the aid budget.

The paper adds that the scenarios are the same as those that have been demanded of the BBC World Service, and would mean the council having to shut completely in large parts of the world:

The plans are likely to add to warnings that the government’s cuts to overseas aid are at risk of damaging its soft power just as Russia and China are putting more resources into strengthening theirs.

Scott McDonald, the council’s chief executive, would not comment on the Treasury’s demands but said: “The British Council plays a vital role in delivering UK soft power around the globe. Investment in soft power is imperative to any nation that wishes to be instrumental on the world stage. Over the last three years we have taken £180m of costs out of the organisation through a substantial transformation plan, but the amount of funding we receive from the UK government will have an impact on country closures.”

McDonald has previously warned that financial pressures on the council could make it “disappear” within a decade.

The council receives £1bn in revenue each year, but 85% of that comes from selling its English-language services around the world. In 2024-25 it received £163m in a government grant, most of which came from the international aid budget.

Earlier this year, the prime minister announced he would reduce the aid budget from 0.5% of gross domestic product to 0.3%, freeing up about £6bn in extra spending for defence.

The reductions to the aid budget are now being felt in Whitehall, with the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, having imposed what insiders say are swingeing cuts on the Foreign Office. As a result, institutions such as the British Council and BBC World Service are being asked to model major spending reductions.

Those close to the negotiations with the government say the council had asked for an additional £20m a year in funding, not least to help repay a £197m loan to keep it running during the pandemic.

That loan, which was made on commercial terms, has now been rolled over for another 18 months, but insiders say the repayments are costing it £14m a year.

If it receives no extra cash in the next few years, those close to the talks say, it will have to close in 40 countries. Cuts of 2% in cash terms would require 60 closures. Both of these would be on top of the 20 office closures that it announced in 2021, when it was told to reduce its budget by £185m over five years.

Unsurprisingly, the council’s financial crisis is causing alarm among politicians and military chiefs, who say its activities boost Britain’s national security:

Dozens of high-profile figures recently wrote to the prime minister urging him not to cut the council’s funding. They included the former home secretary James Cleverly, the former defence secretaries Grant Shapps, Ben Wallace and Michael Fallon, the former foreign secretary David Miliband and the former military chiefs Richard Dannatt and David Richards.

The letter warned: “As we compete harder for global influence, the need for the British Council’s unique contribution to our security is greater than ever. We call upon you to invest in this great national asset and force-multiplier, before it is too late.”

Peter Ricketts, the former national security adviser, who organised the letter, told the Guardian: “A lot of defence people will tell you that a small investment in soft power such as the British Council is worth a lot of money on the military side.”

These cuts may be easy to make and possibly popular in a superficial way, but the ramifications of this approach, at a time when the USA is pulling back from its overseas commitments, could have serious consequences for UK foreign policy.

All the government is doing is offering opportunities for the likes of China and Russia to extend their influence around the world.

This is my latest article for Liberator magazine.  The magazine can be downloaded here.

Whisper it softly but are the Welsh Liberal Democrats on the verge of a revival? We are taking small steps, but so far it has all been forward momentum and there is growing optimism within the party that we can exceed expectations in next year’s Senedd elections.

The first buds of this political spring came in a council by-election in Penllergaer, a suburb of Swansea that has been an independent stronghold for some time. Realistically, nobody was going to beat the former councillor’s widower, but this was an area being targeted strongly by Reform, and there were signs that they had some pockets of strength there.

Despite this, a very active community-based campaign enabled Liberal Democrat Howard Evans to secure second-place, ahead of Farage’s self-described ‘pugilist,’ in a ward we have never fought before.

And then a week later, Welsh Lib Dem Susan Grounds took a council seat in Ystalyfera and Cwmllynfell on Neath Port Talbot Council (I challenge Ed Davey to say that on live television), a ward held previously by one Labour and one Plaid Cymru Councillor and one in which we have never stood before. This ward is now part of the redrawn Brecon, Radnor and Cwmtawe seat, which in accordance with the boundary commission’s wishes stretches all the way down the Swansea Valley as far as Pontardawe.

The fourth of July was the 40th anniversary of the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election that saw Richard Livesey come through the middle in a Conservative-Labour marginal to win by just 559 votes. In all that time the local party has neglected to target the local government wards in the south of the constituency.

Fortunately, David Chadwick has taken a different stance and is now properly organising in the Swansea Valley part of his constituency. As a result, an effort was made to find a candidate for Ystalyfera and Cwmllynfell, following the resignation of the Labour councillor for the area, and a full-scale campaign launched.

The result was a dramatic win, 34 votes ahead of Plaid Cymru, who threw the proverbial kitchen sink at the contest, with Labour coming fourth behind Reform. On the same night we won two seats on Mold Town Council in North Wales, while a week later we won a by-election for Ystradgynlais Town Council in Cwmtwrch, also in the Swansea valley.

We have now selected lead candidates for our five leading Senedd constituency seats and are in the process of selecting for the other eleven. Each of these seats will elect six members of the Senedd by a closed d’hondt list system.

At the time of writing, opinion polls for the Senedd have us on just 5%, but we don’t believe that this reflects what is possible next May. As I have set out above, actual votes in real ballot boxes place us in a much stronger position. There is evidence to show that where we campaign hard, we can pick up disaffected Labour and Tory votes, and outpoll Reform, who the media seem to be believes are best placed to attract disaffected voters.

We won’t do this everywhere of course, but in our target seats, where we are working hard, we think that we have an excellent chance of success, aided by differential turnouts and the policy positions we are now developing.

And it is this policy platform that underlines our relevance to people all around Wales, in contrast to the view expressed by one former member and naysayer on the Nation Cymru website.

As a party we have taken the lead in campaigning on water quality issues. The figures show that that over 937,000 hours of sewage dumping took place in Wales last year. It is estimated that Wales is the worst-affected part of the UK for sewage discharges in rivers, seas and beauty spots. On this side of Offa’s Dyke, it is the Welsh Labour Government who are responsible for the sewage crisis, and it is getting worse.

But we are not just talking about and campaigning for change, we are delivering it on all our key priorities.

The budget deal that was struck by our sole MS, Jane Dodds with the Labour government earlier this year saw over £100m being devoted to several important policy areas. The two biggest allocations were an additional £30m for social care, targeting hospital discharge delays and supporting community-based care, and £30m to extend childcare for all two-year-olds in flying start areas and to provide an increase in hourly rates for providers to £6.40.

Crucially, we insisted that the money for social care should not be a one-off but be mainstreamed into council budgets in future years.

We also agreed a local authority funding floor so that no council in Wales would receive a revenue support grant increase of less than 3.8% and doubled the amount set aside for a supported borrowing initiative that will now make an additional £120m available over a two-year period to fix the nation’s deteriorating road network. That will be a very popular FOCUS success story.

The budget deal also enables us to deliver on a long-standing Welsh Liberal Democrats policy of cheaper bus fares for those under-21 years old. This pilot will run from September 2025 to August 2026 and will deliver a flat-rate £1 single fare (£3 day ticket for unlimited travel) for all passengers aged five to 21 anywhere in Wales at a cost of £15m.

Nor did we forget to use the negotiations to help with local community facilities. The deal included £5m to help make local leisure centres more energy efficient and £5m to improve playgrounds. We also asked for and got, an additional £5m for Natural Resources Wales to enforce better water quality in our rivers and on our coasts, tackling some of the pollution and sewage that is blighting our environment.

Finally, we ensured that extra money was also directed to help areas where we have elected representatives. This included over £2m to be shared between four projects: scoping/technical work for the Wyeside Arts Centre in Builth Wells, for the North Powys Wellbeing Campus, for Pont y Bat road junction and for the Brynamman Lido. There was £1.25m to restore a fifth train service on the Heart of Wales line, an issue the Welsh Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for in Knighton, and £10m for rural investment schemes.

This budget deal was an example of the party using its political leverage to improve the lives of everybody across Wales, as well as showing how with just one MS we can make a difference. We could do so much more with a full team of MSs after the next set of elections.

The Welsh Liberal Democrats are the only party in Wales who want to empower individuals and communities, who are opposed to the over-centralisation of power in the hands of the Welsh and UK Governments that is being promoted by the Labour, Tory and Plaid Cymru parties, and who have demonstrated by actions and words our commitment to tackling climate change and improving our environment.

We recognise the need to reform the health service at a local level by investing in social care, and to improve education provision for all children through the curriculum reforms and changes to additional needs provision introduced by Welsh Liberal Democrat Minister, Kirsty Williams, as well as the pupil development grant that is paid to all schools to assist with the education of our poorest children, introduced in a previous budget deal by the Liberal Democrats.

And we have also shown our commitment to improving poor housing, tackling homelessness, building up rural communities and improving our economy. David Chadwick’s championing of Tata Steel in particular, has shown that we will not stand for Labour or the Tories treating Wales as second best.

It is for all these reasons that we believe that we have grounds for optimism as we approach the Senedd elections in 2026. We believe that we may be taking small steps now, but in a year’s time they will amount to a giant leap forward for the Welsh Liberal Democrats.

Back to Mumbles and a little known corner of All Saints Church, which contains the grave of Thomas Bowdler, a man I first came across while studying for my English Literature A Level.

As this website recounts Thomas Bowdler received notoriety as a 19th century English author of "The Family Shakespeare," volumes of William Shakespeare's work rewritten in a more polite language for the Victorian English public.

Effectively he expurgated all the rude words of Shakespeare saying: "My object is to offer these plays to the public in such a state that they may be read with pleasure in all companies, and placed without danger in the hands of every person who is capable of understanding them."

The word "Bowdlerised" was coined in 1836, after his death.

His last work was an expurgation of Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, published posthumously in 1826 under the supervision of his nephew and biographer, Thomas Bowdler the Younger.

My encounter with the man came when our English teacher instructed us to restore the deleted parts of Hamlet in the school textbooks, dictating the passages we were to write as he did so. 

I was astonished therefore, after settling in Swansea, to discover Bowdler's grave while researching a walking tour of Mumbles. The inscription is faded but the find-a-grave website renders it as follows:

Sacred
To the memory of
Thomas Bowdler, Esqr.
Youngest son of Thomas Bowdler, Esqr.
of Ashley Near Bath
Born at Ashley July 11, 1754
and died at Rhyddings Near Swansea
Febry 24, 1825
He was a sincere member of
the established Church of England
Putting away lying, speak every
man truth with his neighbour for
we are members one of another
Ephes. Chap IV, Verse 25

It seems that the more we see of Reform the more chaotic they become. The Mirror reports that the party's chairman has hit out at a "dumb" PMQs question asked by the party's newly elected MP.

They say that Sarah Pochin, who was elected in last month's Runcorn by-election, yesterday demanded the government ban the burka face covering, the problem is that this is not actually party policy:

During Prime Minister's Questions, she asked Keir Starmer whether he would be joining countries including France, Denmark and Belgium in banning the face and body covering worn by some Muslim women.

Reform UK distanced itself from the question, confirming that a burqa ban is "not party policy". They added there needs to be a "national debate" about it.

Zia Yusuf, Reform's chairman, today said it was "dumb" for Ms Pochin to ask the question if it was not something Reform was behind. His comment came after controversial commentator Katie Hopkins asked him on social media if he had been the one to say it was "not party policy". The far-right TV personality added: "Burka ban MUST be party policy."

Mr Yusuf replied: "Nothing to do with me. Had no idea about the question nor that it wasn’t policy. Busy with other stuff. I do think it’s dumb for a party to ask the PM if they would do something the party itself wouldn’t do."

This row escalated during the day with the Guardian reporting that Zia Yusuf has now resigned as the chair of Reform UK. Yusuf, who is a donor and businessman, said he was resigning after less than a year in the job because he did not believe working to get a Reform government elected was a good use of his time.

The paper says that his departure is a blow to Nigel Farage as he tries to professionalise his rapidly growing party, with political rivals saying it shows the Reform leader cannot work with other senior figures without falling out:

In a statement on X, Yusuf said: “Eleven months ago I became chairman of Reform.

“I’ve worked full-time as a volunteer to take the party from 14 to 30%, quadrupled its membership and delivered historic electoral results. I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office.”

Yusuf has been working on Reform’s new Elon Musk-style “department of government efficiency” (Doge) unit looking at cutting spending in councils where the party is in control.

The tech entrepreneur Nathaniel Fried, who was brought in this week with great fanfare to lead the unit, will also be departing alongside Yusuf, leaving the party’s plans to slash “waste” in local government in disarray.

Given that Yusuf and Fried have been leading the so-called efficiency drive in Reform-led councils this is a major blow to their agenda. It isn't helped by the Reform deputy leader, Richard Tice announcing that new employees in the ten councils now controlled by Reform will not be allowed to join the Local Government Pension Scheme and that existing staff already in the scheme will get lower pay rises to compensate for their pensions.

As such a move is likely to be illegal and lead to widespread strike action, one has to conclude that it isn't just the call for a burka ban that is dumb.

Why do newspapers have to couch everything in militaristic terms? The Independent reports that Rachel Reeves is facing a cabinet revolt over her spending review amid fears departmental cuts will lead to key manifesto spending promises being ditched.

The paper says that this is being described as a “proxy war”, one in which the chancellor is facing a push to consider taxes on the wealthy instead of cuts before she outlines her government spending plans next week

They add that room for manoeuvre is further restricted by an expectation that the government will U-turn on cancelling winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners, as well as ending the two-child benefit cap, which could cost Ms Reeves as much as £5bn:

Rachel Reeves is facing a cabinet revolt over her spending review amid fears departmental cuts will lead to key manifesto spending promises being ditched.

In what is being described as a “proxy war”, the chancellor is facing a push to consider taxes on the wealthy instead of cuts before she outlines her government spending plans next week.

Room for manoeuvre is further restricted by an expectation that the government will U-turn on cancelling winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners, as well as ending the two-child benefit cap, which could cost Ms Reeves as much as £5bn.

The row follows reports that major departments, including Yvette Cooper’s Home Office and Angela Rayner’s Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, have still not settled on an agreement for the spending review due to be unveiled on Wednesday 11 June.

There was some good news with reports that education secretary Bridget Phillipson had agreed her department’s spending envelope with a week to go. But the holdouts come despite the Treasury setting an unofficial deadline of last weekend to agree.

The mounting pressure on the chancellor comes as former Treasury adviser Jim O’Neill told Ms Reeves that she needs to borrow more for major projects to kickstart growth, as the latest forecasts have seen another downgrade for the UK economy, leaving the chancellor with less wiggle room.

And there are fears that a further squeeze on public finances will open the door for Nigel Farage’s populist Reform party to seize power. On Tuesday night, The Times reported on a letter sent by police chiefs to Sir Keir, warning of “far-reaching consequences” of cuts to forces.

The OECD on Tuesday downgraded its estimate for the UK’s economic growth this year to 1.3 per cent, from 1.4 per cent, and to 1 per cent, from 1.2 per cent, in 2026.

Meanwhile, the government’s pledge to increase defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP has been complicated by Nato’s decision to tell member states, including the UK, to hike it even further to 3.5 per cent.

A senior Labour source told The Independent that the chancellor's decisions over the next week will “see the ending of a number of manifesto pledges as actually being deliverable”.

With Ms Reeves already being accused by critics of trying to bring in “austerity 2.0”, it is understood that a growing number of Labour MPs and trade unions are now pushing for her to introduce wealth taxes instead.

The idea featured in a leaked memo from Ms Rayner, in which the deputy prime minister proposed eight different wealth taxes, including increasing dividend tax rates for higher earners and targeting property traders who use corporate structures to avoid stamp duty.

A senior Labour source told The Independent: “I think the spending review is becoming a proxy war to desperately try and stop Labour facing an existential crisis – the breathtaking collapse in support continues, and [the plan for the party is to] just try and deliver some of its manifesto so that ordinary voters can see and feel that they have.”

They added: “I cannot see how Rachel Reeves lasts.”

However, it is described I think I'm going to get some popcorn in.

The Guardian reports that legal analysis of the government's new planning bill has found that more than 5,000 of England’s most sensitive, rare and protected natural habitats are at high risk of being destroyed by development as a result of the legislation.

The paper says that it has examined the threat the bill poses to 5,251 areas known as nature’s “jewels in the crown”, leading to some of the country’s most respected wildlife charities calling for a key part of the bill to be scrapped:

The areas at risk from Labour’s planning changes include cherished landscapes such as the New Forest, the Surrey heaths, the Peak District moors, and the Forest of Bowland.

Rivers such as the Itchen in Hampshire and the Wensum in Norfolk are also threatened by the bill. The thousands of protected habitats are locations for threatened British wildlife such as nightingales, badgers, dormice, otters, butterflies, dragonflies, kingfishers, tufted ducks and egrets.

The bill is the product of the government’s promise to build 1.5m homes to help address the UK’s housing affordability crisis, and approve 150 major infrastructure projects, in this parliament. The pledge is key to Labour’s plan to boost economic growth; however, a recent study suggests the government is likely to miss its new homes target. The government says the bill does not weaken environmental protections.

But according to three separate legal opinions on the planning and infrastructure bill currently going through parliament, legal protections will be rolled back by the legislation, making it easier for developers to build on areas that have historically been protected under UK and international law.

The Guardian has identified 10 protected sites that are under particular threat from development under the new legislation amid growing criticism of Labour’s bill.

They include one of the last strongholds for nightingales in England at Lodge Hill in Kent; a wetland dating back 2,600 years in south Devon; an internationally important tidal wetland at Tipner west in Portsmouth; and woods dating back as far as the 17th century at Sittingbourne, Kent, part of the 2.5% of the UK’s ancient woodland that still remains.

These areas represent just a handful of the most protected environmental gems across England which include 4,100 sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), all currently protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; 71 wetlands protected under the internationally-binding Ramsar convention; 256 special areas of conservation (SACs) and 824 special protection areas, (SPAs) all protected under UK and international law in the habitats directive.

Though numerous, these protected areas in total only cover just under 8% of land in England. Critics of the bill say ensuring they continue to be protected does not amount to a block on building new houses.

In a legal opinion, Alex Goodman KC said the consequences of the planning and infrastructure bill as drafted were that any adverse impacts a development inflicted on the most protected natural areas in England, including SSSIs, SACs and Ramsar sites, must be “disregarded”.

“[The bill] thereby withdraws the principal legal safeguard for protected sites,” he said. “This amounts to a very significant change.”

Goodman has provided one of three separate legal opinions on the bill since it was presented by Angela Rayner, secretary of state for housing, communities and local government.

All, including that of the government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), challenge Rayner’s assertion to parliament that the bill is not a rollback of environmental law. Rayner has been threatened with a judicial review brought by nature groups if she does not “correct” her comments.

We need new homes, but not at any cost, and in this case the cost of developing these sites is too high. The government can meet its targets without them.