Angela Rayner says newts can't be more protected than people who need housing

Last week, Sir Keir Starmer pledged to build 1.5 million homes and fast-track planning decisions on 150 major infrastructure projects by the end of the decade.

Ms Rayner, who is deputy prime minister and housing secretary, was asked if this meant fewer protections for wildlife like newts, bats, and kittiwakes.

The Labour minister told Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips she thinks "we can look after them, but at the same time not stop building".

"We can't have a situation where newts are more protected than people who desperately need housing," she said.

"What we need is a process which says 'protect nature and wildlife, but not at the expense of us building the houses'.

"We could do both."

'This government will not accept this nonsense'

Critics have suggested the government's housing target is unrealistic, but Ms Rayner told Sky News she "cannot accept the situation as it stands currently".

The questions arose following Sir Keir's criticism of a £100m bat tunnel. Last month, the head of HS2 revealed the structure was one of the many issues the massively over-budget rail project had encountered.

The prime minister said last week: "We haven't built a reservoir for over 30 years and even the projects we do approve are fought tooth and nail, nail and tooth, until you end up with the absurd spectacle of a £100m bat tunnel holding up the country's single biggest infrastructure project.

"Driving up taxes and the cost of living beyond belief.

"I tell you now: this government will not accept this nonsense any more."

Angela Rayner came on my programme this morning ready to trumpet her plan to deliver 1.5 million homes in this parliamentary term.

It takes confidence to start an interview by promising to achieve what no housing minister - and there have been more than 30 - has done since the 1950s.

And the omens aren't that great, either for her housing target or her wider infrastructure ambitions.

Still, they'll be trembling in the town halls.

She sent a warning to local councillors who might be suffering the delusion that they are in charge of their own building programmes, that she would sweep aside blockages to development - including them.

However, she wouldn't be drawn on what sanctions recalcitrant local authorities might face. Instead, she offered what she called "clarity".

In other words, whatever the detail, don't mess with Big Ange.

And as for those newts, bats, and birds who often stand in the way of development, they had better start packing their bags.

To paraphrase her boss's pledge to put party before country, this secretary of state plans to put people before poultry.

Where she wasn't quite as clear was on the question of how she'd get all of this done.

The stickiest moment came when asked if she would be content that most of the extra homes would provide homes for the more than 2.5 million immigrants needed to fuel Rachel Reeves's growth plans – not least the construction workers vital to building her new homes.

The Constriction Industry Training Board reckons we'd need an extra quarter of a million new staff even before the ambitious housing target was revealed.

Having started our conversation with the assertion the country faced a major shortage of homes, she ended with the claim "there's plenty of housing already, but not enough for people who desperately need it".

I might even be convinced there's deep philosophical meaning to her statement - but to my ears, it sounds like nobody's quite thought this one through.

Ms Rayner was also pushed on what would happen if councils did not provide enough housing to meet the government's targets.

While she would not give a clear answer, Ms Rayner appeared to say councils would be forced to comply.

On six occasions, Trevor Phillips asked her what would happen if councils did not build enough houses.

Ms Rayner said Trevor was "missing the point" - and that plans would be "compulsory" under Labour's National Planning Policy Framework.

She went on to suggest the government could take over or impose housing on local authorities.

"Well, ultimately, if they don't have a local plan, then we will have to look at delivery," Ms Rayner said.

"But they will have a local plan because they know that's what they need to do."

-SKY NEWS