Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Ninth sitting)
Thursday 15th May 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 May 2025 - (15 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members to send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk and to switch electronic devices off or to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, but bottled water is available.
Clause 55
Making of EDP by Secretary of State
Amendment moved (14 May): 97, in clause 55, page 88, line 6, leave out from “if” to “on” in line 8 and insert—
“, by the EDP end date, the conservation measures are likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect of the EDP development”. —(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment makes it clear that the “overall improvement test” (required by clause 55(3)) will be passed only if the conservation measures are likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect of the development on or before the EDP end date. It also makes a drafting change to clause 55(4).
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 119, in clause 55, page 88, line 7, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.
This amendment would mean that an EDP would only pass the overall improvement test if it is certain that the proposed measures will outweigh any negative environmental effects caused by the development.
Amendment 14, in clause 55, page 88, line 7, after “sufficient to” insert “significantly”.
This amendment would require that conservation measures within Environmental Delivery Plans significantly outweigh any negative effects of development.
Amendment 20, in clause 55, page 88, line 9, at end insert—
“(4A) An EDP does not pass the overall improvement test—
(a) where the environmental features affected are qualifying features of a European site, European marine site, European offshore marine site or a Ramsar site, unless—
(i) the Secretary of State is satisfied that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the relevant site from the delivery of development to which the EDP applies, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, with the same standard of confidence as if the EDP were being assessed as a plan or project under Regulation 63(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017;
(ii) it has not been possible for the Secretary of State to be satisfied under sub-paragraph (i) but the provision of measures to offset any unavoidable harm to the relevant features significantly outweighs the negative effect of the development;
(iii) there is an overriding public interest in permitting the EDP to be made and no alternative approaches to meeting the public interest that would result in less harm to the relevant site;
(b) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that Natural England has demonstrated that all reasonable opportunities to avoid or minimise negative effects caused by development within the scope of the EDP have been taken;
(c) unless Natural England has demonstrated that—
(i) any measures to avoid or mitigate negative effects caused by development will be delivered and functioning prior to any such negative effects occurring, and
(ii) any proposed compensation measures will be delivered to prevent any irreversible harm to the conservation status of relevant ecological features.”
This amendment outlines when the Secretary of State must find that an EDP does not pass the overall improvement test.
Government amendment 98.
Clause stand part.
Clause 56 stand part.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to continue our proceedings with you in the Chair, Dr Huq.
I was speaking to this group of measures at the tail-end of yesterday’s sitting. I discussed clause 55, I spoke to the purpose and effect of clause 56, and I mentioned Government amendments 97 and 98. I will now turn to the other amendments in this group, beginning with amendment 119, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, which seeks to amend the threshold for when the Secretary of State may make an environmental delivery plan.
Amendment 119 speaks to the shift from site-by-site assessments to our strategic approach. In developing an alternative to the existing system, we need to recognise that a strategic approach that covers a potentially large amount of development over a number of years is a materially different proposition from assessing the impact of a single development. We must therefore approach that proposition in a different way. Put simply, we cannot be as unequivocal about outcomes as we would be on a site-by-site assessment basis.
The drafting of the clause reflects that, as it would not be appropriate to replicate the approach applied to assessments of individual sites. Instead, the Bill provides a wider package of safeguards, such as appropriate monitoring, the ability to deploy back-up measures and the ability to amend environmental delivery plans, to ensure that plans deliver the positive outcomes over the plan period.
That is also why clause 50 requires that an environmental delivery plan must set out not only how conservation measures will address the environmental impact of development, but how they will contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature in question. It is also why clause 52(2) requires a draft environmental delivery plan to set out why the conservation measures selected are “considered appropriate” to meeting that goal.
As we have said since the Bill’s introduction, it is about delivering more for nature, not less. As I said in a previous sitting, we are therefore carefully considering the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection and its support for the intentions of the reforms. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Lady will in time agree not to press amendment 119.
Amendment 14 seeks to introduce a new threshold for when the Secretary of State may make an environmental delivery plan. Again, in developing the new approach, we have always been clear that the nature restoration fund will deliver more for nature, but that is not a substitute for wider action to support nature recovery. While it is right that we seek to do more and to outweigh the impact of development, we must ensure that we are not asking developers to contribute more than their fair share. That is not a check on ambition, but an acknowledgment that positive results can be realised only if environmental delivery plans are a viable option for developers.
The test in clause 55(4) ensures positive outcomes, but it cannot be set at a level that would make it impossible to bring forward an operable environmental delivery plan—that would be a lose-lose situation for the economy and for nature. Again, on that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will not press amendment 14.
Finally, I turn to amendment 20, also tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. This amendment seeks to amend the operation of the overall improvement that the Secretary of State must consider before making an environmental delivery plan. As I have already clarified for the Committee, the nature restoration fund will provide a different route for developers to discharge existing environmental obligations. In establishing this new approach, it is necessary to depart from existing process.
As I have outlined, the new approach will go further than the existing system, which requires measures only to offset harm to achieve neutrality. By taking this new approach we will deliver more for nature, not less. Although the Bill does not require a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy, we believe it nevertheless effectively maintains that hierarchy, as does the chief executive of Natural England, who gave oral evidence to the Committee.
Moreover, the flexibility that the Bill provides in respect of the hierarchy will be used only where Natural England considers it appropriate, in line with the overarching objective of delivering better outcomes for the relevant environmental feature over the course of the environmental delivery plan. The hon. Lady’s amendment would remove that flexibility and tether the nature restoration fund to the existing status quo that we know—I emphasise that again—is not working for our sites and species.
I also emphasise, however, that I understand the importance of ensuring that the flexibility is used only where it needs to be, and that everyone can be confident that harm is being avoided. I very much understand the concerns about the certainty of outcomes. We want everyone to be confident, so I am open to considering ways to underpin that confidence in a way that still allows the model to work as we want it to and as it needs to; my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke also asked yesterday what more the Government might consider in that regard. With that explanation, although I know further debate is forthcoming, I hope that the hon. Lady will consider not moving her amendment.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Dr Huq. I thank the Minister for his comments. He emphasised that his intention in the Bill is to continue to protect nature at the same level, but differently. He emphasised a different but not worse approach. I share his desire to ensure that even if it is different, it is not worse, but I am concerned about the way the Bill is framed.
In clause 55, we are really getting to one of several cruxes of the matter. The Secretary of State’s environmental statement on the front of the Bill states:
“the Bill will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.”
A completely different opinion is expressed, however, in the letter from the Office for Environmental Protection, whose people know about this issue. I am glad that the Minister said yesterday that he is considering very seriously what the OEP said; I read the letter again in detail this morning—it is really hard-hitting.
The Minister points out that Natural England thinks there is no problem with the application of the mitigation hierarchy, but that is not the opinion of the Office for Environmental Protection. Given that Natural England will effectively have a conflict of interest under the Bill’s provisions, we need to pay serious attention to what the OEP says. I very much look forward to his promised comprehensive response to the OEP’s advice.
Amendment 20 is essential to ensure that the overall improvement test applied to EDPs, which is mentioned in clause 55, is robust, scientifically grounded and consistent with domestic and international environmental law. It is about making sure that when we talk about overall improvement, we really mean it—not on paper, not in theory, but in reality.
Amendment 119 makes a simple but essential change. Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as set out in the OEP’s advice, there is a high degree of certainty established in statute and case law that environmental standards will be maintained beyond reasonable scientific doubt. In the overall improvement test in clause 55, however, conservation measures need only be “likely” to ensure that the environment is maintained. That leaves huge leeway for ministerial subjectivity, and it opens the door to damaging development. It is a clear regression in environmental law. Again, that is emphasised very clearly by the OEP, which states that the test in clause 55
“would be considerably more subjective and uncertain than under existing environmental law.”
How is that compatible with the statement on the front of the Bill? It cannot be.
Given that the Minister has assured us that it is not the Government’s intention to weaken environmental protections, amendment 119 would fix the loophole by replacing the words “are likely to” with the word “will”. That would mean that an EDP would require an objective test that conservation measures will achieve an overall improvement.
This amendment is not about gold-plating; it is simply about matching the level of certainty that currently exists in law and assuring the House that environmental protection will be maintained. I would be deeply worried if the Bill passed as it stands, with the weakening in certainty, because that would clearly be contrary to the Government’s statement on the front of the Bill.
Amendment 20 sets the minimum legal and scientific thresholds that must be met before an EDP can be said to pass the overall improvement test. Again, the advice from the OEP is very robust—there needs to be scientific certainty. Amendment 20 would specifically introduce safeguards when protected nature sites are involved, such as European sites, Ramsar wetlands and other internationally important conservation areas.
Amendment 20 would ensure that the Secretary of State must apply a standard of evidence equivalent to the rigorous integrity test under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. This is not new law; it is a reaffirmation of the protections that have guided habitat conservation for decades, ensuring that there is no regression, as per the Environment Act 2021. The amendment is absolutely necessary, otherwise clause 55 risks watering down the existing protections.
Let us not forget what is at stake here. The UK has 658 designated special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites across the four nations. They include places of global ecological importance— the Norfolk broads, the Severn estuary and the north Pennines—and places that are very dear to my own heart, such as the River Wye and its catchment. These places support rare and endangered species, and are central to our commitments under the Bern, Bonn and Ramsar conventions. However, many of them are already in unfavourable condition. Natural England’s latest data shows that only 38% of England’s sites of special scientific interest are in favourable condition and many of those overlap with European sites.
This amendment would provide three layers of safeguards. First, it says that an EDP cannot be approved if it would harm the “integrity” of a European or Ramsar site, unless that harm is either fully avoided or meets the high bar set under existing habitat regulations. Secondly, it would require Natural England to demonstrate that “all reasonable opportunities” to avoid or minimise harm have been taken.
Thirdly, the point about the mitigation hierarchy is really important—we will discuss it again when we debate a future clause. It is a key concern for the Office for Environmental Protection and all who care about nature. The mitigation hierarchy means that we avoid environmental harm before we go to mitigation or offsetting. The problem with EDPs, as they are set out under part 3 of the Bill, is that they shift straight to offsetting. As I tried to explain yesterday, some things cannot be offset; irreplaceable habitats cannot be offset.
In addition, unless we are certain that offsetting is done in advance and that the habitat is linked to the one being destroyed, that could lead to the inadvertent destruction of species—for example, dormice, as I said yesterday. It is important that the Bill strengthens the commitment to the mitigation hierarchy and that that strengthening is written into the Bill, as well as ensuring that the overall improvement test is compatible with the existing level of protection under existing environmental law.
The expert advice of the OEP directly supports the points that I am making. It concluded that the overall improvement test, as currently drafted, would weaken existing legal protections, and has consequently called for amendments to ensure that the test aligns with environmental law and principles.
We also need to ensure that the UK remains compliant with international and trade obligations. Under the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, we are bound not to weaken environmental standards in ways that affect trade or investment. Removing or diluting protections for SACs and SPAs through a vague or permissive improvement test could fall foul of that requirement and expose the Government to legal challenge.
Fundamentally, the amendment also reflects the will of the public. More than 80% of people support strong legal protections for nature sites, even when development is proposed. I fully agree with the Minister’s articulation of the view that development does not have to come at the expense of nature—it is absolutely possible to build the houses that we need in a way that respects and indeed improves nature protection—but we can do that only if the legal framework ensures that development takes place in that way. Otherwise, there is a serious risk that the clear weakening of environmental protections, as outlined in the current drafting of the Bill, will lead to the opposite of what the Government say they want to do on the front of the Bill.
These two amendments do not prevent development. They simply ensure that development is compatible with the integrity of our most protected sites, give effect to long-standing legal protections, uphold the Office for Environmental Protection’s recommendations, and ensure that the overall improvement test is not a loophole but a genuine environmental safeguard. I strongly urge hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to support both amendments if we are serious about development going hand in hand with nature protection.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. Some points have already been made on the underlying point of amendment 14, so I will be reasonably brief, but clause 55 goes to the heart of the overall improvement test and is crucial to the structure of the Bill.
In many ways, amendment 14 has a similar target as amendment 20, but I would argue that it is more in the spirit of the Bill and how the Government are going about it. Amendment 14 would require that the conservation measures within an EDP would “significantly”—it would add that word—outweigh the negative effect of development.
Clause 55 sets the overall improvement test that an EDP must pass before the Secretary of State can approve it. At the moment, in order to pass, the conservation measures in the EDP must be
“likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect, caused by the environmental impact of development”.
As the Wildlife Trusts has argued:
“The lifting of the bar to ‘significantly outweigh’—
through this amendment—
“is needed to secure a level of gain for nature capable of meaningfully improving conservation outcomes.”
That approach aligns explicitly with the Government’s stated intentions for the nature restoration fund. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government factsheet describes the proposed system as being a
“marked change from the current approach which, at most, requires development to offset its impact and no further”—
on that, the Minister and I are agreed. Instead, the Government say the approach will deliver
“a positive contribution to nature recovery”,
but saying “likely” to outweigh simply will not deliver that marked change, as “likely” is neither a high bar nor a strong test.
The higher bar of “significant improvement” that we propose is also in line with well-established environmental law. The Environment Act 2021, for example, is notable; now four years from receiving Royal Assent, its use of the robust benchmark of “significant improvement” has not experienced a single legal challenge. There is no reason to expect that any would arise from applying that test in this EDP legislative framework.
An EDP that passes that high bar and is made by the Secretary of State would, by definition, be environmentally robust as a result, and less vulnerable to a legal challenge than one that passes only the lower bar currently in the clause. It is in everyone’s interest that the EDPs deliver the promise of positive contributions and that step change—that marked change—the Government have stated they intend to achieve.
Finally, if we are not raising the bar through this amendment, can the Minister explain, in his summing up, why the wording is only “likely” to outweigh? Why not use “will”, as the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire proposes, or “significantly” outweigh, as in our amendment? Those who are familiar with the habitats regulations will know that the test there is that “no reasonable scientific doubt” should exist. There is a marked difference between that established approach and the current wording in the Bill, which is not simply strong enough.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I acknowledge that this is an important part of the Bill and that some organisations have expressed concerns about the matter. I agree with the hon. Members for North Herefordshire and for Taunton and Wellington pointing out what the OEP has said about this part of the Bill, but we should acknowledge that what the Minister said yesterday and his speech today could not have been clearer: the Government are reviewing and reflecting on the OEP’s advice, and they have set out their incredibly clear intention to ensure not only that nature is not worse off, but that it is better off as a result of the Bill.
The Minister has been crystal clear that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s advice. The latter came through seven working days ago yesterday. We are now on the eighth working day since it provided its advice. I urge colleagues to take the Minister at his word and to allow the Government to respond to the OEP. If colleagues across the House are not content with their response, that can be dealt with on Report, but we should take the Minister at his word when he says that the Government are taking the OEP’s comments incredibly seriously and reflecting on them.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, although I do not expect hon. Members to just take me at my word; I think they should both interrogate the Bill and the provisions and reflect on my further comments. Although I caveat everything by saying that we are grateful to the Office for Environmental Protection for its recent advice and its support for the intention of these reforms—let us be clear: it supports the intention and we are carefully considering its advice —we are clear that this approach will deliver more for nature, not less. The important thing is that those improved outcomes—and they are improved outcomes; we are not talking about merely maintaining the status quo—can be achieved only if we are willing to do things differently. That is why the Bill establishes an alternative to existing processes, but only where that will lead to better outcomes.
I should make a brief comment about Natural England, as the other body that will be involved in the design and implementation of environmental delivery plans. It is slightly unfair, if I may say so, for the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to suggest that there is a stark conflict of interest here. As I have said in previous sittings, Natural England has the expertise and ecological skills to make the right judgments. It will put in place suitable propriety barriers to ensure that it can act effectively as both an advisory body and the body tasked with preparing, designing and implementing EDPs.
Ellie Chowns
I have a genuine question and concern. Under the Bill, Natural England has responsibility, as advisers, preparers, developers and deliverers, to implement the EDPs, and it is also judge and jury on the effectiveness of EDPs and whether they are doing the job that they are intended to do. That is a lot of functions to give to one body. There are not checks and balances within that system. This is no comment on the expertise and commitment of Natural England. I am certain that everyone working for that body shares my and the Minister’s desire to see the natural environment thrive and improve, but the reality is that the Bill’s structure and the responsibilities that it gives to Natural England span the full gamut, from implementing to checking, and that is effectively a conflict of interest, is it not?
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think it will be, for the reasons I have given: suitable propriety barriers will be put in place and the House will be able to take a view on whether those are sufficient. I would also slightly push back on the idea that Natural England is judge and jury when it comes to EDPs. The Secretary of State has responsibility for judging whether an EDP meets the outcomes test on the basis of advice from Natural England.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make a bit of progress, then I will be happy to give way.
Hon. Members may say that those safeguards are not sufficient, but we trust elected Members in ministerial capacities to exercise their judgment, in line with the ministerial code and taking into account their obligations under both international and domestic law. We trust them to do that. If hon. Members take issue with the basic fact that a Secretary of State can exercise judgment, then we disagree.
Ellie Chowns
I have two points. The first was raised by the Office for Environmental Protection in its advice. I was going to come to it when discussing clause 58, because it is specifically about the amendment of EDPs. Only Natural England and the Secretary of State get to decide if an EDP should be amended. There is not even any requirement for consultation. There is no mandatory requirement to assess whether an EDP is doing its job. If we are to trust Natural England and the Secretary of State to do that, when they will both have an in-built interest in declaring that an EDP is doing its job, there is no mechanism for ensuring that an EDP is actually meeting the outcomes that are envisaged.
The Minister asks us to trust in the good judgment of the Secretary of State, but I remind the Minister that previous environmental Secretaries of State—who would, under these provisions, have been expected to make these decisions—include Liz Truss from 2014 to 2016, Owen Paterson from 2012 to 2014, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and Thérèse Coffey. Those are not people who necessarily share the Minister’s espoused commitments, and not necessarily people who everybody who cares about nature protection might automatically trust to make important and sensitive judgments about whether environmental protection is taking place.
The entire point of a Bill—we talked about this in a previous sitting—is that it sets out what has to happen and why, because we cannot simply trust whoever happens to be in the seat of Secretary of State to always do the right thing. That is why we have law. I beg the Minister to recognise that we cannot simply trust the judgment of whoever happens to be Secretary of State for the next however many decades. The Bill must be written correctly, so that it embeds environmental protections and does not leave the door open for activity contrary to the Minister’s stated aims.
The Chair
The Clerk is frowning at me and saying that the hon. Lady’s contribution was a little overlong for an intervention, which is usually on one point. It sounded a bit speech-like.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady tempts me down a path of commenting on past Secretaries of State—I would enjoy that, but I will not do it. She is absolutely right that we must ensure that this legislation can be exercised appropriately by any Secretary of State, whoever they might be, in years to come.
Where the hon. Lady and I slightly differ is on what legislation is required to do in all circumstances. We rely on Ministers to exercise their judgment in line with the relevant legislation and other obligations, for example on call-in decisions that the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers in my Department are asked to make. They are judgments. They are exercised on the basis of a recommendation by the Planning Inspectorate, and of the relevant material considerations, but a judgment is still exercised. We are saying that the Secretary of State has to exercise a judgment on the “overall improvement test” but on the basis of advice from Natural England, once consultation has been carried out.
As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned, clause 55 gets to the heart of this approach. We are reflecting on the points made in the letter from the Office for Environmental Protection. I want to set out why we feel our approach is right, and that the necessary safeguards are built in. I will deal briefly with the amendments in turn, starting with 119.
Changing “are likely to” to “will” would require a greater deal of certainty from the Secretary of State before they would be able to make an environmental delivery plan. That does get to the heart of the difference in approach. In moving away from a site-by-site assessment to trying to improve outcomes for nature in the round, over a wider geographic area, we have to move away from a time period in which those conversations, or offsets, can be delivered on those sites specifically. By its very nature, the approach requires a degree of, if you like, gazing into an as-yet-unknown future. The test of “likely” makes that difficult to achieve.
Matthew Pennycook
I will finish this point first.
That is why there are safeguards built into the process in terms of monitoring, the backup measures that can be taken in terms of amendment or revocation, and the ultimate judgment made by the Secretary of State on the basis of advice on whether the EDP is having the relevant outcomes. We cannot, unless we are determined not to attempt this approach in any way, apply near-impossible tests for an EDP to meet.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I have total sympathy with what the Minister is saying, and understand the point that the Member for the hon. Member for North Herefordshire is seeking to address. Does the Minister agree that one of the lessons from section 106 is that, in many cases, funds end up being returned to the developer, as it is impossible to spend on the mitigation because of the specificity for which it is provided?
The Opposition agree with the Minister that there will be occasions when, in the view of the Secretary of State or Natural England, it is impossible to build the specified badger, bat or newt mitigation on a specific site, and that it would be better to spend that money somewhere else to create a better overall environmental benefit. It is therefore important to provide for that flexibility in the legislation.
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister makes my case for me, because we want to allow Natural England to have that flexibility.
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Lady will let me respond to this point, I will then address her point.
It is precisely that flexibility that we want to allow Natural England to use, because over that wider geographic area, it can look at which conservation measures, in the round, will have the most impact, rather than costly gold-plating, which happens now in certain circumstances— I will not repeat the individual cases, but we hear about them in the press a lot—and often leads to bad outcomes, and which flows from the site-by-site assessments that must take place.
What gets to the heart of the approach, and is the reason why some of these amendments are deeply problematic, is that, under this approach, we cannot be as unequivocal as we can currently on the basis of individual site-by-site assessments. There needs to be the opportunity to take a forward view as to what will have the likely effect of having an overall benefit for nature in the round across the EDP area.
Ellie Chowns
With respect, I do not think that the point made by the shadow Minister does make the Minister’s case for him, because it was about taking a site-by-site approach, which is not a good analogy here. We already have capacity under existing environmental law to take a district-wide approach—for example, district-level licensing for newts. I am not opposed to that at all; it is a very good idea. That is not the issue here; the issue is the degree of certainty.
If the Minister maintains his position that EDPs must only be subject to an “are likely to” test, how is that compatible with the absolute certainty on the front page of the Bill that it will not result in any decline in environmental protection? How can lots of “are likely tos” add up to the certainty that the Secretary of State sets out on the front page of the Bill? They simply do not.
Matthew Pennycook
We think the Bill provides that certainty, which is why the Secretary of State felt able to make that statement, but—this is really important— while the hon. Lady has clearly indicated that she, like us, is unhappy with the status quo, and while I think she recognises the limitations of the impact we can have in terms of beneficial nature outcomes using the current, individual site-by-site-assessment basis, her amendment 20 would, in practice, result in the continued need to assess development on a case-by-case basis and would require conservation measures to address the specific impacts of each development. It does not provide the necessary flexibility that will lead to better outcomes for nature, while at the same time unlocking development and allowing it to be accelerated.
Matthew Pennycook
I will give someone else a chance, but I am happy to come back to the hon. Lady.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister; I will give him an opportunity to move on to our amendment 14, which I hope he agrees is in the spirit of that approach. I sympathise with the point made by the shadow Minister, and I understand the qualitative difference with a site-by-site approach, in which outcomes may more easily be predicted than in a nation-wide or region-wide approach. Does the Minister agree that wording that retains “are likely to” but introduces “significantly” raises the bar in a way that is in tune with the Government’s approach in the Bill?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Without in any way denigrating the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a subtler way of attempting to constructively suggest how the Bill might be improved, but we still think it is problematic, for the following reasons. It would apply a higher threshold to the improvement test in clause 55 —namely, that measures are likely to be sufficient to “significantly” outweigh the negative effect of development.
The addition of “significantly” into the improvement test would mean that measures would need to be likely to significantly outweigh the negative impact of development, and that would require more than a marginal improvement. It would also introduce uncertainty as to what could be classified as “significantly” outweighing the negative impact—as well as, I might add, an associated risk of legal challenge.
In that sense, in seeking to press EDPs to deliver far in excess of the impact that arises from development, amendment 14 risks undermining the efficacy and placing an undue burden on developers, notwithstanding the legal risk I have just mentioned.
Gideon Amos
Does the Minister know that the same “significant” test under the Environment Act 2021 has not been subject to a single legal challenge?
Matthew Pennycook
I am not sure how comparable they are. We are very mindful—this is something I was aware of before becoming a Minister, but it has certainly been brought home to me since—of the impact of specific wording in legislation. It is incredibly important.
In the interests of moving on, Dr Huq, I will probably finish here. I think we have had an extensive debate.
Matthew Pennycook
I will give way to the hon. Lady one last time, then I will address the point made by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington.
Ellie Chowns
It is important: the whole point of Committee is to look at the detail and really get to grips with it.
Replacing “are likely to” with “will”, as my amendment seeks to do, would not make it necessary to conduct a site-by-site assessment. It relates to the wording that clause 55 applies to the EDP overall. It is about the degree of certainty that an EDP will deliver—that a habitat-wide approach to delivering environment improvements will deliver—as in subsection (5), in relation to
“the maximum amount of development to which the EDP may apply”.
With respect, the Minister said a few minutes ago that the amendment would effectively take us straight back to a site-by-site approach. That does not apply here.
The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim that this legislation will result in not just the maintenance of, but an improvement in, environmental protection while pursuing wording that explicitly and significantly weakens environmental protection. That is the point that the Office for Environmental Protection makes, it is the point that a number of nature protection non-governmental organisations have made, and it is contrary to the Minister’s stated intentions for the Bill, and contrary to what the public want. We can have development and nature protection together, but only if the legislation specifies that it must happen, not that it may possibly happen.
Matthew Pennycook
To be clear, in assessing that the amendment in question would result in the need for continued assessment on a site-by-site basis, I am referring to amendment 20. I am absolutely certain that that is what it implies. Amendment 119, which I think the hon. Lady has just spoken to—there is a slight risk of conflating the two—is problematic for other reasons. As I have said, it introduces an inappropriately high bar that will, in effect, make it incredibly difficult for the Secretary of State to meet the test.
There is, as I have said, a necessary degree of future gazing here, in terms of the change in approach. I certainly do not want to curtail debate, but I do want us to debate the other clauses in the Bill. I think I have firmly set out the Government’s position—why we think the Bill does achieve the very clearly stated intentions that we have set out—but I go back to the fact that we are very cognisant of the concerns in this area. We want to ensure that sectors have confidence in the operation of environmental delivery plans, and that is the reason— I am more than happy to debate it with the hon. Lady outside the Committee and at later stages of proceedings on the Bill—why we will reflect on the very specific points that the OEP has made on a number of clauses.
Amendment 97 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 119, in clause 55, page 88, line 7, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.— (Ellie Chowns.)
This amendment would mean that an EDP would only pass the overall improvement test if it is certain that the proposed measures will outweigh any negative environmental effects caused by the development.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 126, in clause 57, page 88, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) at five yearly intervals, a report on an EDP covering the previous five-year period.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 127, in clause 57, page 89, line 24, at end insert—
“(h) what impact the EDP has had on the local economy and community of the relevant area.”
Clause stand part.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Huq. I am also pleased to see everyone here this morning on the Committee.
Last night, after buying the Minister a coffee to keep us going, I promised to buy one for the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I declare that I did intend to stick to that promise—
Paul Holmes
—but the hon. Member was not in the café. He has nicked my joke; I was about to say that I hope that that does not go on a focus leaflet somewhere as a broken Tory promise. It takes two to tango.
Paul Holmes
Missing in action and not winning here. I know that the Minister is very keen that we expedite this Committee today because of the semi-final play-off with Charlton tonight. I hope that his team does well in that, because we would like to invite him down to the Den to watch a match between Millwall and Charlton, if Charlton are promoted. The Minister is always welcome down to the Den.
I turn to amendment 126, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). We absolutely agree with the Minister’s sentiments on EDPs, and we wholeheartedly agreed with the majority of what he said on the previous clause. We accept that EDPs will be a step change in environmental delivery across the United Kingdom.
One of our concerns, and the reason why we tabled amendment 126—I will come to amendment 127 in a minute—is that at the moment the legislation says that there will be two reviews into the EDP: one at the mid-point and one at the end. We simply want to see whether the Minister would entertain the idea of review periods at five-yearly intervals and a report on an EDP covering the previous five-year period. That is for a number of reasons.
First, with only two reports—one at the mid-point and one at the end—there could be long gaps during which important issues or shortcomings in implementation go unaddressed. In rapidly evolving environmental contexts, more frequent reporting would allow for timely adjustments and a greater responsiveness to emerging challenges. What would happen under the current proposals if a mid-term report showed a failure to deliver in conservation outcomes? Also, are the two required reports sufficient for long-term monitoring and public accountability?
We have a slight concern that the clause does not seem to specify the content or required level of detail in those reports. I hope that the Minister will be able to elaborate slightly on what he and the Secretary of State would expect in terms of the detail when a report is published. It is also important to state that although the Bill will have to meet equality legislation, it does not meet the standard for public accessibility or independent review. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that. Without these safeguards, the report could become a box-ticking exercise rather than a meaningful tool for transparency and continuous improvement.
I turn briefly to amendment 127, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley. Given what the Minister said in our discussion of the last clause about the impact that the wording will have on legal definitions and measurements if those were to be challenged, I do not intend to press amendment 127 to a vote. We think that the wording
“the local economy and community of the relevant area”
is not defined enough, so we will have to look at whether we need to tighten it up, bearing in mind what the Minister said about the language in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. But I would like to press amendment 126 to a vote.
On amendment 127, I hope the Minister will say something about community benefits and the local economy in the relevant area. I hope he looks favourably on amendment 126, which stipulates more transparency and a clearer guideline for the process of reviewing EDPs. I look forward to his response.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me start by setting out our overarching intentions behind clause 57. Once an environmental delivery plan is made, it is crucial that Natural England can effectively monitor the performance of the conservation measures put in place and report on its progress. It is vital that key information, such as the performance of conservation measures and remaining development capacity under the environmental delivery plan, are made available. That is why clause 57 sets out that, as the shadow Minister just said, Natural England must publish reports at least twice over the environmental delivery plan period: once covering the period from commencement to its mid-point, then a second report covering the mid-point to the end date. The reports must be published no later than two months after the period the report covers, and Natural England may publish reports at any other time.
The reports are intend to demonstrate how an environmental delivery plan is progressing. They must cover specific topics—I hope this gives the shadow Minister some reassurance—including how much development has been agreed to, how that compares to the total amount of development that could be agreed to, what conservation measures have been implemented and the effect that they are having. The report must also specify the amount of money received through the levy and whether that is in line with expectations. That transparency will ensure that proactive steps can be taken if an environmental delivery plan is underperforming, and it will allow the Secretary of State to consider amending an environmental delivery plan to accommodate continued demand. I will come to clause 58 shortly.
Those reporting requirements are also important to ensure transparency as to whether delivery is aligning with the expected costs, and how the levy is being set and spent. By legislating for appropriate levels of reporting, we are ensuring that developers, local communities and environmental groups will be able to continue to engage with environmental delivery plans across their lifespan, ensuring they can be adapted as needed.
Amendment 126, tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, seeks to require Natural England to publish a report at five-yearly intervals that covers the previous five-year period of an environmental delivery plan. I very much share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to ensure that Natural England appropriately monitors the performance of the conservation measures put in place and reports on the progress of the environmental delivery plan. However, as drafted, clause 57(1)(a) and (b) already provide adequate safeguards by requiring appropriate levels of reporting. Under the existing drafting, Natural England is required to produce reports for each EDP. As I have set out, the first report will cover the start date to the mid-point, and the second will cover the mid-point to the end date of the plan.
As the maximum length of an environmental delivery plan is 10 years, the latest a report will be published is in year five, and then year 10. As such, the proposed requirement to provide a report every five years would not add further value. Where the duration of an environmental delivery plan is less than 10 years, a prescriptive timetable for reporting could create duplication. However, we recognise the need to ensure that Natural England can tailor reporting, which is why clause 57(3) allows it to publish a report at any other time.
On amendment 127, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, the Government share his desire to ensure that EDPs make a positive impact on the regions they cover, but we are clear that they should be judged first and foremost on their delivery of the environmental outcomes they are designed to achieve. That is why the legislation focuses on reporting on the environmental performance of EDPs. However, through subsection (6), the Secretary of State can publish guidance that Natural England must consider when producing a report. That gives the Secretary of State the ability to introduce new elements of reporting where appropriate.
The core focus of these reports is to provide the Secretary of State and the public with confidence that an EDP is providing the necessary environmental benefits to bring about an overall positive environmental outcome. Adding a new metric to cover the impact on the local economy and community, we believe, risks extending the scope of reporting and losing focus on the core objective of these reforms. Local economic benefits would, to a degree, be covered by the existing requirement to report how much of an EDP’s development capacity has been utilised. With that explanation, and the assurance that I always give the shadow Minister that I will go away and reflect on whether the wording is the best it can be, I hope he will withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister, as always, for his clarity on the amendments. He has said many times in Committee that he will be reflecting; I hope that he finds time to do things other than reflect. Given his assurances, I will have a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley so that he might have a proper look at where in the Bill the timescales are already set out; that may be a lesson for cross-shadow ministerial working in the future. Given the Minister’s assurances, I will not press the amendment; as I have said already, we are content with what he said on amendment 127. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Amendment of an EDP
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 58, page 89, line 38, at end insert—
“(2A) An EDP may not be amended if the amendment would reduce the amount, extent or impact of conservation measures that are to be taken to protect the identified environmental features.”
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could not amend an environmental delivery plan so as to reduce the measures to be taken to mitigate the negative environmental impact of a development.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 15, in clause 59, page 91, line 14, after “to” insert “significantly”.
This amendment would require that the actions of the Secretary of State must carry out when an Environmental Delivery Plan is revoked to significantly outweigh the effects of development in respect of which nature restoration levy have been committed to be paid.
Amendment 128, in clause 59, page 91, line 18, at end insert—
“(7A) Where the Secretary of State revokes an EDP, the Secretary of State must also seek to return any land obtained under a Compulsory Purchase Order for the purposes of the EDP to the original owner.”
Clause 59 stand part.
Government new clause 66—Compulsory purchase powers: Secretary of State.
Government new clause 72—Revoked EDP: powers of Secretary of State etc to enter and survey or investigate land.
Gideon Amos
It is with great excitement that we move on to another clause. I will speak briefly, but this is an important amendment. In the same way that protests from developers, in another part of the planning system, about viability end up affecting the outcomes of planning applications by, in particular, reducing social housing numbers, we are concerned that protests from developers could lead to calls to change EDPs. If EDPs are to be changed—this is a very simple point—that should not mean a reduction in the environmental protection therein.
Amendment 15, also tabled in my name, is in line with our amendments 14 and 11, to which I have already spoken, which were about strengthening the environmental tests. The Government have made it clear that they seek to achieve a win-win here, but in our opinion that will not happen without that additional wording and strengthening.
We have heard from the Minister that his point of reference, like ours, is to improve the status quo. At the moment, we are not convinced that the status quo will be improved. I am grateful to him for being extremely generous with his time on all the clauses by accepting numerous interventions, and for his assurances that he will reflect. I am sure that he will do so, but for such a, dare I say, common-sense amendment—that changes to an EDP should not mean a reduction in environmental protection—he might do even more than reflect: perhaps reflect positively on it. We feel that the amendment is entirely pragmatic, sensible and difficult to refute, although no doubt attempts will be made to do so.
Ellie Chowns
Will the Minister explicitly address the concerns expressed by the OEP, in its advice on clause 58, about the fact that there is no requirement to consult? The Secretary of State “may direct” Natural England to consult on an amendment, but does not have to. There is also no mandatory requirement to initiate a review or to update an EDP if there is evidence that it is failing to achieve its intended effects.
Paul Holmes
I rise to speak to amendment 128, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley—let us hope this one goes slightly better.
We understand the reason for clause 58 and for outlining the provisions for amending an environmental delivery plan. The clause clearly lays out the process the Secretary of State must go through to amend an EDP, which they may do either on their own initiative or at the request of Natural England.
The reason why my hon. Friend tabled amendment 128 is that, in some cases, the Secretary of State may choose to revoke an EDP. We will come to compulsory purchase orders later, but we would like to tighten up the wording of the Bill, so that when an EDP is revoked, the Secretary of State must seek to return any land obtained under a CPO for the purposes of that EDP to the original owner.
Will the Minister outline his thoughts on those proposals, which relate to cases where land has been CPO-ed and what happens to it afterwards? I hope he will see amendment 128 as a minor adjustment to the Bill and that he will give me some satisfactory answers, as he has this morning. We support the clause in general, but we just seek to tighten the language.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me set out for the Committee the intentions behind the clause, which gives the Secretary of State the power to amend environmental delivery plans in specific circumstances, where it is necessary to do so, and lays out the process that must be gone through.
The ability to amend may be required, for example, to reflect new environmental information or to extend an environmental delivery plan to accommodate additional development. The Secretary of State may amend on their own initiative or at the request of Natural England. It is right that environmental delivery plans can be amended, but our intention is that, where development has already contributed to the environmental delivery plan, any future amendment does not expose such development to requests for additional funding.
In providing a power to amend, we have also included proportionate requirements to consult on amendments. Crucially, however, in making an amendment to an environmental delivery plan, the Secretary of State will be bound by the same overall improvement test and will need to be satisfied that the conservation measures in the amended plan are likely to sufficiently outweigh the negative effect of development on the relevant environmental feature.
If the Secretary of State wishes to amend an environmental delivery plan, other than to amend only the charging schedule, they may first direct Natural England to consult on the environmental delivery plan as proposed to be amended. That allows environmental delivery plans to adapt and reflect changing circumstances, while ensuring that they are subject to sufficient scrutiny and oversight.
Turning to the amendments, I will begin with amendment 11, as set out by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I recognise the concern he highlights that, in a certain scenario, an amendment could be made that reduces the environmental outcomes and lowers the amount of protection. There are of course many important reasons why an environmental delivery plan may need to be amended, but we recognise that that ability to amend needs to be carefully considered. That is why existing clauses already offer a number of safeguards.
The central safeguard is that, where amended, an environmental delivery plan is still required to pass the overall improvement test. That means that, when amending an environmental delivery plan, the Secretary of State will not be able to reduce the amount of conservation measures without amending the scale of development that can rely on that environmental delivery plan.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
To clarify, if lots of environmental delivery plans are amended, who checks that Natural England and the responsible bodies in this process recommend the right things in the first place? I assume that we do not expect loads to be amended, but if plans consistently need amending because they are not producing the environmental benefits and the protection of nature they set out to, who will look overall at how many are amended in totality?
Matthew Pennycook
It will be for Natural England to determine what conservation measures are in place. There are reporting requirements on Natural England in terms of the overall body of EDPs. On the flexibility that is required—this speaks directly to the amendment from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington—it is unlikely that a Secretary of State would be able to reduce the number of conservation measures provided without reducing the development capacity of the plan, as that would not meet the overall development test. But there may be circumstances where the development capacity and the environmental conservation measures need to be reduced, and we need scope to be able to amend plans.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire pressed me to refer to the concerns highlighted by the OEP about there being no requirement to consult on amended EDPs. As I have said, amendments to EDPs could be for a variety of reasons and could be extremely minor. In such cases, it would not be appropriate to require a consultation in every instance. Instead, there is provision for the Secretary of State to direct Natural England to consult on an amended EDP where expertise is required to inform its decision on the overall improvement test—for instance, if there is a material change to the development included or the conservation measures proposed. We think that that is a more proportionate and tailored approach to different EDPs.
Ellie Chowns
Where in clause 58 does it specify that consultation should or should not happen? I cannot see it.
Matthew Pennycook
I will happily write to the hon. Lady on where that is set out but, as per previous debates, I will not pre-empt our reflections on the OEP- specific points.
I again make the general point that, through regulations and guidance, further detail on many aspects of the Bill will be brought forward. However, the central point is that we do not think that it is proportionate or effective to require consultation on every amendment to an EDP, which in some cases could be very minor.
The central safeguard here is the overall improvement test that an EDP is required to pass. That means that when amending an EDP, the Secretary of State would not be able to reduce the amount of conservation measures without amending the scale of development that can rely on the EDP in the first place.
Paul Holmes
I am just trying to be helpful. Clause 58(4) clearly sets out the process where a Secretary of State directs Natural England to consult, and the detailed consultation procedure is set out in clause 54. We have had a big debate on consultation procedures, which are not necessarily what we would like in other clauses of the Bill, but consultation is clearly set out in clause 58(4).
Matthew Pennycook
It is the Chair’s job to say so, but I do not think the hon. Lady can intervene on an intervention. I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. It would not be the best use of our time if I were to flick through the Bill while on my feet and attempt to find the relevant subsection. I will happily write to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to set out how the requirements in clause 58 operate.
In designing the legislation, we have sought to avoid situations where the Secretary of State would be forced to revoke an environmental delivery plan where it would still meet the test of securing better outcomes for nature. A practical example of where it would be right to allow such amendment is where an EDP has proposed conservation measures to cover more development than is subsequently expected to come forward. There may be instances where the level of development is reduced, and then it may be appropriate to amend the EDP. In such circumstances, it would be right to amend and to reflect the reduction in the scale of development covered and the corresponding conservation measures. Amendment 11 would prevent that and would force the Secretary of State to revoke the environmental delivery plan or to keep the inaccurate plan in place.
In the event of a substantive change to the environmental delivery plan, both a public consultation and approval by the Secretary of State would be required. That would give the opportunity for environmental groups and local stakeholders to have their voices heard, and for Natural England to present evidence that provides assurance that the overall improvement test would continue to be met. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Clause 59 establishes the process for revoking an environmental delivery plan, and the circumstances under which the power will be used. When the Secretary of State approves and makes an environmental delivery plan, they are taking a decision at a specific point in time. However, we recognise the need to retain the ability to revisit this decision if necessary and ultimately to revoke an environmental delivery plan if the overall improvement test is no longer met.
Lewis Cocking
On a point of clarity, if the nature recovery strategy includes land or a scheme that is not next to or near the development where the developer has paid into creating that nature recovery strategy, who does the Minister intend to consult when these plans are changed? The people where the proposed nature site is, the residents of the development that contributed to it or both?
Matthew Pennycook
As I set out, there is a requirement to go out to public consultation when significant amendments are made. That would be a general consultation, in the sense that we are moving beyond a site-by-site assessment. Again, it is for Natural England to set out how the EDP will function across the whole area. To return to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, we do not think there is a requirement to consult in every instance, when some changes could be minor.
If an overall improvement test is no longer met, revocation is of course an option of last resort, and the Bill includes various safeguards to ensure that we do not reach that point. Those safeguards include the ability to deploy back-up conservation measures if monitoring indicates underperformance of the primary conservation measures, and the option to amend an environmental delivery plan or to reduce the capacity of development under the environmental delivery plan.
If, however, a decision is reached to revoke an environmental delivery plan, the legislation is clear on two fronts. First, development that has relied on the environmental delivery plan prior to revocation is not affected by the decision to revoke. Secondly, the Secretary of State will consider appropriate actions to ensure that the negative effect of development on environmental features, where a developer has already committed to pay the levy before revocation, is suitably addressed. That will provide certainty for developers that they can rely on environmental delivery plans, and certainty for local communities and environmental groups that the environment will be protected in all situations.
That links to Government new clause 66, which provides the Secretary of State with the power to make a compulsory purchase order in fulfilling their obligations when an environmental delivery plan is revoked. To deliver any appropriate conservation measures, it may be necessary to utilise powers of compulsory purchase. The new clause provides the Secretary of State with the necessary powers to ensure that they can fulfil that duty as part of the wider package of safeguards that underpin this new approach.
Similarly, Government new clause 72 ensures that the Secretary of State can take the steps necessary in the event of revocation, by granting them powers of entry when they are delivering conservation measures where an environmental delivery plan has been revoked. We recognise that such powers should be provided only with appropriate constraints, which is why the clause includes appropriate safeguards. With that explanation, I commend clause 59 and the new clauses to the Committee.
I should also touch on amendments 15 and 128. Amendment 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would raise the threshold for the actions the Secretary of State must take on revocation of an environmental delivery plan. The safeguards I have just outlined already ensure that we secure positive environmental outcomes. In seeking to require the Secretary of State to take actions to “significantly” outweigh the impact of development, the amendment, as per previous debates, would place an undue burden on the state to go beyond the overall improvement that sits at the heart of this new approach and that already delivers more than the current system. I hope the hon. Gentleman is sufficiently reassured on those safeguards and will not press his amendment.
Amendment 128 was tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, and I hope that, in this instance, it is at least coherent internally, even if it is not aligned with the measures in the Bill. It would require the Secretary of State to seek to return land obtained through compulsory purchase orders, in the event of an environmental delivery plan being revoked.
The important point to stress is that nothing in the legislation would preclude the return of surplus land to former owners, their successors or sitting tenants in accordance with the Crichel Down rules. However, it would not be appropriate to require the Secretary of State to return that land to its former owner whenever an environmental delivery plan was revoked. The land would not be surplus if it were needed to secure conservation measures that may be necessary in the event of revocation. The amendment would reduce the ability of the Secretary of State to use land already secured under the environmental delivery plan to fulfil their obligations in the event of the EDP being revoked. With that explanation, I hope the shadow Minister will agree not to press his amendment.
Gideon Amos
I appreciate the Minister’s explanation. He addressed a number of the points in our amendment, including that an EDP should not be amended to reduce the amount or extent of conservation measures. He explained that in circumstances in which there is a reduction in development, there might be a need to reduce the amount or extent of such measures. I do not feel that he addressed the need to make sure that the impact of conservation measures is protected. We feel that it is common sense that changing an EDP should not lead to a reduction in the impact of conservation measures proportionate to the amount of development going ahead.
The Committee will be delighted to hear that, in the interest of getting on to other clauses, I will not press the amendment to a vote, but we feel no less strongly that it is an important amendment, and we will reflect on its wording and maintain our interest in the topic. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We now come to amendments 15 and 128 to clause 59, which have already been debated. Does anyone wish to press either amendment to a vote?
Paul Holmes
No, Dr Huq, but on the assurances that the Minister gave in relation to amendment 128, which he said he expected we would take in the spirit in which he intended them, let me say that we will seek further clarification from him on CPO.
Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60
Challenging an EDP
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
The clause sets out the approach to challenging an environmental delivery plan. As the obligations discharged through an EDP will not be subject to separate consideration at the point of development consent, we recognise that it is important that EDPs are subject to appropriate scrutiny. Earlier clauses provided for consultation in respect of EDPs, and clause 60 provides a route to challenge them.
The route of challenge enables a claim for judicial review to be brought within a period of six weeks from the date that the EDP is published. The same six-week period for judicial review is available following any decision by the Secretary of State not to make an EDP or to amend or revoke one, or when the Secretary of State has decided not to amend or revoke an EDP.
The decisions of the Secretary of State and Natural England in preparing EDPs must be subject to scrutiny, and the clause sets out a clear, time-bound mechanism for parties to question those decisions. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that explanation of the clause. We have tabled no amendments, but we do have some questions for him.
We welcome the Government’s recognition that there should be the right to challenge an EDP—that is perfectly sensible and we appreciate it—and we welcome the fact that an EDP can be challenged by judicial review. We have all seen examples in our constituencies of large-scale projects in the planning system; in my area, although I disagreed with the people who were against an extension of Southampton airport’s runway, they had the right to go to judicial review. We also see—I declare an interest given what I said on Tuesday about Hamble quarry —communities wanting to assess whether they can take cases to judicial review. We absolutely welcome that provision in clause 60.
However, we have a concern about the six-week window. The Minister will know—and we have all seen these cases, for good and bad—that people who may want to bring a judicial review, or at least investigate one, cannot always afford it. They are not always well-organised or large-scale businesses with the resources to afford that very expensive and complicated process. We are concerned that such a short window may hinder meaningful access to justice, particularly for local communities, smaller organisations, or individuals or charities, which may lack the resources or legal expertise to respond quickly enough. I know that this is in legislation, but is the Minister confident that the six-week window is sufficient, given the potential complexity of EDPs, and will he look at reviewing it or consulting interested parties on it?
We have been very clear that we expect robust public engagement and clear communication obligations. Especially on something as substantial as an EDP, and bearing in mind the charities or small activist groups that may be affected by it and that may, whether we back the principle of EDPs or not, have genuine disagreements, I invite the Minister to outline his thoughts on the six-week period.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate why the shadow Minister raises that point. I am confident, for the following reasons. A six-week timeframe to challenge an EDP is in line with similar legislation on plan making. For example, the statutory consultation period for local plans is six weeks, as set out in regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. We think it is an appropriate timeline, and there is precedent. We are trying to strike a balance between allowing sufficient time for an EDP to be challenged when it is made, amended or revoked—in all the circumstances that I set out—and not making the period so long that it will not allow for EDPs to be prepared and implemented as swiftly as possible, which is obviously the objective of the Bill. I hope that, on that basis, the shadow Minister is reassured.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gen Kitchen.)
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Third sitting)
Thursday 15th May 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesProduct Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 May 2025 - (15 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz.
The Government have been clear in our intention to maintain a strong, co-operative relationship with the devolved Governments and to ensure that the devolution settlements are respected in both principle and practice. New clause 1 will place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to obtain consent from the devolved Governments where regulations contain provisions within their devolved competence. That will provide a decisive role for devolved Ministers and underpin continued collaboration in developing product regulation that best supports businesses and consumers in all parts of the UK.
With that specific context in mind, I hope the devolved Governments will support the new clause and recommend that their respective legislatures give their consent, and I look forward to hearing the outcome of those debates. I thank ministerial colleagues and officials in the devolved Governments for their engagement and collaborative approach to the Bill.
This important new clause demonstrates that by listening carefully, engaging sincerely and acting in good faith, the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Governments can come together to find shared solutions. The legislation provides a new framework for product regulation and metrology that is agile, future-facing and tailored to the needs of the UK, and the new clause will make sure the framework works for all parts of the UK.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.
I put on record my thanks to the Minister for his rapid reply to the points that were raised on Tuesday. I asked questions on time limits for emergency powers under clause 4, on whether amending the definition of “online marketplace” will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and on Government amendment 1, on which I confessed to being a bit confused. We needed some clarification, which we now have in the shape of a very prompt letter. I thank the Minister and his officials for getting that out so quickly. I believe that copies of the letter are now available in the Libraries of both Houses.
New clause 1 provides much-needed and helpful elaboration on the extraordinary powers taken by the Secretary of State in earlier parts of the Bill. It will be important to clarify exactly which of those powers are reserved competence and which are devolved competence, and this new clause sets out quite clearly the collaborative approach that the Government intend to follow.
I will raise further questions when we come to new clause 5 on how the Windsor framework and the Stormont brake will interact with subsections (3) and (4) of new clause 1, but as far as new clause 1 itself is concerned, the Minister has set out clearly the process for making regulations that contain provisions affecting the whole of the United Kingdom, recognising how important it is that the United Kingdom has a consistent internal market. The new clause provides clarification along those lines.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Purpose
“(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the regulation of products and metrology.
(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under this Act, advance that purpose while prioritising the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and the United Kingdom’s regulatory competitiveness.
(3) Accordingly, and so far as it is possible to do so, provision made by virtue of this Act must be read and given effect so as to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) to the extent that it is consistent with the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and regulatory competitiveness.
(4) When taking action to improve regulation under this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to maintaining the highest quality regulatory framework.”—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)
This new clause sets out that the purpose of this Act is to improve the regulation of products and metrology while maintaining the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 2 is incredibly important. As the Committee heard on Tuesday, it is all too clear how many Henry VIII powers the Secretary of State is taking under this legislation. We do not need to rehearse the concerns raised about those wide-ranging Henry VIII powers by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place.
I am sure the Government will want to agree to new clause 2, with which we are trying to be incredibly helpful. The Minister set out on the record on Tuesday how he thought we were exaggerating, pulling the emergency cord and sounding the alarm about the potential for this legislation to be used to dynamically align the United Kingdom’s product regulation and metrology with that of the European Union. New clause 2 would helpfully allow the Minister, when he agrees to it, to recognise that the legislation has a much narrower purpose.
The purpose of the Bill is to improve product regulation and metrology. Importantly, new clause 2(2) states that the Secretary of State
“must, in taking any actions under this Act, advance that purpose while prioritising the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and the United Kingdom’s regulatory competitiveness.”
That clarifies the importance of the Bill’s purpose, how competitiveness must be taken into account, and, above all, the idea of regulatory autonomy. That is emphasised again in subsection (3).
As we said at the beginning of the Committee, we all want the UK’s product regulation and metrology to be of the highest quality and have the best possible regulatory framework, but it must also be autonomous. Supporting this new clause would allow the Government to show the substance behind their words by putting them into legislation.
Despite its ostensibly noble intentions, the Bill poses significant risks to the principles of transparency, accountability and fairness that underpin our legal and regulatory systems. In short, new clause 2 does what it says on the tin. It would ensure that the Bill has its intended consequences, rather than the unintended consequences that sometimes slip through our scrutiny.
The Committee has heard that the Bill will enact far wider powers than anyone outside this place would consider to be in scope of product regulation and metrology. At the heart of the Bill lies a troubling delegation of power, and the Opposition voted against clauses on Tuesday because this skeleton legislation is an extraordinary expansion of the Secretary of State’s powers. For example, as we heard on Tuesday, there is the creation or expansion of criminal offences, and the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State and “relevant authorities.” We did not get to the bottom of who those relevant authorities are.
The powers are alarmingly broad, and there is little to no clear guidance on what the offences will entail. The lack of specificity raises serious concerns about the potential for overreach and the erosion of due process, because criminal sanctions carry profound consequences. It is imperative that Parliament retains control over their creation and scope, and ensures that such powers are exercised with the utmost caution and accountability.
The vague language on enforcement bodies, which we have highlighted throughout our scrutiny of the Bill, exacerbates the uncertainty faced by businesses and consumers alike. Without explicit identification of which bodies will have the authority to impose criminal sanctions, businesses will be left in a state of apprehension and confusion. That ambiguity not only hampers compliance efforts but fosters an environment ripe for arbitrary enforcement action.
On Tuesday we also discussed the provisions granting powers to inspect premises, seize products and demand documentation without clear safeguards—I am sure that all members of the Committee will agree that those are deeply concerning. The criteria for suspicion are also undefined, leaving the door open for discretionary and potentially unjustified investigations. If left unchecked, such powers could lead to overbearing Government interventions in business activities, disrupt operations and stifle innovation. The lack of procedural safeguards further compounds these risks, making it imperative that we reassess the provisions to protect the rights and interests of all stakeholders.
The Bill’s reliance on secondary legislation, particularly in areas such as artificial intelligence, the definition of “online marketplace” and environmental impact, raises significant concerns about the adequacy of parliamentary scrutiny. The use of statutory instruments to introduce new regulations allows for rapid implementation, but at the cost of thorough debate and amendment. This approach diminishes the opportunity for comprehensive oversight and increases the likelihood of unintended consequences that could adversely affect businesses and consumers.
Although its objectives may be well intentioned—we have said all along that we do not question the good intentions of the Minister and Secretary of State—the Bill before us poses substantial risks to the principles of democratic governance, legal certainty and economic vitality. It is incumbent on us to ensure that any regulatory framework is crafted with clarity, accountability and respect for the rule of law.
This new clause would set out some examples of the Bill’s purpose to bring home the importance of this. We believe that the Bill gives the Government the power to dynamically align our regulations with those of the European Union. That sounds innocuous, but it means that product regulation in this country would be set by another Parliament. We propose a completely different approach so that, in all the different uses of the Bill, the focus is on the competitiveness of our regulations and ensuring that UK-regulated products set the standard and the benchmark around the world.
We should be proud of our history of product regulation and metrology. The hon. Member for Erewash, who is on this Committee, is the first metrologist ever elected to Parliament. He has spoken eloquently about the UK’s brilliance in defining a standard for metrology, and we should be proud of that brilliance. In all our agreements as an independent nation, we should seek to have other countries recognise our brilliant product regulation and metrology.
Certification for the UK market should be a mark of great pride. In all the trade agreements that the Government are negotiating—as an aside, I note that we have not seen their detail—we should seek recognition of these excellent standards, not only by our friends and neighbours in the European Union but by our biggest single-country trading partner, the United States, by our friends in the Commonwealth countries of Canada and Australia, and by the countries that have signed up to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I rise in support of new clause 2, which would be an essential and constructive addition to the Bill. It sets out a clear, common-sense purpose to ensure that any actions taken under the Bill not only improve product regulation and metrology but ensure that we do so while upholding the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and competitiveness.
Some members of the Committee may ask why a purpose clause is necessary, but I argue that the new clause would do something quite fundamental. It would place sensible and proportionate boundaries on what is otherwise a very broad piece of legislation. In other words, it would limit the scope of the Bill. Without something like this, Ministers will effectively be handed sweeping discretion to use the powers in any number of ways, possibly including alignment with EU rules without full parliamentary debate or scrutiny. We all want regulation that works in the UK’s interests, but we must also ensure that those decisions are made here, transparently and with proper oversight.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Is the new clause not particularly important because of the unprecedented criticism in multiple reports from the DPRRC in the other place? That criticism calls into question the many issues that my hon. Friend raises, so there is an extra onus on the Government to accept new clause 2.
Aphra Brandreth
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. These are real concerns that were raised in the other place, and I will explain why we need to make sure that the new clause is accepted. It would put the principle on the face of the Bill that we should make these decisions transparently and with proper oversight. The new clause says clearly that the Secretary of State must exercise these powers in a way that strengthens, not weakens, our autonomy and competitive standing. Surely we can all agree that is what our constituents understandably want.
The new clause would also set a standard for the quality of regulation. It would make it clear that Ministers must consider how to maintain a high-quality regulatory framework, rather than acting hastily or in a piecemeal way. That would be good not only for consumers but for businesses, which need clarity, certainty and consistency.
The new clause would not block progress or prevent co-operation with our international partners. It would simply ensure that major decisions are guided by the core principles of autonomy, competitiveness and quality, and that they are not taken behind closed doors with minimal oversight, so I am sure that Government Members will want to support it. After all, if they believe in transparency, parliamentary sovereignty and maintaining high standards, why would they not support putting those principles clearly on the face of the Bill? If not, we are left to ask whether there is a deliberate ambiguity. Do they not wish to say where they stand on automatic EU alignment or on Parliament’s proper role in scrutinising decisions?
In a previous sitting, I raised concerns about the ambiguity that runs through the Bill. That ambiguity does little to build trust, whether among businesses, consumers or the wider public. If Government Members support alignment by default, let us have that debate—let us hear the case for it in full view, with the transparency that our constituents expect—but if that is not their intention, and if they share our concerns about decisions being made behind closed doors without clear checks, they should back the new clause. It provides a clear, reasonable and proportionate safeguard.
New clause 2 would not create obstacles; it would create accountability. It sets out guiding principles where—let us be clear—they are needed. That is why I believe it deserves the Committee’s support.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Vaz.
New clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay, is not just a bit of introductory waffle. It is the constitutional backbone that the Bill is sorely missing. What it does is straightforward: it spells out what this legislation is actually for. Yes, it is about improving product regulation and metrology, but, crucially, the new clause makes it clear that that must be done by putting the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and competitiveness front and centre. Those are the very principles that we fought for during Brexit.
We did not leave the EU just to create Brussels bureaucracy with a new postcode. We left so that decisions about how we regulate, trade and grow could be made here by elected representatives answerable to the British people. Yet what we have in the Bill from this Labour Government is worryingly vague. There is no clear objective and no anchor, just a blank cheque that allows Ministers and officials to drift into copying EU rules or centralising control, all without proper scrutiny. That is not careful lawmaking, but a recipe for regulatory sprawl.
New clause 2 would put a stop to that. It is about setting the right direction from the outset. Regulation should support growth and promote clarity, not stifle it, and rules should work for this country, not be imported to satisfy someone else’s system. The new clause would lock in a proudly Conservative vision in which the state backs enterprise, in which we trust British industry, and in which Parliament, not faceless regulators or quangos, has the final say. I urge colleagues to support the new clause.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. As somebody who has imported and exported products to and from Europe and the rest of the world for much of the last 40 years, and seen the regulations change much over the last 40 years, I believe it is sensible that we are aligned to our major markets. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire talked about that, and she is absolutely right. One of our major markets is right on our doorstep. We need to be aligned to it because it is much better for our businesses if our regulations—
Clive Jones
I will only talk for a moment. I will carry on and the hon. Lady can come in later if she wishes.
In my experience, it is important that regulations are clear for UK manufacturers. They should have one set of product regulations, rather than one set for the UK, one for the USA and another for Europe. If the Bill allows us the possibility to align with Europe, that is extremely good.
Mr Holden
There are products in respect of which we have really good relationships with the EU and obviously want to align closely to it, but for some products we surely want to align with our bigger export markets. For example, we export a lot more of certain products to Japan and the USA. Why would the hon. Gentleman want to ensure that our alignment is purely with Europe, rather than with our major markets?
Clive Jones
I have not said “purely with Europe” at all. We should align with our major markets. I do not know what industries the right hon. Gentleman is referring to, but in my experience as an exporter to Europe and the rest of the world, it is much easier to have one set of regulations.
Alison Griffiths
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire talked about international markets. One of the opportunities presented by our leaving the European Union is to be able to sell to other international markets. She gave the fantastic example of the shower trays that many of us used this morning—
Alison Griffiths
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should be exporting internationally?
Justin Madders
We have had another interesting debate—a slightly repetitious one that I am sure we are all becoming familiar with. The shadow Minister, as always, was helpful in introducing her new clauses. She is slightly optimistic about the prospect of our accepting them, but I understand that it is her role to challenge and scrutinise the Bill by moving amendments and new clauses.
I agree with the shadow Minister about the importance of improving our regulation and metrology framework. That is indeed what the Bill is about. We had some helpful discussions in the other place about how best to do that. For example, a balance needs to be struck to protect consumers while making regulation workable for business. That balance is not best served by having in the Bill a broad and subjective purpose “to improve”.
The new clause also mentions the prioritisation of
“the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy and the United Kingdom’s regulatory competitiveness”.
At the risk of repeating what I said on Tuesday, the Bill is all about regulatory autonomy. It will provide powers to enable the UK to change existing regulations or introduce new ones in support of our needs and interests. The Bill introduces those powers because they are currently lacking.
The shadow Minister said that we will have our product regulations set by the EU, and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury said that we will be taking up new rules by default. They are, I am afraid, incorrect on both points. The Bill actually does the opposite and allows us to take a considered view on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, that is what the previous Conservative Government did through the regulations introduced last year.
The powers in the Bill will also mean that the UK can maintain regulations that support competitiveness. That requires a balance between a range of objectives, including consumer safety and proportionate regulation for businesses. Any changes that we introduce will be consulted on, and Parliament will have a role in overseeing the regulations, as we discussed at length on Tuesday.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
It is no surprise to the Committee that the Liberal Democrats’ position is to go back into the customs union, which would require dynamic alignment. It is clear from yesterday’s vote on the Opposition day motion how Government Members feel about it. I have given the Minister the opportunity to agree to this sensible new clause on the Bill’s purpose, but I got the hint that he is potentially not going to vote in favour.
Should the Government use the powers they have under this legislation to agree to dynamic alignment at the surrender summit next week, the voters at the next general election will be incredibly disappointed. We have got to a point where an independent free trade agreement could be agreed with our friends in the EU, in India and in the United States, and we would not want to give up those opportunities as a result of widening the Bill’s purpose, so I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Everyone on this Committee can agree that the UK is a proud global trading nation and, however we voted in the 2016 referendum, that one of the changes that has occurred has been our sovereignty over trade agreements. We agreed a comprehensive trade and co-operation agreement with our friends and neighbours in the European Union, with zero tariffs and zero quotas, and most of our product regulation and metrology is inherited from the time when we were a European Union member.
I put on record my welcome for the way in which the Government have pursued free trade agreements in line with the United Kingdom’s heritage as a free trading nation. I do not think the details of the new trade agreement with India or all the details of the US free trade agreement have been fully shared with the House at this stage, but from what we can tell there is an improvement in market access for UK manufacturers and for those who follow UK product regulation and metrology.
We can all see how important it is that the powers that the Government are taking under this legislation do not accidentally or intentionally cut across any of the international agreements listed in new clause 3. We would not want any of the regulations made under this legislation to disadvantage the United Kingdom under the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership; the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement; the UK-Canada continuity agreement and any improvements to that; the UK-Australia free trade agreement; the free trade agreement with New Zealand; and any other trade treaties, such as the one recently announced with India and the one that is subject to negotiations with the United States of America.
There is an extraordinary change in the UK’s trading opportunities. We have this advantageous new trading position with, in effect, a foot in both camps. We are uniquely placed in respect of European and American trade. It would be utter madness for the Government to do anything with this Bill that would cut across the freedoms we have. It would be much more valuable if the Government would, by agreeing to new clause 3, take this opportunity to show that they want to be completely pragmatic, and to ensure that we continue to have the opportunities to open up markets and that product regulation and metrology is not a barrier to that.
New clause 3 serves to prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations to align the United Kingdom with the European Union in a way that might hinder any future or existing free trade agreements. It is a pragmatic clause and a necessary step towards maintaining the strength of the UK’s trade relationships and protecting the long-term prosperity of our businesses. The hon. Member for Wokingham rightly pointed out how important it is for us to trade with our European friends and neighbours. However, it is also important to note, as we saw in the recently published Santander trade barometer, that for businesses in the UK, there is a gradual but steady pivot away from the EU and towards global partners. Those incredibly useful statistics show that not only have UK businesses been regarding international trade as more important, increasingly over time, but that they are widening the range of trading partners that they do business with.
When the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), made the point in the Chamber that the number of references to the EU in the legislation is far more significant than the number of references to any other country—the United States, our single biggest trading partner, for example—the Secretary of State told him that the Bill will enable regulatory alignment with the EU only
“where it is recognised that we have the interest.”—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 221.]
On Tuesday, the Minister told this Committee that he thought Conservative Members had mentioned the European Union more than the Government had, and that he did not believe the Bill will be used to tie us to the EU. However, I refer the Minister to the Bill because, in its 13 pages, the EU is mentioned 12 times. The Bill’s impact assessment certainly implies that we will default to a European set of standards, and the Secretary of State has not defined what the aforementioned interests may be. We are therefore moving the amendment to ensure that the interests of the UK in our existing and future trade agreements are not undermined by unnecessary and egregious alignment with the EU on product regulation.
I am not making this up: we have heard, in advance of next week’s surrender summit, that one of the EU’s negotiating objectives is to lock down dynamic alignment with the UK. The EU looks at us and sees the free trade deals that it has not been able to do. The one with India is a prime example, as is the liberalisation of tariffs that was recently announced, which I know is a starting point for the Government in terms of the United States. The EU is pretty worried that we will make the most of these freedoms and show that they are one of the advantages of our not being a member any more, so the EU has this as a negotiating objective. I am sure that behind closed doors in the negotiations, Ministers are pointing to this Bill going through Parliament, to their significant majority, and to the fact that they can therefore turn this on like a switch.
As we stand on the precipice of a new era—one in which we can lean into our country’s global free-trading heritage—it is essential that we continue to forge strong trading relationships with our global partners. These agreements, many of which we negotiated after leaving the European Union, are pivotal to our future economic prosperity, and to the growth that the Government rightly seek for the UK economy.
The new clause explicitly states:
“The Secretary of State may not make regulations under section (1)(2) or section (2)(7) that will disadvantage the United Kingdom or its trade under”—
several key international agreements. These include, but are not limited to, the CPTPP—that opens up new markets in the Asia-Pacific—the Japan economic comprehensive partnership agreement, which strengthens ties with one of the world’s largest economies and biggest inward investors into the United Kingdom, and agreements with our close friends and Commonwealth allies New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
We made progress during our time in Government, and we welcome the progress that this Government are picking up. By urging the Government to agree to the amendment, we want to say that this is not merely a technical adjustment; it is a necessary safeguard to ensure that our regulatory environment—product regulation and metrology—does not inadvertently undermine the progress that we have made in securing those agreements.
Frankly, these treaties represent hundreds of billions of pounds in trade. They are foundational to ensuring that the UK remains competitive in a rapidly changing global economy. The CPTPP is estimated to increase UK GDP by £2 billion, and it could be higher if countries such as South Korea, which has very good product regulation and metrology, join. We should mutually recognise some of these things. Why would we want to tie ourselves purely to a bloc that is a declining share of the global economy?
Alison Griffiths
I rise to speak in strong support of new clause 3, which would introduce a critical safeguard to prevent Ministers from aligning UK product regulations with EU law if such alignment would jeopardise our existing trade agreements. Over the past decade, the United Kingdom has been forging a new path as global Britain, establishing modern, liberal trade agreements with key partners worldwide. Those include nations such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada and other CPTPP countries. Those agreements are predicated on the UK’s ability to act as a flexible sovereign regulator, not as a subordinate to Brussels.
Let us consider the CPTPP, which the UK joined in December 2024. It is a group of countries united by a common interest, representing 15% of the UK’s global trade and 13.5% of the UK’s global GDP. The UK’s accession is projected to boost our GDP by £1.8 billion annually and eliminate tariffs on 99% of UK exports to member countries.
Alison Griffiths
My right hon. Friend makes a valuable point. This is a flexible, forward-looking agreement with global ramifications.
The UK-India free trade agreement, signed in May 2025, is expected to increase bilateral trade by £25.5 billion by 2040 and enhance the UK’s GDP by £4.8 billion. The agreement will cut levies on 90% of British products sold in India, including whisky, food and electrical devices. The recent UK-US trade deal, announced on 8 May, provides a £5 billion opportunity for new US exports to the UK, particularly benefiting farmers and producers. Although the deal maintains a 10% tariff across the board on most UK exports, it offers relief to certain UK sectors, including through the elimination of US tariffs on UK steel and aluminium exports.
However, the Bill leaves the door ajar for a realignment with EU rules, often through delegated powers and without rigorous economic impact assessments. New clause 3 would establish a clear boundary: if aligning with EU regulations threatened to breach or undermine our global trade agreements, Ministers would have to refrain. The clause champions growth and supports global trade. It would ensure that we do not regress to a scenario in which Brussels dictates our standards, causing complications in our trading relationships with Tokyo or Washington.
If the Labour party is honest about cultivating global partnerships, it should welcome the new clause. It is imperative that we enshrine legal safeguards to prevent any regression into EU dependency. I urge the Committee to support new clause 3 and uphold the integrity of Britain’s proud global trade strategy.
Aphra Brandreth
The UK is a free trading nation. The fact that we are an island has meant that for centuries we have looked to the world for trade, and new clause 3 is an important safeguard that would ensure the Secretary of State does not act in a way that undermines our existing trade agreements, a number of which were negotiated by the previous Conservative Government, as we have heard.
Our trading relationship with Europe remains vital and highly valued, but this is also a moment to embrace the wider world and build on the strong partnerships that we have developed across global markets. Many emerging economies present exciting opportunities, and we are already fostering trade links with some of the world’s fastest-growing global trade blocs. This is about maintaining our commitment to Europe while continuing to be outward looking and globally engaged.
When the UK signed up to the European common market, Europe accounted for one third of global trade. In 2019, it accounted for 16% of global trade. By 2050, according to the OECD, it will account for only 9% of global trade. It is simply good business, forward looking and proactive to seek out the emerging markets on which the future global economy will be built. Progress in doing so was made under the previous Government, and the trade deals listed in new clause 3 are some of the most important.
I will speak to a few of the trade treaties that are listed, to underline their importance and the benefit they bring to the United Kingdom’s economy. The deal that the previous Government agreed with Australia was historic. It eliminated tariffs on UK imports from and exports to Australia, making it cheaper for some of our best-loved and most iconic brands to sell on Australian shelves, and it gave us the opportunity to have better and cheaper access to Australian favourites such as Vegemite and Tim Tams—although for the record I have to stress that I am definitely a Marmite fan.
The Australia trade deal was bespoke. It allowed us to play to our strengths, with a focus on our world-leading service, digital and tech sectors. It put our service industry on an equal footing in Australia and maximised the possibilities and opportunities for digital trade—it was a forward-looking deal. Thanks to that deal, UK businesses are guaranteed access to bid for an additional £10 billion-worth of Australian public sector contracts per year. Inward investment from the UK into Australia no longer needs to be reviewed by the Australian Foreign Investment Review Board, making it easier for British businesses to gain access to the Australian market and, crucially, cutting red tape.
We are market leaders in so many areas, and the world looks to us as the high bar for standards and products. We lead the way in the tech and digital sectors, and that deal delivered for businesses and consumers alike, including high personal data protection standards for British consumers. The UK services industry benefited to the tune of £5.4 billion in 2020 as a result of that free trade agreement. It slashed red tape and removed bureaucratic hurdles for small and medium-sized enterprises and unlocked new opportunities for them to grow and develop in a new market. The UK gained access to procurement contracts worth billions of pounds, which is the most substantial level of access that Australia has granted in a free trade agreement. We benefited from more flexible rules of origin when exporting goods that are better suited to modern supply chains. Importantly, that deal was negotiated on our terms by our Government.
The New Zealand trade deal was also a success and again highlights the importance of new clause 3. Like the Australian deal, all tariffs on UK exports to New Zealand have been eliminated, delivering a boost for British business and increasing its competitiveness. The now Leader of the Opposition, when she was Secretary of State for International Trade, wrote to the International Trade Committee outlining the benefits of that deal and how it was expected to boost trade with New Zealand by almost 60%, benefiting the economy by £800 million.
Finally, I want to mention the UK-Canada continuity agreement and why it is important and right to list in new clause 3. When we left the European Union, we rolled over 65 trade deals immediately and bolstered them with a further seven. For the Canadian continuity agreement, the previous Conservative Government secured continued access for UK products, such as cars, beef, fish and gin. In the previous Government’s strategic outline for an FTA with Canada, published in 2022, it was noted that Canada provided a great opportunity for UK SMEs, building a digital economy and bolstering innovation for the future—exactly the sort of opportunity that the UK should be looking for. The crucial factor of that deal, and the others that I have referred to, is that they were negotiated on our terms.
New clause 3 is important for ensuring that the progress we have made is not lost. It is about maintaining our competitiveness as a trading nation and not regressing to the bureaucratic red tape of the EU that we have moved away from. I hope that Government Members will demonstrate that they are forward looking by supporting the new clause. In doing so, they would reaffirm our shared commitment to a truly global Britain that is ambitious, outward facing and confident in shaping its own future on the world stage.
Justin Madders
First, it is appropriate for me to acknowledge the shadow Minister’s supportive words about the excellent progress that we have made on trade deals in recent weeks. As has been mentioned, the India deal could be worth up to £2 billion a year and will hopefully unlock new opportunities across the whole UK, including for advanced manufacturing in the west midlands, Scotch whisky in Scotland and our world-class life sciences sector in the north-west. There has also been the excellent work with the United States, which shows that we are determined to take our rightful place on the world stage and chimes with the No. 1 mission of this Government: economic growth.
It is also appropriate for me to mention the excellent growth figures for the first quarter of 2025, which came out this morning. The Bill will support growth by giving the Government the flexibility we need to ensure that product regulation is tailored to the needs of the UK, and to respond to global developments. The Bill will help us to ensure that regulations work effectively for both businesses and consumers, and that they continue to do so in the future.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Given the importance of this point, I would be grateful if the Minister put on the record his acknowledgment that dynamic alignment is an ask from our European Union partners in the negotiations ahead of next week’s summit.
Justin Madders
Regrettably, I am not privy to the negotiations; I can only read the speculation in the newspapers, but clearly the Bill does not mean automatic alignment, dynamic or otherwise. It means the opposite, which is why a number of the arguments put forward by the Opposition are completely incorrect. I know that the 2019 election was the high point for the Conservative party in recent years and that it was all about our relationship with the EU, but we have left. We are in a new world, and the arguments that we are hearing from the Opposition are from a different era. The world has moved on. We are looking outward and working closely with our EU neighbours, as we should do, but unlike Conservative Members we are not obsessed with this issue. I am sorry to say that they have misread the mood of the public and the impact of the Bill. I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The Minister just clarified for the record that, although it is not his or the Government’s intention to use the Bill in the way we have highlighted, those powers exist should they wish to exercise them. Both he and I have read about this in the media, as neither of us is privy to the discussions behind closed doors, but it is clearly a request from our European Union negotiating partners. This week, the Government voted down our Opposition day motion that would have given the Minister the opportunity to rule it out. In the light of that, and given the importance of the issues highlighted in new clause 3, as well as the fact that the Bill simply gives the Minister and his colleagues the chance to legislate in exactly the way they have been speaking about, I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 5 is designed to obtain clarification on the record from the Minister about how Government new clause 1, which was agreed to earlier, will interact with the provisions in the Windsor framework to do with the Stormont brake.
As hon. Members will be aware, if Northern Ireland Assembly Members initiate the procedure under regulation 11 of the Windsor Framework (Democratic Scrutiny) Regulations 2024 in relation to an EU law affecting product regulation or metrology, the Secretary of State must not take any steps to implement that law in Great Britain until the Secretary of State has taken a decision under part 3 of those regulations. The new clause would make the position clear.
As colleagues will be aware, dynamic alignment of product regulation effectively already applies in the Northern Ireland economy. An update to the Windsor framework was agreed in Parliament last year, with Government support, regarding the democratic oversight of the 2024 regulations. The Northern Ireland Assembly has the important democratic right to trigger the Stormont brake, with the assurance that no UK regulations are aligned with the European Union following that decision in Stormont. Will the Minister put on the record that, should a piece of regulation be highlighted by the Stormont brake, and we were in a pending period while the UK Government negotiated with the European Union about its application, it would not be imposed in Great Britain during that period?
Great Britain is united with Northern Ireland, and we must ensure that our ties and duties to Northern Ireland are set out clearly in the Bill. Government new clause 1 goes some way to doing that, but new clause 5 would help to clarify the situation further. When the Prime Minister was recently asked in the Chamber whether he is a Unionist, he refused to confirm that he is. When asked after Prime Minister’s questions whether the Prime Minister is a Unionist, his official spokesperson said:
“I think the Prime Minister said before that, of course, he is the Prime Minister for the whole of the UK, including in Northern Ireland.”
If the Prime Minister and the Government want to make that very clear, they should have absolutely no problem with backing our clarifying new clause.
I hope that the Minister will agree with the principles behind new clause 5: that democratic consent must be sought in all parts of the United Kingdom, as set out in Government new clause 1; that we must ensure that the UK’s internal market continues to function effectively; and that, if the Stormont brake is pulled, it should also be pulled in Great Britain. That is the purpose of new clause 5.
Aphra Brandreth
I rise to make a few points in support of the new clause, because I strongly believe that the Bill must uphold and not undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom and the strength of our internal market.
First and foremost, we voted as a country—as the United Kingdom—to leave the European Union. Of course, the unique situation of Northern Ireland, sharing a land border with the EU, has added complexities to that process, but through the hard work of the previous Conservative Government, we secured the Windsor framework, an agreement that represents a careful balance. The framework upholds free-flowing trade within the UK while, crucially, protecting Northern Ireland’s position in the Union, safeguarding its sovereignty and upholding the Good Friday agreement, which remains the foundation of peace and stability.
Before addressing the specifics of the new clause, I will briefly reflect on the importance of the UK internal market, which is the economic spine of our Union, supporting the free movement of goods, services, capital and people across all four nations. Intra-UK trade has been worth up to £200 billion a year, which represents nearly 6% of our GDP. For Northern Ireland alone, it is up to £14 billion annually—twice its trade with Ireland and the wider EU combined. That should serve as a reminder of just how critical it is that we preserve and strengthen Northern Ireland’s place in our internal market. The new clause is a small but significant step toward doing just that.
Northern Ireland is an equal member of the Union. It is only right that its representatives have a meaningful say in decisions that affect them, and that we treat their concerns with the same seriousness that we would those of any other part of the UK. The new clause reflects that principle. It would not tie the Government’s hands unnecessarily, but it would ensure that any action taken respects the processes of the Windsor framework and honours the spirit of consent.
We have spent a good deal of time in Committee debating the balance of powers between Parliament and Ministers. In that context, the new clause is not a radical demand. It simply asks the Government to pause and consider the democratic expression of the legislature of Northern Ireland before acting. It may be that the provision need not be used, but if the Government cannot support it, that would be another indication of their willingness to listen to Brussels over Belfast.
I urge Government Members to join the Opposition in supporting this reasonable suggestion. It would make the Bill stronger, more balanced and more in keeping with our shared commitment to the Union. As Conservatives, we have a proud record of championing the Union, and it was a Conservative Government that delivered the Windsor framework. I did think that Labour was supposed to be Unionist party, not a European Unionist party. This is a chance for Labour to make its position clear.
Alison Griffiths
Those were wise words from my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury. New clause 5 states that Great Britain should not implement EU laws rejected by Northern Ireland under the Stormont brake. Under the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland retains a mechanism to object to the application of new EU law, but under Labour’s Bill, there is nothing to prevent the very same laws being imposed in England, Scotland, or Wales, even after they have been blocked in Belfast. That is illogical, inconsistent, and constitutionally incoherent.
New clause 5 resolves this by saying that if Northern Ireland activates the Stormont brake on an EU provision, the Secretary of State must pause for thought before applying it to Great Britain. It is not an attempt to hand Northern Ireland a veto over GB law; it is a call for parity of esteem. If something is deemed unacceptable for part of the UK, we surely owe the whole country a pause for thought. It will also serve as a practical brake on the quiet reimportation of EU law into our domestic system, by reminding Ministers that we are one United Kingdom, and that alignment by stealth undermines both sovereignty and the Union itself.
Alison Griffiths
I thank my right hon. Friend for putting a vital point on the record. New clause 5 reflects a commitment to coherent governance, to the integrity of the UK, and to a regulatory system that respects the voices of all four nations. I urge Ministers and the Government to back it.
We must consider the broader economic implications of our relationship with the EU single market. Post Brexit, UK goods exports to the EU have declined, with some studies indicating a reduction of up to 30% compared with a scenario where the UK remained within the single market and customs union. The downturn is largely attributed to non-tariff barriers such as increased paperwork and regulatory divergence, which have disproportionately affected small and medium-sized businesses. The Windsor framework, while aiming to address some of these issues, has introduced complexities of its own: notably, the creation of an Irish sea border has led to significant concerns among Unionist communities in Northern Ireland.
The leader of the Traditional Unionist Voice, the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), has been vocal in his criticism, describing the new parcel regulations as tightening the noose of the Irish sea border on local businesses. He argues that these measures further entrench a divide between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, undermining the Union and placing additional burdens on commerce. His stance highlights the ongoing tension between regulatory alignment with the EU and the desire to maintain the UK's internal market integrity. The imposition of EU standards on Northern Ireland, without equivalent application in Great Britain, creates a disjointed regulatory environment. This disparity not only affects businesses but fuels political discontent and challenges the coherence of our Union.
New clause 5 serves as a necessary safeguard. It ensures that any EU regulations paused in Northern Ireland due to the Stormont brake are not automatically implemented in Great Britain without due consideration. This approach promotes consistency across the UK and respects the principle that all constituent nations should have a say in the laws that govern them. By adopting new clause 5, Labour would renew their commitment to a united and sovereign United Kingdom, where all regions are treated with equal respect and consideration in the legislative process.
Justin Madders
As Opposition Members have articulated, the new clause would provide for a delay to the Secretary of State’s implementation of regulatory changes in Great Britain where Northern Ireland Assembly Members provide notification of triggering the Stormont brake on similar regulatory changes in Northern Ireland. That delay would persist until the Government make a determination on that notification.
I am sorry that Opposition Members feel that the Windsor framework is not up to scratch any more, but we take our responsibilities under it extremely seriously. The Bill does not alter or restrict the Windsor framework scrutiny mechanisms given to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The shadow Minister questioned the Prime Minister’s commitment to Northern Ireland, and I would remind her that he was in fact Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland for a number of years before his election to this place.
If the new clause were accepted and the Stormont brake were triggered by the Assembly on a particular EU regulation, it would delay the Government from providing certainty on the regulatory approach that we might take and it would cut across the devolution settlement, none of which is the intention of the Bill. The Stormont brake is about EU regulations, but this new clause would prevent UK Ministers from legislating on our own rules, which I am sure is not the shadow Minister’s intention.
It is also worth saying that the new clause, as drafted, is inoperable. It refers to the incorrect provisions giving effect to the Stormont brake, which are contained in schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Again, we have had an awful lot of talk about the EU. We have had a little ride on the ghost train, and nothing that Opposition Members have said bears any relation to the reality of what is in this Bill. I therefore ask that the new clause be withdrawn.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I think I heard the Minister say that, were the Northern Ireland Assembly to pull the Stormont brake, the Secretary of State would potentially continue to apply EU regulation in GB under the powers in this Bill. If that is what I heard the Minister say—I think it is definitely what he said—it is important that I press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—Review of Access to Testing and Certification for SMEs—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification, as far as it relates to requirements imposed by or under this Act, for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the costs incurred by SMEs in meeting relevant testing and certification requirements;
(b) the availability and capacity of accredited testing providers serving SMEs;
(c) any barriers to market access arising from testing and certification obligations; and
(d) potential non-financial measures to support SMEs in meeting compliance requirements.
(3) The Minister must publish a report on the findings of the review, including any recommendations, within 12 months of the commencement of this section.”
This new clause would require the Government to undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in relation to the requirements of this Act.
Clive Jones
New clause 6 has been grouped with new clause 7, and rightly so. Both are driven by the common goal to deliver meaningful support for our Great British small and medium-sized enterprises.
SMEs are the backbone of our economy—engines of innovation and growth that employ millions of people across the UK. Successive financial and administrative barriers have been allowed to accumulate, holding them back. Under this Government, small business confidence has fallen to its lowest point since the first quarter of 2020. The product safety measures enabled by the Bill have the potential to deliver real improvements for consumers, but the reality is that smaller firms do not have the legal or compliance resources that larger businesses can draw on. That is why, as proposed by new clause 6, it is vital that the Government provide specific and accessible support to help small businesses understand what is expected. Ultimately, the new clause is about making the legislation work for everyone, not just for those with in-house legal teams or significant compliance budgets.
New clause 7 seeks a similar purpose. Testing and certification are essential for ensuring product safety and regulatory compliance, but they can be a significant cost for a small business. To take just one example, the British Toy & Hobby Association informs me that an electrical toy must undergo no fewer than 37 separate tests to achieve compliance. There is no single standard test, and the costs can range from £1,000 to £10,000. A significant cost is attached to these essential tests, which is why a review is important.
The tests are critical, but they also represent a significant financial burden, which is why a review matters. It recognises that SMEs often face disproportionate costs and access barriers when attempting to meet the same regulatory standards as their larger competitors. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that his Department will provide clear and proactive support for small businesses navigating the regulatory changes introduced by the Bill?
Mr Holden
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.
These small but practical new clauses would help small and medium-sized businesses, so I hope the Minister will acquiesce to the Liberal Democrat motion, which will be supported by Conservative Members. New clause 6 would ensure the publication of simple and clear guidance for SMEs on day one of the Bill becoming law, to be updated every time new regulations are made. Such guidance would set out the key provisions of the Act, provide practical advice and list the available support and contact details for further assistance. New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for SMEs, helping to consider the costs, availability of providers and market access barriers.
SMEs often lack the compliance resources of larger corporations. The previous Government’s £4.5 billion advanced manufacturing plan and broader support for British innovation demonstrated our commitment to helping small and medium-sized businesses to grow and compete. The current Government say they want to help such businesses grow and compete, and new clauses 6 and 7 would be practical measures to help them do just that.
Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy and are important drivers of innovation and export growth. New clauses 6 and 7 would give them a fighting chance to innovate without being buried in red tape. I urge colleagues to support both new clauses as sensible and practical improvements.
Alison Griffiths
I have spoken in opposition to the Bill as someone with more than 30 years of business experience in organisations of every size, including SMEs. New clauses 6 and 7 underscore the fundamental flaws and overreach of this Bill.
New clause 6 proposes that the Secretary of State should produce and maintain guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises on how to comply with the Bill’s provisions. New clause 7 similarly calls for a review of access to testing and certification for SMEs.
At first glance, the new clauses may seem helpful, but they raise a fundamental question: why is that level of bureaucratic scaffolding necessary in the first place? The Bill is convoluted, overly centralising and inherently burdensome. It gives the Secretary of State sweeping new powers to regulate, without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny or consideration of local and devolved voices. It introduces layers of compliance that risk choking innovation and enterprise under a mountain of red tape.
Justin Madders
I thank Committee members for their contributions on this group of amendments. The Government are committed to supporting businesses and growing the economy.
New clause 6 would specify that the Secretary of State must produce and maintain guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises on how to comply with any provisions made by regulations under the Bill. I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham, that I welcome the intent behind the amendment. It is vital that businesses, particularly SMEs, understand and have good notice of any new legal requirements, to allow them to take timely action. In the other place, the Government introduced a statutory duty to consult before making regulations. That will ensure that SMEs and other stakeholders are involved, at an early stage, in helping to shape any regulations.
The Government already provide online guidance to help businesses understand new and existing legal requirements, and any actions that they must take. Ministerial colleagues, my officials and I regularly meet businesses. Hearing from them directly is vital to make sure that our regulations protect consumers and support growth. I have outlined how the intent of new clause 6 is already being met, and we will continue to work closely with SMEs as they are of course a crucial part of the economy. I respectfully suggest that the new clause be withdrawn.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton described the Bill as “convoluted,” yet earlier she described it as “skeletal.” I hope she eventually decides her position on the Bill. She seems to be suggesting that we should not legislate at all in this area. The idea of having no legal structure for product safety and metrology is, I think, very dangerous. It is important to protect consumers and to ensure a level playing field for businesses, both of which we are doing with this Bill.
Justin Madders
Of course, that is exactly what we are doing with the requirement to consult as part of the amendments agreed in the other place.
New clause 7 would require a review of the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for SMEs under the Bill. As I have outlined, the Government already consider the impact of new regulations on relevant stakeholders, including SMEs. We outlined how we will do that in the recently published code of conduct, to which we have referred on several occasions.
The code of conduct details the requirements that the Secretary of State must undertake to ensure that the impacts of any changes are properly considered and reported, including by developing appropriate impact assessments. The better regulation framework is a system that the Government use to manage the flow of regulation and understand its impacts. These assessments will, of course, include the impact of regulations on SMEs as well as other businesses.
We will continue to engage with stakeholders, including SMEs, on any new regulations made under the Bill. As product development continues to evolve, this ongoing approach is likely to be more impactful than any one-off review, as suggested by new clause 7. I hope that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham, is sufficiently reassured by what I have said to withdraw new clause 6. I also hope he will accept our assurance that we will continue to engage on these important matters as we move forward.
Clive Jones
I thank the Minister for his response, but I am pretty disappointed that the Government are unwilling to take this very modest yet meaningful step to support our small businesses. These new clauses are about removing barriers that prevent small businesses from competing on a level playing field.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Clive Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to speak in support of new clause 8, which seeks to level the playing field between online marketplaces and our bricks-and-mortar retailers. Online businesses have so many advantages in the marketplace, making it hard for our high streets to flourish against such competition. The new clause seeks to close those accountability gaps and ensure that consumers are properly protected and compensated when things go wrong. Crucially, it allows for the extension of liability to online marketplaces in the digital economy, where platforms such as Temu, TikTok Shop and Vinted are growing by more than 20% this year alone. That accountability is urgently needed.
When unsafe products are sold online, the lines of responsibility are often blurred. A survey by Electrical Safety First found that 30% of consumers cannot distinguish between an online retailer and an online marketplace, and yet 70% trust these platforms to protect them from unsafe products. That example highlights the need for strong regulation of online marketplaces to bridge the gap between consumer awareness and product safety regulations. The provision would ensure that online intermediaries could not escape responsibility simply because they did not manufacture the product themselves. Platforms are not delivering the changes necessary to protect UK consumers, so measures must be placed on them to ensure that they are responsible for product safety requirements.
Under the current system, Electrical Safety First recently identified 29 active listings for batteries that had been linked to serious incidents, despite an existing withdrawal notice. British consumers are put directly at risk of fires that can take their possessions, livelihoods and loved ones, and the existing enforcement regime cannot keep up. There needs to be accountability. It is not just electrical goods that pose a risk, but toys as well. The British Toy & Hobby Association has independently tested 650 toys bought through online marketplaces from third-party sellers during the last seven years. On average, it found around 90% of those toys to be non-compliant with UK regulations and standards, putting children at risk of choking, strangulation and electrocution.
The new clause would also enable the disclosure of evidence in cases where someone seeks compensation for harm caused by a defective product. That is vital for consumers, who often lack resources and lack access to information held by large platforms or distributors. The online marketplace can feel like the wild west. It is time to bring the law up to speed and ensure that consumer protection is not left behind in the digital age. Consumers want assurances that they have legal redress and consumer protection if it is needed. If a product causes harm, someone must be responsible, and consumers must have a clear, realistic path to justice.
The Government have indicated that liability will be addressed elsewhere. Can the Minister confirm what legislative vehicle will be used, and on what timeline? What mechanism do the Government anticipate using to address the liability of online marketplace providers? Could the Minister publish their plans before the next stage of the Bill? If the online marketplace regulations are to be made prior to addressing the position on liability, we need some analysis of what consequential changes might be required to those regulations. Are the Government considering that?
Aphra Brandreth
The new clause touches on the important issue of the safety and accountability of products sold through online marketplaces. In today’s consumer environment, the shift towards online purchasing has transformed the landscape. That has brought convenience and choice, but it has also introduced new risks that were not foreseen when our existing consumer protection laws were drafted.
Conservative shadow Ministers and colleagues have met with product safety organisations, and we recognise the real concerns that have been raised. The number of unsafe goods entering the market is deeply troubling. Recent investigations have found that 85% of toys tested from online marketplaces were unsafe, and that nearly 90% of products entering the UK fail basic safety tests. Those are not abstract figures; this is about the health and safety of our constituents. As the hon. Member for Wokingham said, some of the risks to children from unsafe toys are serious and extremely worrying.
Particular concerns have been raised about dangerous incidents involving lithium batteries in e-bikes and e-scooters, which have led to fires, injuries and, tragically, deaths. These are serious and growing risks that demand serious attention. It is therefore right that online marketplaces take greater responsibility in this space. We expect the platforms to remove unsafe products swiftly, co-operate fully with enforcement authorities and ensure that robust safety checks are in place before products are ever listed.
At the same time, we must approach this matter in a proportionate and measured way. The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to regulate, and it is appropriate that the powers are flexible and future-facing. We must ensure that regulation supports consumer confidence without stifling innovation or imposing undue burdens on small and emerging businesses, particularly those that are trying to compete fairly in a complex marketplace.
A safer marketplace benefits everyone. It is the foundation of consumer trust and business growth: if consumers feel confident that unsafe products are being properly policed, they are more likely to engage in the marketplace, and that in turn supports a vibrant and competitive economy. There is a clear need for ongoing scrutiny in this area, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how these important issues will be addressed as we take the Bill forward.
Justin Madders
I recognise the important points made by hon. Members in this debate. This issue is being actively considered. Liability for damage caused by defective products is an important area of law, and we agree that there is scope for improvements to the legislation—or modernisation, if we want to describe it in that way—but they need to be made in a considered way.
As hon. Members have said, technological advancements and the development of new supply chains since the passage of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 indicate the breadth of change since our liability regime was last updated. We therefore need to carefully consider the range and types of products that should now be in scope of liability claims, as well as who should be liable.
It is important to note that one of the reasons why we cannot accept the new clause is that product liability extends beyond products in scope of the Bill—for example, it covers food and medical devices—so an alternative legislative vehicle may be more appropriate for making updates in this area. I can confirm to the Committee that we have asked the Law Commission to conduct a full and comprehensive review of product liability legislation and make suggestions for reform. We expect the commission to report back next year, and we will legislate if necessary to ensure that product liability laws are up to date and fit for the future.
I hope that reassures hon. Members that we are alive to this issue and actively taking steps to ensure that when we update legislation, we consider the myriad developments in the world.
Clive Jones
I thank the Minister for his response. Consumers deserve real protection, not promises of future legislation. If online marketplaces continue to evade liability, unsafe products will slip through the cracks and consumers will pay the price. I therefore intend to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Clive Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
When the Bill was announced in the King’s Speech last summer, it held real promise of an intention to address the growing number of fires caused by lithium-ion batteries in e-bikes and e-scooters. However, there remains no reference in the Bill to lithium-ion batteries, despite the real and growing harm they cause. This is what new clause 10 seeks to address. According to Electrical Safety First, more than 180 parliamentary constituencies have experienced a fire caused by unsafe lithium-ion batteries since 2020. The evidence is clear that these batteries require a more robust regulatory response. This is not just about consumer protection, although that is vital, but about environmental responsibility. Lithium-ion batteries contain hazardous materials, and poor disposal poses real environmental risks.
The Government have so far accepted an amendment to the Bill that implements a system for classifying high-risk products and applying appropriate regulations. I am sure Members agree that lithium-ion batteries can, and should, be classed as high-risk, and I hope that this amendment is protected as the Bill progresses through its remaining stages. If the Government intend to classify these batteries as high-risk, there is no harm in putting that into primary legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister could share what work is ongoing in his Department and the Department for Transport to deal with e-bike and e-scooter batteries.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for moving the new clause and giving the Committee the opportunity to hear from the Government on this issue.
The matter was raised extensively during proceedings on the Bill in the other place, and in the evidence that the Committee has received from members of the public and important public bodies, including fire services across the UK. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about the existing scope in UK law to regulate lithium-ion batteries, as well as the power that the Bill gives the Minister to address a product that all too often causes horrendous fires. Many of our constituents will have heard of or have been affected by this issue, so I look forward to hearing from him.
Justin Madders
It is right that hon. Members have raised this matter, which is one of the primary drivers behind the Bill. We recognise that the safety of products containing lithium-ion batteries is an increasingly pressing issue, and I welcome the opportunity to speak about what the Government are doing.
We are fully aware of the risks that are posed, particularly by products such as e-bikes and e-scooters, and we have already taken meaningful steps to protect consumers and uphold product safety standards. The Office for Product Safety and Standards has worked closely with colleagues across Government, industry partners and technical experts to identify the root causes of the safety issues that we are seeing. That includes addressing faulty design, poor manufacturing standards and issues with battery compatibility and charging systems.
Alongside regulatory oversight, we have engaged directly with UK businesses to help them to comply with existing safety regulations. We want to ensure that good businesses who act responsibly are not undercut by unscrupulous traders who place unsafe products on the UK market.
We have also built strong relationships with fire and rescue services, which are often the first to see the consequences of battery failures in the home or in public spaces. Their expertise and intelligence-gathering skills have been instrumental in helping us to identify high-risk products and take appropriate enforcement action.
Since 2022, these efforts have resulted in 20 product recalls and 22 enforcement actions targeting unsafe or non-compliant e-bikes and e-scooters. In one notable case, the OPSS issued 26 withdrawal notices relating to two dangerous e-bike battery models manufactured overseas by Unit Pack Power. Those batteries had been linked to incidents investigated by fire and rescue services, and action was taken to halt their sale across eight online marketplaces, as well as against two manufacturers and 16 individual sellers.
However, we recognise that enforcement alone is not enough. Regulatory reform is needed to ensure that harmful products are stopped at the border or prevented from entering the market in the first place. At the same time, we must avoid placing disproportionate burdens on responsible businesses. Regulation must be effective, proportionate and targeted. This will protect the public without stifling innovation or fair competition.
The Bill has been drafted to provide those powers across a wide range of product categories, including lithium-ion battery products. While I fully recognise the concerns raised about batteries, the Bill does not and should not single out individual product types. To do so would risk narrowing its scope and limiting our ability to act effectively across the product landscape, including when new products are introduced. I think we all understand how technologies are evolving and that we need broad powers to keep up to date.
A requirement to report in three months would cause some challenges for timelines. There is normally a 12-week period for Government consultations, and that would obviously not fit into the three months suggested by the new clause.
At this stage, we are actively exploring what regulatory changes might make the greatest difference on lithium-ion batteries. To support that, the Department commissioned research from the Warwick Manufacturing Group to deepen our understanding of the risks posed by these batteries, including issues of compatibility, design and failure patterns. This research has now been published—I am happy to provide a copy to the hon. Member for Wokingham if he wishes to see it—and will help us to identify where interventions are most needed through regulatory standards, clearer compliance pathways or improved consumer guidance.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to tackling the safety challenges associated with lithium-ion batteries. We will continue to work closely with all stakeholders—from industry to fire services, and from standards bodies to consumer groups—to develop solutions that are effective, evidence-based and proportionate.
We understand the urgency of the issue. I have met victims of lithium-ion battery fires, and they understand that we are doing everything we can to get the measures on the statute book so that we can develop regulations to prevent such tragedies from happening again. It is important that we recognise new dangers and act to protect the public. I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that we will take action and are doing what we can at this stage.
Clive Jones
I thank the Minister for his response and the hon. Member for West Worcestershire for her remarks. The Government accept that the batteries are high risk—which is welcome—so why not name them in the Bill? Consumers, firefighters and local authorities all want clarity and action. If the Bill is not the right vehicle, what is, and when will we see it? I intend to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Clive Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause aims to ensure that online marketplaces are subject to clear, enforceable duties to protect consumers against unsafe products. Despite online marketplaces playing a central role in today’s retail environment, they often operate without the same responsibilities as traditional retailers, despite facilitating the sale of millions of pounds of goods to UK consumers.
The new clause would put some common-sense requirements on online marketplaces. For example, it would require platforms to have effective systems in place to monitor and detect unsafe products and block them from being sold, and it includes a clear duty to remove unsafe products quickly once a risk has been flagged. Those basic consumer protection principles are applied to bricks-and-mortar retailers, so why not to online retailers? No platform should be able to profit from unsafe goods while claiming that it has no responsibility for what is sold.
The current system simply is not working: 85% of the toys tested by the British Toy & Hobby Association, across 11 online marketplaces, failed toy safety testing and were delisted from sale. Despite that, it found that 72% of seemingly identical unsafe toys were back on sale, with 41% being sold by the same retailer. On testing a sample of 25 of the toys, all 25—100%—failed toy safety testing.
As we modernise our product safety regime, we must ensure that online marketplaces are held to the same high standards as bricks-and-mortar shops. Bricks-and-mortar toy retailers are expected to deliver much more, with fewer resources. Some 80% of UK toy retailers are SMEs. If they want to supply a manufacturer’s product, they are obliged to ensure that the manufacturer has carried out the relevant compliance regulations. Additionally, importers have certain obligations and have to ensure that others have been carried out. Online marketplaces are not required to do any of this.
Meanwhile, third-party sellers are often able to evade compliance with safety regulations, as online marketplaces have no obligation to verify that those sellers have met their legal responsibilities. Third-party sellers are often difficult or impossible to trace for enforcement. This means the cost of producing their toys is lower, so third-party sellers are able to sell their products more cheaply. The new clause would deliver fairness and essential protections. By embedding baseline requirements directly in primary legislation, the Bill will close regulatory gaps and ensure that secondary legislation can build on a solid foundation.
Before I conclude, another issue that needs to be addressed is counterfeit products. Because of a lack of traceability and enforcement, many products sold in online marketplaces are counterfeit, leaving British consumers at risk of substandard goods that pose a risk to their health and waste their money. What are the Government doing to stop that? What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that there is a level playing field between the high street and online marketplaces? Will he meet me to discuss the matter further, with the British Toy & Hobby Association?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for raising this incredibly important and wide-ranging issue. He touched on some of its growing importance in the UK, where consumers are buying more and more products online. The hon. Gentleman brings his valuable expertise from the toy and hobby sector to the discussion. Above all, we would be particularly concerned if harmful toys were to find their way to consumers, and indeed they do. Some 80% of the toys purchased from online marketplaces that were tested by the British Toy & Hobby Association were found to be illegal due to missing warning signs.
As this issue has been included in the Bill, I know that the Government intend to use this legislation to deal with it. From the many speeches made on Second Reading, I know that this subject exercises colleagues across the House. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will use the powers in the Bill to deal with this important issue.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for moving the new clause, which would require the Secretary of State to introduce a list of duties on online marketplaces and to make a statement within three months of Royal Assent.
As Members have recognised throughout the debate, online marketplaces now play a significant role in the supply chain and must be explicitly recognised in the product safety regulatory framework. We all recognise that they provide consumers with greater choice and convenience, but of course that cannot come at the cost of compromised consumer safety and of disadvantaging compliant businesses, so I recognise and share the new clause’s intent.
However, some of the requirements in the new clause are of the type that the Government are developing for consultation and will thereafter introduce using the Bill’s powers. We intend to introduce requirements that build on best practice to create a proportionate regulatory framework where online marketplaces: take steps to prevent unsafe products from being made available to consumers; ensure that sellers operating on their platform comply with product safety obligations; provide relevant information to consumers; and co-operate closely with regulators. The framework will also include, if necessary, powers to deal with stolen or counterfeit products, as the hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned.
The Bill provides the opportunity to develop requirements following consultation—as required by clause 12(6)—stakeholder engagement, impact assessments and consideration of the practical implications, including whether requirements should be tailored to specific business activities to ensure proportionality. The new clause, however, would require the introduction of its specified obligations irrespective of the outcome of any consultation or impact assessment, and of consideration of whether that would be proportionate or effective across the range of online marketplace models.
We expect the diversity and market share of e-commerce to continue to grow, and the ways that UK consumers purchase products to evolve in ways that we are not yet able to predict. It is therefore important that the product safety legal framework remains flexible, so that it can adapt to future changes while remaining proportionate for different business models. I am afraid that the new clause would significantly hinder that flexibility by mandating that online marketplaces’ duties must include requirements relating to those in the new clause.
I assure the hon. Member for Wokingham that our intent is to introduce, at the earliest opportunity, new regulations on online marketplaces that are proportionate and future-proof and that prioritise consumer safety. The regulations will of course be informed by public consultation and subject to the affirmative procedure. I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss this issue further, because there is an important role moving forward. I am happy to engage with Members in all parts of the House to ensure that we get it right. In the meantime, I ask him to withdraw his new clause.
Clive Jones
I thank the Minister for his response and for agreeing to meet me. I hope he will be happy if I bring along the British Toy & Hobby Association, because it will have a wealth of evidence for him.
I reiterate that 85% of tested toys failed toy safety standards, yet those products still reach children through online marketplaces with little or no accountability. How is that defensible? Bricks-and-mortar toy shops face far stricter obligations. There is not a level playing field and it is not safe. I intend to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Clive Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.
The Government can legislate all they like, but if local law enforcement bodies such as trading standards are not properly funded or supported, laws risk becoming paper promises rather than practical protections. A large share of responsibility for the areas within the scope of the Bill, including product safety enforcement, falls to trading standards services within local authorities, which is why we tabled new clause 13. We want to ensure that trading standards authorities have the resources, skills and capacity they need to enforce the regulations created by the Bill.
The capability and capacity of trading standards to enforce not just this legislation but a wider body of trading standards and consumer protection law is vital. The point is simple: effective enforcement is the backbone of consumer confidence and fair trading, but local trading standards teams are stretched, under-resourced and often unable to respond to the volume and complexity of modern marketplace issues. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute says that spending on trading standards services has been cut by more than 50% over the past decade, and that staffing levels have fallen by 30% to 50% over the same period. Overall, trading standards services are frequently unable to fulfil their duties and have very limited ability to make the changes needed to address new harms in the UK’s increasingly digital economy.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
On Tuesday, on multiple occasions I made the point about how widely the Bill is drawn in terms of the bodies responsible for enforcement. I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member for Wokingham’s points about a trading standards enforcement review, which we think would be an important part of the ongoing scrutiny of the Bill’s impact, so we are minded to support the new clause.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham for moving his new clause, although he is pushing his luck asking for another meeting straight off the back of his previous speech. We absolutely recognise the crucialness of the enforcement work done by local authorities. It has become clear that the existing framework of layered, complex legislation is part of the problem—part of the drain on resources—and one of the reasons why the Bill is necessary.
The selective implementation of new tools such as civil monetary penalties should further assist in providing more proportionate routes for enforcement authorities to use their enforcement activities, which the Bill addresses. Clause 8 enables the implementation of cost-recovery powers for relevant authorities, and the Office for Product Safety and Standards, in its role as national regulator, supports local authority enforcement teams with training, access to experts, direct support on cases and ringfenced funding for specific projects.
The regulator has a dedicated function in respect of communication with local authorities and takes its role extremely seriously. It will provide support on nationally significant cases if local authorities are faced with unco-operative businesses, be they existing supply chain actors or new ones. [Interruption.] Was that a request for an intervention? Perhaps it was agreement.
Local authority enforcement is a much broader area of consumer protection than product regulation, which is of course the scope of the Bill. This legislation is not the right vehicle for a review because it is singly focused on product regulation, whereas local consumer protection is a much broader policy area. I invite the hon. Member for Wokingham to withdraw his new clause.
Clive Jones
I thank the Minister for his response. I am disappointed that he is not willing to back the new clause, which simply asks for transparency about enforcement capacity. Trading standards cannot enforce laws. It does not have the people or funding for it, and right now it is being asked to do more with less. The Bill risks being toothless without the resources to back it up. I intend to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Justin Madders
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. As we are at the end of our deliberations in Committee, I thank you and Sir John for your exemplary chairing. We have finished in good time, but we have had extensive debate on a number of matters pertaining to the Bill. I thank the Clerks and the officials from the Department who have helped proceedings to go smoothly. I thank all Committee members for taking part in deliberations—no doubt we will hear from some of them again on Report.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
On a point of order, Ms Vaz. I am grateful for the opportunity to thank you for chairing, and Sir John for chairing Tuesday’s morning sitting. I thank the Committee members, particularly the Minister and his officials for their engagement on the important issues that have been raised, and I thank my colleagues. In order to get her name into Hansard, I thank Eleanor Munro from my office, who has been heroic in supporting me during the deliberations. I look forward to continuing our discussions on Report. I also thank the Clerks.
The Chair
I add my thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members for their assiduous scrutiny of the Bill. I thank all the officials, the Doorkeepers, the Clerks and Hansard.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting)
Thursday 15th May 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 May 2025 - (15 May 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I heard that we made good progress this morning. That is positive encouragement that we will get through the agenda at pace.
Clause 61
Commitment to pay the nature restoration levy
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 61, page 93, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) Natural England may only accept a request if Natural England is satisfied that the developer has taken reasonable steps to appropriately apply the mitigation hierarchy, including by seeking to avoid harm to any protected feature.
(2B) For the purposes of this section, the ‘mitigation hierarchy’ means the following principles to be applied by local planning authorities when determining planning applications—
(a) that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;
(b) that development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted, with the only exception being where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;
(c) that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists; and
(d) that development whose primary objective is to conserve or enhance biodiversity should be supported, while opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around developments should be integrated as part of their design, especially where this can secure measurable net gains for biodiversity or enhance public access to nature where this is appropriate.”
This amendment outlines the occasions when Natural England may accept a developer’s request to pay the development levy rather than the developer having to go through existing processes under the Habitats Regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Schedule 4.
Ellie Chowns
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mrs Hobhouse.
The amendment relates to the mitigation hierarchy. As previously, I refer to the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection, which called particular attention to the weakening of the mitigation hierarchy in the wording of the Bill. The OEP advice to Government mentioned that specifically in relation to clause 50. My amendment relates to clause 61, but it refers to precisely the same issue.
The mitigation hierarchy is a tool that delivers for nature and for development. It has done so for many years. The omission of the hierarchy from environmental delivery plans will therefore undermine their effectiveness as a means of delivering nature recovery and smooth development progression. The Minister has been at pains to reiterate his view that nature protection and development can happen hand in hand. I completely agree, but if the mitigation hierarchy is removed entirely—as, in essence, it is by the wording of the Bill—unfortunately that will not happen.
To be specific, the mitigation hierarchy directs development plans to prioritise actions to avoid harm to nature first, then to minimise harms and, as a last resort, to compensate for the impacts of development on biodiversity. The hierarchy is avoid, minimise and mitigate, and compensate or offset.
The “seeking to avoid damage first” principle is enormously important for nature. Natural habitats and species populations take a really long time to build up; some damage can take decades to be replaced or repaired by mitigatory action. I have already spoken about irreparable habitat damage. Such damage to what is known as irreplaceable habitat, and the species that rely on it, cannot be repaired.
For example, ancient oaks grow over hundreds of years to create complex ecosystems with species that have evolved alongside the oaks and need those ecosystems to thrive. Research suggests that 326 species in the UK can only survive on established and ancient oak trees, so the destruction of an ancient oak, such as the one tragically felled in Whitewebbs Park in Enfield a few weeks ago, or—even worse—of a whole swathe of ancient woodland, means the destruction of the only home possible for reliant species in that area, in effect signing their death notice. Any replacement woodland would take centuries to become an ancient woodland ecosystem, even if the conditions were perfect. That delay is so long that species cannot survive it, making the replacement effectively redundant.
Without the mitigation hierarchy, there is no decision-making framework to prioritise avoidance of such fatal damage to irreplaceable habitats such as ancient oak woodlands or to other habitats, and of threats to the future of reliant species. That gap in the framework causes problems for development as well as for nature. The famous bat tunnel, mentioned previously, in part stemmed from a High Speed 2 failure to apply the mitigation hierarchy properly at the start of the process, at the point of design. Had that hierarchy been applied early and in full, avoidance to damage to an ancient woodland, home to a large number of threatened species, including the extremely rare Bechstein’s bat, would have been prioritised—avoidance would have been prioritised—preventing the need for clumsy attempts at mitigation measures such as the tunnel.
Swift and effective use of the mitigation hierarchy at the start of a proposal can nip development problems in the bud. Given the effectiveness of the mitigation hierarchy as a development planning tool, therefore, it is deeply concerning that clause 61(3) will, in effect, disapply the mitigation hierarchy from environmental delivery plans. That was confirmed in a recent answer by the Housing Minister to a parliamentary question, where subsection (3) was described as enabling a “flexibility to diverge” from the mitigation hierarchy.
Departure from the mitigation hierarchy risks environmental delivery plans, permitting the destruction of irreplaceable habitats and causing damage to other habitats and reliant species. It also threatens bumps in the road for EDPs as a development progression mechanism and, if EDPs permit measures that would destroy irreplaceable habitats, they will lose the confidence of nature stakeholders and local communities and be more open to challenge, potentially to the extent of a replacement being required and development delayed across whole areas.
My amendment would head off those risks by applying the mitigation hierarchy to EDPs, just as it applies to other planning decisions under paragraph 33 of the national planning policy framework. It would instruct Natural England to accept an application to pay a nature restoration levy for a development only if the developer has first taken reasonable steps to apply the mitigation hierarchy.
The requirement to demonstrate consideration of the mitigation hierarchy created by my amendment would not be a heavy one. Compliance with the requirement could be demonstrated by the developer explaining how development proposals have been informed by efforts to prioritise the avoidance of harm to environmental features.
As part of the explanation, the developer could, for example, propose planning conditions being used to secure onsite measures to reduce harm, such as including green infrastructure; many developers will already be looking to integrate these features anyway because they recognise the wider health and wellbeing benefits that green infrastructure in developments can deliver. The use of the words “reasonable steps” in my amendment would also help to ensure that developers’ consideration of how to apply the mitigation hierarchy would not be onerous. The amendment has been drafted in an effort to reinforce commitment to the mitigation hierarchy without creating unreasonable expectations.
The consideration of the mitigation hierarchy would be a matter of factoring in environmental considerations and efforts to avoid irreparable damage into early development plans and demonstrating to Natural England that that has been done, rather than any lengthy assessment process. Much of the work should already have been considered and recorded as part of the initial process of identifying development sites, designing a development and assessing biodiversity net gain requirements.
The amendment also provides an extra degree of protection for the most precious sites and irreplaceable habitats, about which I have already spoken in this Committee, by allowing levy payment requests to be accepted for developments that would damage these rare sites and habitats only when there is an overriding public interest for the development to proceed. That would apply to only a very small number of developments, as the most precious sites and irreplaceable habitats are sadly small in number and, as I have emphasised, irreplaceable. There is a reason why the mitigation hierarchy has been used since the 1980s—almost my entire life—as a decision-making framework in UK planning and why it still has a central place in the revised NPPF: it works for nature and development alike.
The amendment would ensure that EDPs benefited from the mitigation hierarchy as other parts of planning do. It would ensure that they were able to catch and delay costly development mistakes before they happened and prevent EDPs from becoming a rubber stamp for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats. I call the attention of the Committee and the Minister to page 5 of the annexe to the Office for Environmental Protection’s advice to us. It emphasises that
“Mitigation hierarchies are an important component of existing environmental law”
and calls attention to its concern that the effect of the current drafting of the Bill could allow a protected site to be harmed in a way contrary to existing environmental law and the stated purpose of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will warmly consider my amendment.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a privilege to continue to serve the Committee with you back in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. The mitigation hierarchy is incredibly important. In fact, the Liberal Democrats were aiming to put down an amendment very similar to this one, but the hon. Member for North Herefordshire beat us to it—congratulations to her on that.
Clearly, the mitigation hierarchy is an important feature of the playing system, which has endured for a long time. One of the principal concerns with EDPs is that they will not ensure that oversight measures are taken first and foremost. The principle of “first do no harm” must guide everything we do in protecting the environment and in dealing with development that may affect the environment. We will support the amendment.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse; welcome back to the Committee. Good afternoon to all colleagues.
We are generally supportive of clause 61; I recognise the intent behind the amendment, but I would like to speak to clause 61 stand part. Although the clause introduces a streamlined mechanism for fulfilling environmental requirements, it raises several questions that I shall put to the Minister on some of the detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner may have some specific questions too.
First, the discretion given to Natural England to accept or reject a developer’s request lacks clarity. There are no outlined criteria or standards for decision making, which could lead to an inconsistent or opaque outcome. I ask the Minister: what criteria will Natural England use to accept or reject a developer’s request to pay the levy? Does he think there needs to be more specificity in the accompanying regulations, if not in the Bill?
Secondly, although the clause references charging schedules and payment phasing, it does not address how those charges are calculated or whether they reflect the environmental impact of the development. Could the Minister assure the Committee—not necessarily today or in the legislation—how he will provide more specific details on the charging regime? Without that, there would be a risk of turning the levy into a transactional tool rather than a meaningful mechanism for ecological restoration. Additionally, there is no mention of how Natural England will ensure that payments are effectively translated into real conservation outcomes. Without clearer safeguards, the process could be perceived more as a pay-to-proceed option than as a robust tool for environmental accountability. If the Minister could provide some specifics on those two main points, we would be content to support clause 61.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. I wanted to set out briefly the views of the Opposition, in addition to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley has said.
Recently, we listened to views from those with specialist experience in this context. There are a number of ways in which issues about biodiversity net gain and protected species may feature, with the relevant protections, as a consequence of the legislation. Although amendment 54 sets out some reasonable points, it does not address them sufficiently. In particular, there is potential scope to bring some of it within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provisions, which would enable in many cases more effective enforcement powers than under the existing habitats regulations.
We acknowledge the Minister’s point that it will be important for those responsible for biodiversity net gain and for considering the mitigation hierarchy to be able to deploy the resources that flow from these different types of agreements in a way that reflects the broader national responsibility, rather than a site-by-site basis. That additional flexibility would be required, and we are therefore likely to seek further amendments later in the Bill’s passage that address the specifics of those concerns.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve once again with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. Let me respond first to amendment 54, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. I will then turn to clause 61 and schedule 4. The hon. Lady’s amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which Natural England can receive a nature restoration levy payment in respect of an environmental delivery plan. She made a number of points about the mitigation hierarchy and irreplaceable habitats. I will not repeat the debate we had on a previous clause in relation to existing protections in national planning policy, which will still have effect for irreplaceable habitats.
On the mitigation hierarchy, we share her and the OEP’s view: it is a very important component of environmental law. Natural England will always want to consider the mitigation hierarchy when it is developing EDPs. We anticipate that Natural England will still prioritise avoidance and reduction of environmental harm in the first instance, not least because it is likely to deliver the best environmental outcomes at the lowest cost for developers. However, we do not believe that it should always apply.
The flexibility provided by the Bill will allow for those cases where, in Natural England’s expert judgment, the strict appliance of the mitigation hierarchy would lead to sub-optimal outcomes, and where money could be spent in a far more effective way to achieve better outcomes for nature. The hon. Lady is absolutely right and we have been very clear about this point: it is the Government’s view that the Bill effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy. As I have said, that is also the view of the chief executive of Natural England. There is flexibility built into the Bill, which we need.
Ellie Chowns
I have two points. The Minister has claimed that the Bill maintains the mitigation hierarchy. Can he point to where that is stated in the Bill? I cannot see it; I have just checked back on clause 53, which deals with the preparation of EDPs, but it is not specified. Where is it specified in the Bill that it maintains the mitigation hierarchy?
Secondly, with respect, there are not only two options here—either to support the Bill exactly as it is written or to support the status quo. I am trying to table constructive amendments to the Bill, recognising what the Government seek to do and their stated aims of ensuring that development and nature protection go hand in hand, and that nature protection is enhanced at the same time as enabling development. I am not necessarily opposed, in principle, to area-wide and strategic approaches—I have already given credit to district-level licensing for newts and similar things that are already happening.
However, my concern is that nowhere in the Bill does it say that the mitigation hierarchy is preserved—nowhere in either clause 61 or clause 53, or anywhere else, is it preserved. It is not just me who says that; the OEP and many nature protection organisations are deeply concerned about the issue. I am proposing a constructive mid-point in my amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me make a couple of points in response. I did not state that a particular clause in the Bill, “effectively maintains the mitigation hierarchy”; I said that that was the Government’s belief as to the effect of the Bill, and it is also the view of the chief executive of Natural England.
We have been very clear that our approach requires flexibility to diverge, and this is where I would gently challenge the hon. Lady. It is all well and good for her to say, “I agree with the objective of a win-win for nature and development.” We can all agree with that. I am challenging her as to where she agrees with the fundamental requirements of how our strategic approach will operate. On this particular amendment, I would make the point that in reinstating as it does—
Matthew Pennycook
I will not give way again; I will make some progress. In reinstating as it does the requirement for site-by-site assessments before a levy could be accepted, the amendment is contrary to that strategic approach and would hamper it. In proposing a strategic approach, as I have said before, we have been careful to ensure that this is taken forward only where there is a clear case that the benefits of the conservation measures under an environmental delivery plan outweigh the negative effect of development.
That is precisely why clause 50 requires Natural England to set out the negative effect of the development to which the environmental delivery plan applies, alongside the conservation measures that Natural England will take to address the environmental impact and contribute to an overall environmental improvement. Only when it is satisfied that the conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development can the Secretary of State agree to make an environmental delivery plan.
In establishing an alternative to the existing system, as I have said, the Bill intentionally allows for a more strategic approach to be taken to environmental assessment and flexibility to diverge from a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy. Without that flexibility, it will not operate as intended.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not going to give way, but the hon. Lady can make a further contribution. However, this will be only where Natural England consider it appropriate and would deliver better outcomes for nature of over the course of a delivery plan. The hon. Lady’s amendment would remove that flexibility and undermine the purpose of these reforms, which is to maximise the impact of measures at a strategic scale. We are confident that this more strategic approach to the assessment of negative effects and delivery of conservation measures strikes the right balance and will result in better outcomes. As I said, and am more than happy to continue to repeat, I understand the importance of ensuring that this flexibility is used only where it needs to be, and that everyone can be confident that harm is being avoided wherever possible. I am giving further thought to ways to underpin that confidence.
Clause 61 establishes the framework that will allow developers to pay the nature restoration levy, setting out the process by which developers can make a request to Natural England to pay the nature restoration levy in respect of their proposed development. If accepted by Natural England, the developer will then be committed to make the relevant payment, as set out in the charging schedule that will be published as part of the environmental delivery plan.
The clause then sets out how the making of that payment affects the developer’s environmental obligations. For example, the legislation makes clear that the commitment by a developer to pay the nature restoration levy in respect of an environmental delivery plan addressing nutrient pollution removes the need for the developer to consider the impact of the development on an environmental feature in respect of nutrient pollution. Where payment of the levy is made mandatory by an environmental delivery plan, the clause removes the ability of a developer to discharge the relevant environmental obligation in any way other than through the payment of the nature restoration levy.
In those circumstances, Natural England must set out the reasons why it considers it necessary to mandate the payment of the levy under the EDP. That will form part of the consultation on the draft EDP, and has been included to address situations where the environmental outcome can only be achieved with payments from all relevant developments, or where failing to capture payments from all relevant developments would render the EDP economically unviable. The nature restoration levy is central to our new strategic approach, ensuring that Natural England can secure funds to deliver conservation measures and to provide certainty to developers that the making of the payment discharges the relevant environmental obligation.
I will come back to the shadow Ministers, the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, as I have given a commitment in relation to previous clauses on their points about the interactions between the provisions in this Bill and those in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. That is a very complex matter, and we will set out more detail where we have it.
In general terms—I say this with the proviso that regulations will bring forward further detail on how the levy will operate—the request and the payments are intended, essentially, to meet the scale and type of development that the EDP relates to. They cannot just be made on the basis of the discretion of what Natural England decides it wants. They have to relate to the conservation measures being put in place. We do, however, want to get the balance right between levy rates that ensure that development is economically viable—otherwise the EDP will not come forward in some instances—and not setting a rate that allows for gold-plating of projects, where that is not required. We will discuss that in more detail on future clauses.
I turn to schedule 4. In establishing the nature restoration fund, there is a need to provide legal certainty on how the new approach interacts with existing environmental requirements. Critically, there is a need to establish that where developers make a payment to the nature restoration fund, that relieves the decision maker of any obligation to consider the impact on the environmental features that the EDP addresses, as those obligations will now be discharged on a strategic scale by Natural England.
Schedule 4 achieves that by making clear that for each environmental feature identified in an EDP, be it a protected feature of a protected site or a protected species, the paying of the nature restoration levy removes many of the requirements for the developer under existing legislation. For example, where an EDP covers the impact of nutrient pollution on a protected site, and a developer pays the nature restoration levy, they will no longer be required to consider that environmental impact through wider environmental assessments. Similarly, where a protected species is identified as an environmental feature under an EDP, the making of a levy payment will mean that the developer will benefit from a deemed licence based on terms set in the EDP, which removes certain associated requirements for the developer under existing legislation.
Crucially, the legislation is clear that the making of a payment will only be capable of addressing the environmental impact on the protected features covered by an EDP. Although we expect coverage to build up over time, it is only right that the discharge of environmental obligations is limited to the matters addressed in the environmental delivery plan. Therefore, if the development has other environmental impacts that are not covered by the EDP, they will continue to be assessed in the usual way.
It is important to stress that the removal of the need for the developer to meet those environmental obligations will apply only when Natural England has sufficient evidence to draft an EDP, the Secretary of State has concluded that the EDP is sufficient to outweigh the impact of development, and the developer has committed to making the necessary nature restoration levy payment. Given the targeted nature of the changes to the regulations and Acts, and the need to provide legal certainty for the nature restoration fund to operate, I commend clause 61 and schedule 4 to the Committee.
Ellie Chowns
The Minister asserts that the Bill maintains the mitigation hierarchy, but that is not set out anywhere in the text. The words “mitigation hierarchy” appear nowhere in the Bill. The word “mitigation” appears four times, always in relation to climate change. The word “avoid” appears only once, in relation to unavoidable delays to nationally significant infrastructure projects, and the word “harm” appears only once, in relation to commercial interests. If the Bill does not say anything about the mitigation hierarchy, mitigation or avoiding harm in relation to nature, how can the Minister claim that it upholds the mitigation hierarchy?
Amendment 54 specifies that a developer needs to demonstrate taking
“reasonable steps to appropriately apply the mitigation hierarchy”.
The Minister emphasised his desire for the legislation to have flexibility. My amendment offers that flexibility; his Bill offers no support for the mitigation hierarchy. For that reason, I will not withdraw the amendment, because it is fundamentally important. I would like to press it to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
Briefly, it is worth my putting on the record the following so that the Committee is clear about the Government’s position. The mitigation hierarchy is still a requirement of the national planning policy framework. It is established through that, and it continues to operate. But we think—I have been very honest about this—that the new approach in the Bill requires flexibility, where appropriate—
Matthew Pennycook
No—the amendment is entirely at odds with the purpose and intent of clause 61, which is to disapply the requirement for assessment of environmental impact of a feature covered by an EDP once the development has committed to pay the nature restoration levy. In our view, therefore, the amendment would fundamentally undermine the operation of our approach, and for that reason we cannot accept it.
Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)
Order. I think we have heard both sides very well, loudly and clearly. We need to push on because we have been discussing this one amendment for nearly half an hour. It is important that we now come to a decision.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move amendment 92, Clause 62, page 93, line 42, leave out from “features” to the end of line 2 on page 94 and insert—
“are funded by the developer.
This amendment would define the purpose of the nature restoration levy as being that costs incurred in maintaining and improving the conservation status of environmental features should be met by developers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 70 stand part.
Ellie Chowns
I will try to speak briefly. Amendment 92 is particularly important considering the conversation that we have just had about my previous amendment. Effectively, the nature restoration fund offers the opportunity for developers to buy the right to pollute in one location if that money is used to create habitats or support remedial action in another location. But clause 62, as it is currently drafted, makes the payment into the NRF subject to a viability test, which undermines the polluter pays principle, which is one of the fundamental environmental principles to which the Government are supposed to be sticking.
The amendment reinforces the polluter pays principle. It is a well-established environmental policy doctrine endorsed by international agreements, numerous national frameworks, and the Government’s own environmental principles. It asserts that those who cause environmental degradation should bear the costs associated with its mitigation and restoration.
Removing the economic viability constraints means that, in principle, a developer could make their own assessment of whether paying into the NRF would undermine their capacity to pursue a development. Therefore, the viability caveat undermines the environmental goals. It dilutes the effectiveness of the nature restoration levy by tethering it to this ambiguous economic viability standard. It is a subjective and, frankly, developer-biased filter that might lead to inconsistent applications of the levy or weakened environmental commitments in the face of commercial pressures, and in so doing, could prioritise short-term developmental gains over long-term ecological resilience.
Allowing economic viability to act as a limiting factor to the NRF creates a dangerous precedent, because it implies that environmental restoration is, in effect, a negotiable, secondary or optional cost that could be trimmed if profit margins are tight. Again, that would surely not be compatible with the Government’s stated aims for establishing this policy approach. Frankly, in the context of a rapidly escalating biodiversity crisis, the approach is both irresponsible and unsustainable. I warmly encourage the Minister, yet again, to consider my helpful amendment.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Lady for speaking to amendment 92, which, as she set out, seeks to remove the duty on the Secretary of State to consider economic viability when making regulations in respect of the nature restoration levy. We believe that it is important to consider viability in the setting of that levy, because excessive costs will mean either that developers will not want to pay into the nature restoration fund, or if they are forced to, that less development will come forward. This will be a particular issue for small and medium-sized housebuilders. Without developers paying into an EDP, the conservation measures that it sets out will not be delivered.
The hon. Lady’s amendment also includes the aim of establishing a requirement that all conservation costs are funded entirely by the developer. Introducing requirements that all funding for conservation measures come from developers will also undermine Government’s ability to step in and provide funding should conservation measures not deliver the necessary effect. That is likely to lead to an increased cost for developers, or to force them to avoid using an EDP and to rely on existing systems that do not provide the same benefits for the environment as the nature restoration fund. For that reason, we cannot accept the hon. Lady’s amendment.
Clause 62 is essential to the operation of this new strategic approach. It will empower the Secretary of State to make regulations in respect of the nature restoration levy. I therefore commend it as currently drafted to the Committee.
As hon. Members will be aware, clause 70 will allow the Government to provide guidance to Natural England on the operation of the levy. It enables the Secretary of State to give guidance in relation to any matter connected with the nature restoration levy, and provides that Natural England, or any other public body to which such guidance is given, must have regard to it. Such guidance will provide clarity as to the operation of the nature restoration levy and speed up implementation. For those reasons, I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Ellie Chowns
The Minister’s response indicates that he believes it is reasonable to expect the Government, and therefore essentially taxpayers, to bear the costs of environmental damage caused by developers. That is surely not reasonable. How will the structure set out in the Bill work, be viable, protect nature or indeed improve it—the Minister has said he seeks to achieve that—if it does not specify that developers must bear the costs of remediating the damage that development does? Under his proposals, the taxpayer would be left on the hook for the costs of that. Under my proposal, the polluter pays principle, that well-established principle in international and domestic law, would be maintained, so I would like to push the amendment, my last on the clause, to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 129, in clause 64, page 95, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) When considering the rates or other criteria to be set out in a charging schedule in the course of preparing an EDP, Natural England must not include any potential capital costs for the purposes of acquiring land.”
Clause 64 stand part.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 63 forms part of the wider group of clauses that provide the necessary powers to make regulations governing the operation of the nature restoration levy. The clause specifically deals with issues of liability and provides regulation-making powers to set out who is liable to pay the nature restoration levy and when that liability arises. Given the breadth of environmental circumstances and types of development that may be covered by an environmental delivery plan, the detailed operation of the levy is best addressed through regulations, with the powers to make regulations suitably constrained. Technical matters of liability, such as the withdrawal and cancellation of liability, will be set out in the regulations, with the clause providing the relevant powers. To provide certainty and clarity to developers, those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause 64 is another limb in the group of clauses that will govern the operation of the nature restoration levy. In particular, the clause provides the powers to make regulations in respect of how Natural England calculates and sets the nature restoration levy. Those regulations will, for example, frame how Natural England determines the cost of conservation measures to address the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature and the subsequent levy rate for developers. In doing so, regulations made under the clause will ensure matters of economic viability form part of the setting of rates under the charging schedule.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Does the Minister share my concerns? When developments are proposed, there are obviously negotiations under section 106. Although I agree with the principle of the levy, I do not want developers to move money from other 106 obligations —healthcare, roads and education—into it. Has he given any thought to how we can prevent that from happening? This levy should be additional, rather than cutting the pie in a different way.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. In the correspondence I will send to the Committee, I am more than happy to try to give hon. Members a sense of how the provisions in the Bill do or do not interact with the existing developer contribution system. However, section 106 agreements are a very different proposition from what we are discussing. We are talking about a nature restoration levy payment, managed by Natural England and directly for use on conservation measures that form part of an EDP. So section 106 is an entirely separate issue.
I recognise—I think this is the hon. Gentleman’s point—how issues of viability will be addressed in the calculation of the levy payment. What I would say to that is that this is a regulation-making power; the regulations will come forward with further detail, and we have made them subject to the affirmative procedure. We will have further debate in the House on the technical detail of how those regulations look when they are published. This is just the regulation-making power that will allow the levy to be charged. On that basis, I hope I have somewhat clarified the issue.
David Simmonds
This is a slightly technical question, but what consideration will be given to regional and local variation in the levels of cost? My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne highlighted the point about the interaction with section 106, which the Minister has accepted. One of the calculations under section 106 is child yield, which reflects the number of children we would expect in a development. Through the formula, that produces a payment in respect of the cost of provision of school places. Clearly, that cost will vary significantly depending on which part of the country the development takes place in. I would like to be confident that if, for example, a developer undertakes development in a very high-cost area, we will not see a significant corresponding reduction in the environmental yield from such a negotiation, and that viability will not, in practice, become such a barrier that developments do not go ahead or we end up forgoing the expected yield in some of these crucial areas in order to make housing viable.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for that intervention. I will say two things. First, I again slightly caution against reading section 106 agreement provisions directly across into the clause we are debating. Secondly, the point he makes about regional variations in viability challenges is a good one, and it will, I am sure, be one of many issues the regulations have to consider. However, the full detail of those regulations will be forthcoming in due course, once the Bill receives Royal Assent.
As I said, clause 64 and the regulations that flow from it will play an important part in ensuring that the setting of the levy reflects the appropriate administrative costs in connection with the environmental delivery plan, as well as ensuring that processes are integrated wherever possible. In addition, the clause provides the necessary flexibility to ensure that the nature restoration fund is capable of accommodating different approaches to the setting of charging schedules—a point that relates to the discussion we have just had. That will ensure that environmental delivery plans can, where appropriate, deploy different approaches to calculating the levy rate—for example, reflecting the fact that some environmental issues are better considered on a per-dwelling basis, whereas others may benefit from calculating the levy based on the footprint of the development. In designing the measures, we have sought to ensure that we have the flexibility to tailor our approach to the unique circumstances on the ground as they pertain to each individual EDP.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, may address amendment 129 in due course, but I will turn to it now. The amendment, which was again tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), would prevent Natural England from including the cost of acquiring land when considering the nature restoration levy rate that developers will be required to pay. The nature restoration fund model will need to operate on a full cost recovery basis, as we have discussed, so excluding the cost of land from the levy price paid by developers would shift the burden of developers’ financial responsibilities to the state.
Under the existing system, developers are required to meet the cost of mitigation measures, which would include the cost of purchasing the land. That is the situation as it stands. That shows that the capital cost of land is not an additional cost that is being added on to developers. If land purchase could never form part of a levy-funded environmental delivery plan, Natural England would be required to rely on other measures, which may be more expensive and less effective in addressing the impacts of development. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister will not press his amendment, and I commend both clauses, as currently drafted, to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful the Minister for his comments on amendment 129. All I would say to the Minister in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley is once bitten, twice shy.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister on clause 63. The clause delegates significant discretion to the Secretary of State, without setting out guiding principles or safeguards. Although the Minister said that regulations will be forthcoming—I am grateful to him for confirming that they will be subject to the affirmative procedure—there remain some important unresolved issues in the Bill. That includes how liability will be shared in complex developments involving multiple parties, or how the timing of liability will interact with project phasing and financial planning.
Without that clarity, there is a real risk of legal uncertainty for developers and of inconsistency in enforcement. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind when the Bill receives Royal Assent and he goes away to look at regulations for affirmative scrutiny in this House. A more robust approach would involve the Bill at least outlining the key principles that will to guide the development of the regulations, ensuring that they are applied fairly, consistently and with due regard to the practical realities of development delivery.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend agree—he is making this point very clearly—that the risk with this process, and with the lack of clarity around the process behind the regulations, is that it will increase the number of permissions being delivered that are not viable? Essentially, all the money is coming from the same pot, and the developer will say to the local authority and Natural England, “You can have the kids or you can have the bats, but you can’t have both.” If the developer has to pay for both, the scheme becomes non-viable. We will simply end up with more units that cannot be built.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I entirely agree with him, which is why, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, we make a dream team that is in fast competition with the Minister. He should watch this space—it is four years and counting. [Interruption.] I am joking with the Minister.
What I would say to my hon. Friend is that that is the key reason why we have concerns about clause 63. We understand the Minister’s intentions, and we will not press the amendment to further complicate the clause. However, we are concerned that the lack of clarity in the Bill could, in a very complex EDP involving multiple parties, damage the clause’s intent to enhance environmental protection. The number of planning permissions going through could increase, but the end result would actually be that the delivery was not there. That is a key area where the Minister needs to look at strengthening the wording in the Bill. That aside, we will not push our amendment to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me make a couple of comments in response. First, I understand the point that has been made, but a fair amount of the detail will come through regulations. The House will have an opportunity to scrutinise those, and they will, as I said, be under the affirmative procedure. Secondly, to refer the shadow Minister back to clause 62, I think issues such as phasing and complex development are dealt with in subsection (2).
My other, wider point goes perhaps not to the kids in schools, but certainly to the species that existing arrangements are designed to provide for. Developers are already paying a separate type of fee to discharge their environmental obligations. The Bill proposes a smarter way of doing that, and the levy will proceed on the basis of that smarter way to discharge those obligations.
I have not had the chance to say this, and it is worth doing so, but it is the Government’s clear intention that the aggregate cost of conservation measures to developers under an EDP is no greater than it is under the status quo for existing mitigations. The Government’s intent is not to charge developers more. This is a more effective, strategic and efficient way to discharge existing environmental obligations on a strategic scale. However, further detail will be forthcoming.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65
Appeals
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 65 will allow a right of appeal in relation to the calculation of the amount of the levy payable by a developer. As environmental delivery plans include charging schedules, which can set out the levy rates for different types of development, there is a need to ensure that there is a route for developers to appeal if they believe that the levy payable has been miscalculated. Crucially, the levy rates will be part of the draft environmental delivery plan, which will provide clarity as to the cost for developers, but we want to ensure that if developers believe that the rate has been miscalculated, they have a right to appeal. The appeal process will be set out in regulations, and the clause provides the detail of what those regulations may include. This is a simple and straightforward clause, and I commend it to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I have a brief question. I understand that the Minister wants to bring forward regulations backed by the affirmative procedure, and that is welcome. I am slightly concerned by the wording in subsection (3):
“In any proceedings for judicial review of a decision on an appeal, the defendant is to be such person as is specified in the regulations (and the regulations may also specify a person who is not to be the defendant for these purposes).”
I seek reassurance from the Minister that once the Bill receives Royal Assent, he will err on the side of being liberal about who can bring an issue to judicial review, and that he will not seek to restrict a category of person from taking such actions. I would be grateful if he could give that assurance.
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate—as, no doubt, the development sector will—the hon. Gentleman’s concern for developers and the right of appeal. I do give him that commitment. I will go away and think about the point he raises.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66
Use of nature restoration levy
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 66, page 96, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) The regulations must require Natural England to ensure that use of money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy is not unreasonably delayed.”
The amendment would ensure that funding would be available for upfront nature restoration and mitigation on development sites.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 130, in clause 66, page 96, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations may not permit Natural England to spend money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy for the purposes of acquiring land through a Compulsory Purchase Order.”
Amendment 131, in clause 66, page 96, leave out lines 40 and 41.
Amendment 10, in clause 66, page 96, line 40, leave out “may” and insert “will”.
This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would ensure that nature restoration levy money is reserved for future expenditure.
Amendment 132, in clause 66, page 97, line 6, leave out “use” and insert “return”.
Gideon Amos
I will be reasonably brief—the Committee will be pleased to know that I have been striking sections out of my speaking notes as the Committee days wear on. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Louder!
Amendment 9 would ensure that funding was available up front from the nature restoration levy and to provide mitigation on development sites. It is important, in terms of the effectiveness of any mitigation provided, that it happens up front, and not later on or after works have happened.
In terms of nature and biodiversity, the UK is one of the most depleted countries in the world. One in six species is threatened with extinction. In partnership with our pump-prime funding amendment—amendment 6 to clause 67—the amendment seeks to ensure that the levy, upon receipt by Natural England, is used as soon as possible, in order that the nature recovery fund can go some way towards ensuring that overall species abundance is increasing, rather than decreasing, by 2030. It would not be legitimate for money to sit unused in Natural England’s coffers when there is an ongoing crisis and action urgently needs to be taken.
Amendment 10 is consequential on new clause 18. It would ensure that nature restoration levy money is reserved for future expenditure—it “may” be reserved, but again that is very uncertain. That funding needs to be there and it needs to be protected. In line with our amendment to ensure that the nature restoration fund levy is not unreasonably delayed, amendment 10 would ensure that the money is put to use as soon as is reasonably practicable and is reserved for planned future expenditure.
Paul Holmes
We will not press amendments 130 to 132, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley, to a vote. On clause 66 more generally, we accept that it sets out how funding collected by Natural England through the nature restoration levy must be used. In broad terms, it is to be spent on relevant conservation measures, as well as on the administrative costs that arise. However, there is an absence of clarity that could lead to potential concerns about the transparency and accountability of fund distribution. Without clear guidelines, there is a risk that administrative costs could disproportionately consume the funds meant for conservation, thereby undermining the levy’s effectiveness in achieving its environmental objectives.
Furthermore, we have a concern that the clause provides no safeguards to ensure that the funds are spent efficiently or effectively, and nor does it establish any oversight mechanisms to monitor the use of the funds. We would argue that a more detailed breakdown of how the funds will be managed, with clear priority given to conservation over administration, would help build trust in the system and ensure that the nature restoration levy delivers the intended environmental benefits.
Additionally, and lastly, there should be a requirement for periodic reporting on how the funds are used, which would provide necessary transparency and reassurance to stakeholders.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me work through each of the amendments that have been tabled and spoken to. I will start with amendment 9, which was tabled and set out by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It requires that funds gathered through the nature restoration levy be spent without unreasonable delay.
An environmental delivery plan will have had to meet the overall improvement test, as we have debated at length, to have been made. In designing the conservation measures in an environmental delivery plan, Natural England will have been aware that delivering measures at the earliest point in time is usually the easiest way to achieve that outcome. However, the appropriate timing to deliver a conservation measure may depend on the specific circumstances of each case and the nature of the conservation measures that represent the best outcomes for the environment in the view of Natural England, as the body preparing the EDP. Natural England’s discretion in these determinations should not, in our view, be unduly restrained by an obligation to spend money quickly, rather than well and effectively, to achieve the outcomes under the EDP. There is an option for Natural England to establish—
Matthew Pennycook
Both may well be possible in some instances, but may not be in alignment in others. We our principally concerned that money is spent well on the most effective conservation measures to achieve the best outcomes for nature. There is of course an option for Natural England to establish some mitigation measures prior to development starting.
Furthermore, the Bill contains provisions requiring National England to report on its progress, to ensure that there is transparency over how money secured through the levy is being used. We discussed that in a debate on a previous amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, which had overlooked the fact that EDPs have a set timeframe. The shadow Minister will know that EDPs are required to be reported on twice over the EDP period. It is worth making the point that Natural England must also publish annual reports setting out how it is spending the money received via the levy and the effectiveness of any EDPs. That requirement is a minimum and, as we have discussed, Natural England may publish reports at any other time. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will withdraw the amendment.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley was particularly concerned about a situation where, in order to fulfil the requirements of the EDP, the compulsory purchase of land that had specific characteristics would be necessary. Therefore, that would potentially drive a very significant increase in the value of the land because it was the only way in which that EDP could be fulfilled, and that would significantly increase the cost to the public purse. What measures does the Minister have in place to ensure that where that type of situation arises—because, for example, there is a blanket bog or a particular type of pond that is required to fulfil the EDP—it is delivered at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer?
Matthew Pennycook
I think I understand the shadow Minister’s point. Obviously, the normal process for compulsory purchase would apply. We will come to CPO provisions later. If I have not covered it, I am more than happy to go into further detail at that point.
As I have set out, in order for an environmental delivery plan to be made, there must be sufficient certainty that the conservation measures are deliverable to allow the EDP to pass the overall improvement test. The possibility of using compulsory purchase where other options are not available is, in our view, essential to the operation of the nature restoration fund. That does not change the fact that, in practice, compulsory purchase will always be the least preferred delivery option, with a negotiated procurement of land use or management changes being the natural starting point, wherever those are required.
While talk of compulsory purchase can raise concerns—I understand those, and we debated them on Second Reading —we expect farmers and land managers to benefit, with the nature restoration fund providing opportunities to diversify their business income. We will debate Natural England’s compulsory purchase powers more fully when we reach clause 72. Given the environmental and practical need for these limited powers, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees to withdraw the amendment.
I turn to amendments 131 and 10, which seek to remove the ability for regulations to make provision for Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure. By removing the circumstances in which Natural England can reserve money for future expenditure, the amendments would limit the flexibility for Natural England to secure the most appropriate conservation measures and would prioritise haste over environmental outcomes. In our view, they would also restrict Natural England’s ability to plan for unforeseen circumstances and allow money to be made available to react to changing circumstances.
The Bill provides a number of additional safeguards to the use of the nature restoration levy, which will ensure that money is spent effectively and transparently. I will set those out when we reach the debate on clause 66. Natural England will, of course, not wish to unnecessarily delay the procurement of conservation measures once levy funding is received, and preventing prudent financial management would not assist it in that endeavour. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Members will agree not to press their amendments.
I turn finally to amendment 132, in the name of the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley. This would require any unused funds to be returned to developers where an EDP no longer requires funding. We recognise that a requirement for Natural England to return any unused funds could reduce the cost to developers. However, we do not expect Natural England to be left with significant residual funds at the end of an EDP. Natural England will be encouraged to ensure that the costing of conservation measures is clear from the start and, as I have said, subject to consultation.
In the event that there are unspent funds that are not required to secure the conservation measures under the EDP, those funds will be directed towards additional conservation measures and securing additional positive environmental outcomes. Should the EDP period elapse before the outcome is achieved, the funds will continue to be invested until the required environmental outcome is achieved.
In addition, any system of dividing up and returning residual funding would risk making environmental delivery plans more expensive and would distract Natural England from focusing on developing and delivering them. It is important to emphasise again that developers are not paying for specific conservation measures on a site-by-site basis. They are providing a contribution to secure the package of conservation measures required across the EDP geography to outweigh the impact of development covered by the plan. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might consider withdrawing his amendment.
Gideon Amos
I note in particular the Minister’s concern about proceeding with undue haste—I am sure that that is the furthest thing from the mind of this Committee. Without wishing to proceed with undue haste, I suggest that he is imputing to our amendment words that it does not contain. He is suggesting that it would deprioritise effectiveness and prioritise timeliness over the measures taken being effective. However, our amendment actually says “not unreasonably delayed”, which is well-known legislative wording. It does not prevent things being done well and, if not with undue haste, in a timely fashion.
We believe that the amendment is eminently sensible. I believe in it as strongly as I did when I stood up a few minutes ago.
Matthew Pennycook
Let me give the hon. Gentleman further reassurance. There are two things. First, we genuinely do not believe that that line would strengthen the legislation in any way, in the sense that it is ambiguous and would be an additional expectation on Natural England. More importantly, it is likely only to limit Natural England’s options in bringing forward the conservation measures under EDPs. I will give him an example: it would make it more difficult to do things such as pooling levy payments to fund larger-scale, more beneficial interventions over the EDP geography. I ask him to reconsider on that basis.
Gideon Amos
As always, I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. I would argue that it is possible to carry out the actions that he described without unreasonable delay, which is what our amendment seeks. The Government cannot have it both ways: on the one hand, it is ambiguous; on the other hand, it would definitely mean that timeliness is to the detriment of the quality of the actions. I do not think those two arguments stack up.
I believe in the amendment as strongly as I did a few minutes ago. However, in the interest of the progress of the Committee, and based on my understanding of maths, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gideon Amos
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 66, page 97, line 13, leave out “separately” and insert
“to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on the use made of nature restoration levy money.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 24, in clause 66, page 97, line 17, after “money” insert
“, and to report to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy] accordingly”.
This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on the use made of nature restoration levy money.
Amendment 25, in clause 66, page 97, line 18, after “report” insert
“to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on expected charging collection and use of nature restoration levy money.
Amendment 26, in clause 66, page 97, line 24, after “paragraph)” insert
“, and to report to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy] accordingly”.
This amendment is consequential on NC18. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on money passed to another public authority.
New clause 18—Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before Part 3 of this Act comes into force, establish an independent body to monitor the administration of the nature restoration levy by Natural England.
(2) The independent body may request information from Natural England relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy additional to the information and reports provided to the independent body by Natural England under section 66(5).
(3) The independent body may report to the Secretary of State on—
(a) any concerns relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy, and
(b) any other matters relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy as the independent body deems appropriate.”
This new clause would provide for independent oversight of Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy.
Gideon Amos
I will spend a few moments on these amendments, because they concern the important oversight body, and I will speak to them together, so Committee members need not fear—I do not have five separate speeches. I know how disappointed they will be.
The amendments are about an independent oversight body for Natural England. As the Bill stands, the effectiveness of the environmental outcomes will be determined solely by the effectiveness of Natural England in administering its own EDPs and its nature restoration levy. That is a large amount of power and responsibility, and it requires a system of monitoring and evaluation.
A single public body should not be able to evaluate its own actions without independent scrutiny. As drafted, the Bill would ensure that Natural England would be the regulator, fundholder, implementer and monitor of the nature restoration fund without any independent oversight. This is a very important part of the Bill. The lack of external oversight risks weakening the accountability of the system. Independent oversight is essential to ensure impartiality, manage conflicts of interest and guarantee effective use of the funds.
Without criticising the hard-working staff at Natural England, there are already serious concerns about the organisation’s ability to meet its obligations. It is under-resourced and overstretched, with its budget declining 72% in recent years. It is struggling to fulfil its statutory duties. Some 78% of sites of special scientific interest have not been monitored in the last six years. In the biodiversity net gain credit scheme administered by Natural England, the total income from statutory credits was £247,000 last year, while the projected administrative costs were £300,000, surpassing the income and resulting in no actual conservation from the scheme.
Frequently, other Government levies, such as the water restoration fund and the community infrastructure levy, have been historically underspent and badly managed. Lessons from those past failures must be incorporated into the new levy system. Natural England’s district-level licensing for great crested newts has also faced delays and unclear outcomes. The Government have already committed to an extra £14 million to Natural England—we Liberal Democrats thoroughly welcome that—to increase capacity to develop an initial tranche of priority EDPs. However, this is question not just of funding and resourcing, but of using the funds effectively. Ensuring that the money is spent well, in the words of the Minister a few minutes ago, is incredibly important. If he is committed to that, there should be independent oversight so that the public scrutiny and transparent reporting mechanisms essential to building trust in the system are in place.
I emphasise that this is not a criticism of Natural England. It is a way to make sure that Natural England is resourced and empowered properly to fulfil the major and significant responsibilities given to it in part 3 of the Bill.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I offer some brief remarks to complement the excellent ones of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington in support of new clause 18.
The new clause would provide for independent oversight of Natural England’s administration of the proposed nature restoration levy. We know from testimony to this Committee that we as a country have not prioritised nature and fully understood the importance of protecting habitats. Although we cannot correct those mistakes, it is important that we look to the future, in terms of nature restoration, to bring back what we had. Not only is that crucial for a healthy planet by helping to mitigate climate change, but there is a benefit to human wellbeing. Restoring natural ecosystems can enhance food production, improve water quality and quantity, reduce flood risks, and offer socioeconomic benefits such as tourism and sustainable jobs.
As my hon. Friend said, this is not about criticising Natural England but about recognising two things: first, Natural England is resource-constrained; and secondly, there is quite a lot of evidence from around the world that schemes intended to offset carbon emissions or promote nature in other forms can, if not properly scrutinised, often not achieve their intended benefits. I do not question the Government’s intentions with the proposals, but it is important that the nature restoration levy does not end up being greenwash.
We see so many examples of that. I was bewildered by a LinkedIn post a few years ago in which some people were applauding an intercontinental airline that was expanding its services for its commitment to the environment by eliminating plastic cutlery on their planes—talk about throwing a tiny starfish into an ocean. It is very important that we do not make such mistakes with the nature restoration levy. I hope that the Government will consider our new clause 18 to ensure that Natural England receives the independent oversight that it needs to discharge its objectives fully.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank hon. Members for setting out the rationale for this group of proposals so clearly. From memory, we have already discussed at length, on a number of clauses, the resourcing issue for Natural England. To be clear—I have been candid about this—in setting up the nature restoration fund, we are asking Natural England to do a lot. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington referenced the £14 million allocated in the Budget to its work in this area.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for the Government’s response to the proposals. I can only restate some of the concerns we have about potential conflicts of interest in relation to Natural England administering, collecting and spending the money, and judging its own effectiveness. The fact that the Secretary of State is the only arbiter above it would not necessarily bring confidence to those who are most concerned about the natural environment.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire reminded us of a cast list of former Secretaries of State for the Environment. I am a little older, so I remember another one: Nicholas Ridley. Or let us think about the future: perhaps there could be a Secretary of State from the Reform party—goodness me, wouldn’t that be a prospect? What reassurance would that provide on regulating and overseeing the effectiveness of the nature restoration fund, the levy, the spending of the levy and the actions of Natural England?
For such a broad range of significant Government functions, and the significant spending of public money, it makes eminent sense to have an oversight body. It might add somewhat to the cost, but, in our opinion, that cost should be borne by developers. It is a worthwhile amount to be spent for a small regulatory function. We wish to press that point further, because it is an important way of strengthening the system, making it more robust and giving it more integrity in delivering its outcomes.
Matthew Pennycook
May I leave the hon. Gentleman with a point to reflect on? Natural England already undertakes a range of duties and makes interventions in support of positive nature outcomes, not least in terms of nutrient pollution, which we have discussed. It cannot do that through the approach we are talking about. Oversight of that is provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and that would remain in place. I ask him to reflect on the existing situation as it applies to Natural England, and how its very beneficial work is overseen at present.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the Minister for taking the time to respond to our concerns, but, as I said, such a concentration of functions so closely related to each other—establishing the EDP, collecting and spending the funds, and monitoring its effectiveness—in what is a single system surely requires some separate oversight, rather than relying on future Secretaries of State. We will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Matthew Pennycook
We have debated various amendments to clause 66, so I will be brief. I will just put on the record the Government’s case for the Bill.
The clause sets out that Natural England must spend money received through the nature restoration levy on conservation measures. More detail may be specified in regulations, as I have said, including the conservation measures that may be funded, maintenance activities and what can be treated as funding. In allowing Natural England to receive levy payments, it is vital that the payments are used to fund conservation measures that address the impacts of development on the environmental feature or features in relation to which the levy is charged. That is critical not only to ensuring that the impacts on the environmental feature are properly addressed, but to giving developers confidence that their contributions are not being used to replace wider action to restore nature. Such fairness is central to this model.
In designing the nature restoration fund, we have had to account for a range of circumstances that could arise. For example, it may be necessary to allow Natural England to use money received through the levy to reimburse actions already taken to prepare for anticipated environmental impact. Similarly, there will often be circumstances where it is necessary to make sure that funding is sufficient to extend beyond the end date of the EDP to ensure that conservation measures put in place are properly maintained for the appropriate time period.
The clause provides for such possibilities through subsection (4) and will support the delivery of the package of regulations that will underpin the nature restoration levy. The clause also ensures transparency on how levy payments will be used. That is why subsection (3) will require Natural England, through regulations, to publish a list setting out the various types of conservation measures that it may seek payment for and the procedure for doing so. The regulations will also be able to restrict Natural England’s spending of money received via the nature restoration levy on certain other activities.
The measures are further supported by subsection (5), which allows regulations to specify monitoring and reporting practices that Natural England must take, including that it accounts for money received via the levy separately from its other funding sources. That is an important point. Importantly for developers, such transparency will mean that when it comes to reviewing the charging schedule, they will be able to understand clearly not only what they have been asked to contribute, but how it will be used. For those reasons, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
Collection of nature restoration levy
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 67, page 97, line 35, leave out from “levy” to end of line 38 and insert “.
(4A) Provision under subsection (4) must include a condition that the nature restoration levy must be paid before development begins.”
This amendment would require that the nature restoration levy is paid before development begins.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 68 stand part.
Olly Glover
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 6, which would require that the nature restoration levy is paid before development begins rather than during or after. The reason for that is simple. For the nature restoration levy to be effective, it needs to be paid before development begins to allow maximum benefit. As many of us will have experienced with new developments in our constituencies, current arrangements in relation to section 106 and other measures often mean that developer contributions are made during development, and indeed sometimes they have to be chased up for many years after. I am told that there is an old adage—I must confess that I had not heard it before I was given these notes—that the best time to plant a tree is 30 years ago, and the second-best time is now. For any Members who are as curious as I was about where that came from, apparently it was from a town councillor in Cleveland, Ohio, in the 1960s called George W. White.
Regardless, many of us will know from our constituencies how important trees are to our communities. For example, in Didcot we have Geoff Bushell, a community tree champion who worked during the pandemic to categorise some of the oldest trees in Didcot. A local artist called Linda Benton illustrated a book documenting them, and an East Hagbourne poet, Roger Phipps, created a poets’ trail to pay tribute to them. That is just a symbol of how important nature and trees are to our communities, and why it is so critical to get this bit of the Bill right.
If we are to prioritise nature, make biodiversity net gains and realise the advantages to climate adaptation, the plans and projects associated need to be delivered at pace—a phrase we seem to be using frequently on this Committee. Developers should be made to pay the levy before development begins. The alternative is that it is paid at various intervals throughout, but that could make it much harder to manage, because works and projects would be unable to start until a critical amount had been reached, which for some developments could be years or decades down the line. Meanwhile, nature in the area will have been destroyed.
The Wildlife Trusts have made it clear that the so-called pump-priming of Natural England to deliver environmental delivery plans, as promised by the Minister on Second Reading, is critical. If EDPs are well resourced from the start, they will be able to deliver some gains for nature at pace, especially where it is critical that gains come before damage. A well-funded EDP workstream will be more capable of sequencing conservation measures in a way that delivers for nature without causing significant delays to development plans.
In a guide to the Bill that was published on its introduction, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government promised certainty that the conservation measures proposed under an EDP would outweigh the negative effects of development. Without provision for the timing of conservation measures, many of which will be delivered through the proper funding of nature restoration levies up front, we will not be able to achieve our goal of protecting our most threatened environmental features.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman knows that I have asked the Minister to be more specific about the proposed regulations, and I am looking forward to scrutinising them. However, I still think amendment 6 is very broad, including the language about how the
“levy must be paid before development begins.”
To help my colleagues and me, it would be useful if the hon. Gentleman elaborated on whether that will be the day before development begins. Can he set out what “before” actually means? It is a very broad term.
Olly Glover
The shadow Minister asks a valid question, and, as with a number of details in the Bill, further thought will be required about mechanisms for how things should work. But we think that it is possible to give the definition that he asks for, and that that should be done in specific agreements around nature restoration levies associated with relevant developments. It should be made clear that the value that will be paid into them should be paid up front, rather than during or after.
Paul Holmes
I am grateful for the useful clarification.
I rise to speak to clauses 67 and 68. As I have outlined to the Minister, we are concerned that a number of these clauses in the 60s—if I can refer to them as a group—are very broad in scope. The Minister will say to me that we will come on to scrutinise that, and he has confirmed that the affirmative process will apply. I fully accept that, but it concerns me that the broad brushstrokes in the Bill do not have meat to their bones.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, has made a genuine point about democratic accountability and oversight. In a previous amendment, it was proposed that an independent body should be overseeing some of the actions in Natural England. I gently say to the Liberal Democrats that it is clear from this group of clauses that Natural England is being supervised, instructed and scrutinised by the democratically elected Secretary of State. So two clear bodies, if I can call the Secretary of State or their office a body, are providing scrutiny. It would be a very dangerous precedent to legislate to essentially protect the public from a democratically elected Secretary of State, just because somebody is fearful about where they come from, what party they represent or their policies.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend is setting out the concerns eloquently. The Minister was clear earlier that the Government’s expectation is that this system will raise no net additional funds compared with the existing one, so the cost to the developers will be no different. The implication is that there will be no significant additional resource, if any, for Natural England to deploy as a result. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that that raises a serious question about its capacity to do the work that is outlined in the Bill?
Paul Holmes
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We heard evidence from the chief executive of Natural England, and in case she is listening, I say again very clearly that I make no imputation about the way she or the organisation are doing their job, but the language that she used was very loose. Without that financial certainty, there is a question about whether the organisation will be able to cope with all the responsibilities that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington outlined. As my hon. Friend just mentioned, the Minister has also admitted—if he wants to intervene, that is fine—that no additional funding means that Natural England will be relying on the spending review even more than we thought at the beginning of the evidence session.
Matthew Pennycook
I am shaking my head, for the following reasons. I have made it clear that the nature restoration fund will ultimately work on the basis of full cost recovery. To be clear, these are costs for introducing compensation measures and discharging environmental obligations that Natural England at present does not handle; developers do them on a site-by-site basis. Although I do not underestimate the resourcing challenges across Government, the full cost recovery for the service provided will not impact on Natural England’s wider work. There will be full cost recovery for the preparation and delivery of environmental delivery plans for Natural England. I hope that that addresses the matter.
In that sense, I do not think the shadow Minister is right to say that we are giving Natural England an additional responsibility, on top of its existing responsibilities, outside the provisions of the Bill here, for which full cost recovery will apply. There is a specific, direct link with the levy that is going to be raised.
Broadly, I say to the shadow Minister—I am just flicking through the explanatory notes—that he has challenged me, and I accept the challenge, that there is not enough specificity in the regulation-making powers in the Bill. I have committed to regulations coming forward under the affirmative procedure. If he could go away and help my reflection by guiding me to another piece of legislation that has included the specificity around regulation-making powers that he would like to see, that would very much aid my deliberation.
Paul Holmes
I am a very aspirational, can-do, go-getter politician—[Interruption.] Yes, it is everyone else who needs to say that. I am willing to sit down with the Minister and guide him in any way I can—perhaps over a double espresso—to make sure that the gist of what the Bill seeks to achieve is matched in the specificity about what is required in regulations. I do not think I am being ungenerous to the Minister; I have accepted that he has been very good in saying that we will consider them under the affirmative procedure. But as we discuss the key driving force behind the Bill, we seek reassurance on some of the unclear elements of Natural England’s responsibilities.
The Minister, who is driving this legislation forward, could indicate to the Committee verbally or in writing afterwards where he will give more specifics on enforcement action, on costs, on raising powers and on other things. I am not being mean to him; I am just saying that if he spent years writing this while he was shadow Minister, he should know what he wants Natural England to do now that he is Minister. I have full confidence that he can do that, and I cannot be any more complimentary to him than I have been on this Committee.
Matthew Pennycook
As complimentary as the shadow Minister is being about me, I think it is a stretch—even for someone such as myself, who has lived and breathed this for years—to have been setting out while in opposition the fine details of collection for nature restoration levy regulations forthcoming. That is a level of detail that I did not get into, and would not be expected to, and that the House can consider when those regulations come forward.
Paul Holmes
If the Minister has lived and breathed this for the many years for which he has wanted to write this legislation, and he has then got to the dizzying heights of a red box and a ministerial desk, he should know what he wants to do—
The Chair
Order. Much as a bit of banter is fun, we need to get on with getting through the agenda for today.
Paul Holmes
At the insistence of the general noise coming mostly from Government Members, I will plough on. The serious point behind what I was saying is that the Conservatives, alongside the Liberal Democrats, do have some concerns about the regulations and the responsibilities of Natural England.
On clause 68, we welcome the ability to make payments in instalments or in forms other than money. That provides some adaptable and accessible elements for developers. However, we worry about the overburdening of other public bodies that might be asked to pay into this fund. We would argue that some of the process is not clearly defined. On enforcement, the clause lacks specifics regarding the consequences for late or failed payments. Additionally, it does not address how flexibility will be built into the enforcement process for developers. We think that developers deserve clarity about that.
Although we had a brief moment of levity earlier, there is a serious point about the responsibilities. We hope the Minister will be able to respond to our concerns.
Ellie Chowns
I will be brief. I strongly support amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. Accepting the amendment would go a long way towards addressing the concerns about enforcement, late payment and so on. Let us adopt it.
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington argued, amendment 6 is designed to ensure that developers pay the nature restoration levy before a development can progress.
The timeline of payment has been carefully considered by the Government, and the payment and timing of the levy will be agreed as part of the wider process of planning consent, and before development can progress. However, in developing the legislation, we recognise that EDPs will cover a broad range of circumstances, so there is a need to allow the payment of the nature restoration levy to be tailored to reflect the type and scale of development in each instance. For example, this would allow large, multi-phased developments to pay in line with development milestones, as opposed to there being a requirement for the total levy to be paid up front. That will ensure that the environmental delivery plan is a viable option for developers, which in turn will ensure that we are able to deliver the improved environmental outcomes through the nature restoration fund.
Clause 67 already allows regulations to be created regarding the imposition of planning conditions to require payment of the levy—for example, allowing a condition that development cannot commence until the levy has been paid. If we took an overly prescriptive approach to the payment of the levy, we would risk reducing the overall impact of the new approach and driving more developers into using the existing process, which delivers less for nature, as we have argued previously. Having given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Clause 67 establishes a requirement for nature restoration levy regulation to include provision relating to the collection of the levy. It also stipulates further provisions, including matters such as when and how the levy is to be paid. The regulation-making powers in the clause are vital to ensure that the levy can accommodate different scenarios, such as enabling other public authorities to collect the nature restoration levy on behalf of Natural England, and to provide for refunds in case of overpayment.
Importantly, and as I have just set out, the regulations also allow for the imposition of planning conditions to require payment of the levy—for example, a condition that development cannot commence until the levy has been paid. We believe that that is the most appropriate mechanism to secure collection of the levy and for that reason I commend the clause to the Committee.
I turn finally to clause 68, which continues to build the system of regulations that will govern the operation of the nature restoration levy and ensure that effective enforcement procedures are put in place. Ensuring that levy payments are properly captured is vital to ensuring that Natural England is able to deliver the conservation measures required under the EDP, in order to secure the necessary positive environmental outcomes.
As the levy is the way in which the EDP is funded, it is vital that mechanisms are available to Natural England to enforce payment when a developer has breached their commitment to pay the levy. Although we expect the vast majority of developers to engage with the new process in good faith, non-payment of the levy could result in insufficient funding being available to address the environmental impact of development, which is unacceptable. That is why clause 68 sets out that regulations must include provision relating to enforcement of the levy, with consequences for late or failed payment. It also sets out that regulations may include provisions around penalties and charges, granting enforcement powers such as powers of entry, information collection and prosecution, and provisions regarding replications of existing tax enforcement measures and appeals.
It is important that there is effective enforcement of the nature restoration levy. I have taken up the challenge put by the shadow Minister. I hope that he comes forward with further detail. As a former shadow Minister who has sat in the hon. Gentleman’s place while considering many pieces of legislation, I would argue that these regulation-making powers are sufficiently detailed. I count 13 subsections under clause 68, for example, with further detail in regulations to come. On that basis, I commend these clauses to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to Committee members for responding to our amendment about payment of the restoration levy up front. The Minister raises the objection that it might prevent multi-phase payments. In response to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage made very clear that the intent of our amendment is to ensure that works occur up front, at the early stage, and that funds are there to make that possible.
I recognise that, for the Minister, resisting amendments is the order of the day, week, month and all the rest of it, but I did hear him refer to regulation. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we earnestly hope that those regulations will take account of the principles that we have advanced in this amendment—that funds should be provided up front and early enough for mitigation works to happen early in the process. We will be looking carefully: if that occurs, we shall be very pleased to have had raised those issues in this debate. We shall be watching the regulations carefully. Given the assurance that regulations are coming forward, which we hope will achieve the objectives of our amendment, we will not seek to push it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 67 and 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Compensation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 69 is a further building block in the system of regulations that will govern the operation of the nature restoration levy. Whereas regulations made under clause 68 will enable Natural England to take enforcement action to address non-payment of the nature restoration levy, clause 69 ensures that, where appropriate, any persons who have suffered loss or damage as a result of such enforcement action will have a route to compensation.
The compensation process, including when and how a claim for compensation can be made and how the amount of compensation will be determined, may be set out in regulations, with the clause providing the framework for that process. Through the development of a new system, we intend to guard against such circumstances, but it is only right and prudent to provide for them. For that reason, I commend the clause to the committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
Administering and implementing EDPs
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 73 stand part.
Clause 74 stand part.
Government new clause 65—Transfer schemes in connection with regulations under section 74(1).
Government new clause 67—Power to enter and survey or investigate land.
Government new clause 68—Warrant to enter and survey or investigate land.
Government new clause 69—Powers of entry: further provision.
Government new clause 70—Powers of entry: compensation.
Government new clause 71—Powers of entry: offences.
Matthew Pennycook
Clause 71 sets out the broad functions of Natural England in respect of the nature restoration fund. As will have become clear from earlier clauses and previous debates, Natural England will administer environmental delivery plans; that is, it will do everything required to prepare the documents themselves, as well as take them through the processes of consultations and scrutiny before they are made by the Secretary of State. This will include its administrative responsibilities in monitoring and preparing reports on an environmental delivery plan’s progress.
Natural England will also be responsible for securing the delivery of the conservation measures necessary to implement what is set out in the environmental delivery plan, to ensure that it meets the necessary overall improvement test, and delivers positive outcomes for nature. This clause makes it clear that these functions may include the development of land, for example, to create a certain habitat to improve the conservation status of a protected site.
There will be instances where it is more prudent, cost-effective or timely for another body, whether public authority or private business, to carry out certain measures, so the clause gives Natural England the ability to pay another person to take conservation measures. That will ensure that Natural England can work with other providers where needed to ensure the timely and effective delivery of conservation measures, and for that reason I commend the clause to the Committee.
Throughout the development of the nature restoration fund, we have been clear that that Natural England must have the appropriate powers to deliver on the ambitions of the reforms. That is why we have tabled Government new clauses 67 to 71, which will ensure that Natural England has sufficient powers of entry to survey or investigate land. That will allow Natural England to conduct surveys, take samples, or conduct any exploratory works necessary to produce an environmental delivery plan or deliver conservation measures.
We recognise that such powers should be provided only with appropriate constraints. With that in mind, the powers are not exercisable to enter a private residence and entry must take place at a reasonable time. Where land is occupied, Natural England or the Secretary of State must give at least 24 hours’ notice in writing to the occupier, unless the occupier of the land is a relevant statutory undertaker, where the notice period is 21 days.
If, in seeking to exercise powers of entry, Natural England has been or is likely to be denied entry, the amendments also provide for the courts to issue a warrant to enter land. They create two relevant offences relating to the power of entry: intentionally obstructing a person acting in exercise of this power, and disclosing confidential information obtained in the exercise of a power of entry for purposes other than those for which the power was exercised. These powers are crucial to ensure that Natural England is able to carry out its functions effectively, and for those reasons I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
Clause 73 provides that, as well as preparing environmental delivery plans, Natural England must produce an annual report on the exercise of its functions in respect of the nature restoration fund. As previously set out, environmental delivery plans have a dual purpose in facilitating the development the country needs to meet its ambitious goals for housing and growth, while contributing also towards the restoration of our natural environment. Given the central role environmental delivery plans will play, it will be important that the Secretary of State, as well as the public and Parliament, are provided with regular information across a range of matters relating to the plans. Clause 73 establishes an appropriate proportionate requirement for Natural England to prepare an annual report to fulfil this purpose.
The Secretary of State will prepare guidance with further detail on how the report should be prepared, with this clause setting out core matters that the report must include, such as where environmental delivery plans are in place, and an assessment of each one that is in force. This report will be published and laid before Parliament so that it can receive appropriate scrutiny from all hon. Members. This is an important step to ensure transparency and to provide information to support the ongoing delivery of EDPs, as well as the design of future environmental delivery plans. For these reasons, I commend this clause to the Committee.
Turning to clause 74, Natural England has a central role to play in preparing and implementing EDPs and is already planning how to deliver the first tranche. However, as we have discussed, circumstances may arise in which it is prudent or necessary for another body to assume some or all of Natural England's functions in this space. Clause 74 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make the necessary changes to allow another public body to exercise the same functions as Natural England in respect of environmental delivery plans. That includes the ability to confer powers granted to Natural England under part 1 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 on an alternative body for the purpose of administering and implementing EDPs. In designating an alternative body, it may also be necessary to transfer certain rights, assets and liabilities from Natural England for those functions to be carried out. Government new clause 65 provides the mechanism for doing so.
Throughout these clauses we have sought to ensure the nature restoration fund is fit for purpose today, but also able to adapt to changes in the future. It is on that basis that we have proposed the inclusion of a power to designate another body to exercise the functions of Natural England. I commend these clauses to the Committee.
The Chair
Before I put the question, I would like to make hon. Members aware that we have now debated clauses 73 and 74, on which I will put the question later today. We have also already debated new clauses 65 and 67 to 78, on which a question will be put at the end of proceedings next week.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72
Power to acquire land compulsorily
Paul Holmes
I beg to move amendment 150, in clause 72, page 101, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to land which is, or forms part of, a legally occupied dwelling or a private garden.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 112 to 118
Schedule 5
New clause 107—Return of compulsorily purchased land—
“(1) Natural England must return land acquired under a compulsory purchase order to the person from whom it was compulsorily purchased where the following conditions have been met—
(a) the owner of the land has refused to agree to a contract offered by Natural England;
(b) any works specified under the contract have been undertaken on behalf of Natural England and relate to an environmental development plan;
(c) a compulsory purchase order has been made by Natural England in relation to the land; and
(d) the cost of work undertaken on the land by Natural England exceeds the value of the contract offered by Natural England to the owner.
(2) When returning land under subsection (1), Natural England must not—
(a) impose any charge on, or
(b) require any sum from,
the person from whom the land was compulsorily purchased.”
Paul Holmes
You will be pleased to hear, Mrs Hobhouse, that I will be very brief. I just want to ask some questions and speak to amendment 150 and the clause. I will also speak to new clause 107. I will listen to the Minister’s answers before deciding whether to divide the Committee on the amendment.
We know that clause 72 gives Natural England the power compulsorily to acquire land, including “new rights over land”, subject to authorisation by the Secretary of State. Although this provision ensures that Natural England can secure the necessary land for environmental conservation and restoration projects, the use of compulsory land acquisition raises several concerns. The Minister should not be surprised to hear that, because we have raised them before.
First, compulsory acquisition can have significant social and economic impacts on landowners, potentially displacing communities or affecting livelihoods. A clear and transparent process must be in place to ensure that landowners are fairly compensated and that their interests are adequately considered, yet the clause does not specify the conditions in which the compulsory powers will be exercised, which could lead to concerns about the fairness or necessity of such actions.
The requirement for authorisation by the Secretary of State introduces an additional layer of oversight that might provide a safeguard against the misuse of these powers, but the clause would benefit from more detail of the criteria and process for granting authorisation, to ensure that the Secretary of State's decisions are transparent, accountable and based on clear, consistent guidelines. Without such clarity, there is a risk of arbitrary or inconsistent use of compulsory acquisition powers. That is notwithstanding the defence that I gave, believing that the Secretary of State should have those powers in earlier clauses.
The clause also does not address potential challenges from landowners or local communities affected by the acquisition, such as disputes over compensation or the environmental justification for land use. It would be beneficial to outline a clear appeals or mediation process to resolve such issues, which I know we come on to later in the Bill. Overall, while the power to acquire land may be necessary for some conservation efforts, careful safeguards are required to avoid potential negative consequences and to ensure that the power is exercised appropriately and fairly.
Amendment 150 stands in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle. I would not say this is a probing amendment, but will the Minister clarify the parameters on the exercise of a compulsory purchase order when it comes to
“a legally occupied dwelling or private garden.”?
We do not expect him to completely eradicate the use of such an order, but we would appreciate his guidance on where the regulations point in respect of when Natural England should and could be able to take private dwellings in a CPO process.
Turning to new clause 107, I note, in the interests of transparency, that I do not think we will move the clause, but we want to press the Minister as we remain concerned about compulsory purchase. We believe that compulsorily purchased land should be returned to the person from whom it was compulsorily purchased if certain conditions are met. Those are that
“the owner of the land has refused to agree to a contract offered by Natural England”—
that gives power to the individual—
“any works specified under the contract have been undertaken on behalf of Natural England and relate to an environmental development plan…a compulsory purchase order has been made by Natural England in…relation to the land; and…the cost of work undertaken on the land by Natural England exceeds the value of the contract offered by Natural England to the owner.”
I hope the Minister sees why we have tabled the amendments. I am not being obtuse, Mrs Hobhouse, in not saying yet whether we will push them to a vote. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about them, but as soon as we have, we will give you a steer.
Matthew Pennycook
I understand why the shadow Minister has sought to press me on this point, as I hope I have conveyed on previous clauses where we have touched upon compulsory purchase. We expect Natural England to use compulsory purchase orders as a last resort, and subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight. It will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State. I hope I can reassure him up front that Secretary of State oversight of the CPO process, as it applies through the nature restoration fund, is the same as in the existing process. Schedule 5 makes it very clear that the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 applies.
More generally, clause 72 provides Natural England with powers to compulsorily purchase land. As we have set out throughout this sitting, to be successful in delivering a win-win for nature and the economy, it is vital that Natural England has the necessary powers to secure and implement the conservation measures needed to protect the environment and enable Britain to get building. Although it is necessary to equip Natural England with those powers to ensure conservation measures can be delivered, they can be used only if the land is required for the purposes connected with a conservation measure set out in an environmental delivery plan, where attempts to acquire land by negotiation have failed, and where there is a compelling case in the public interest for use of the compulsory purchase powers.
As a further safeguard, the use of those powers will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State. Equipping Natural England with compulsory purchase powers is not unusual or novel. I sought to address that point on Second Reading. Many public bodies with statutory powers have compulsory purchase powers, and Natural England can already make compulsory purchase orders in some circumstances.
Clause 72 is supported by schedule 5, which applies the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and makes necessary modifications to compulsory purchase compensation legislation to accommodate these changes. Government new clauses 112 to 118 support this approach to compulsory purchase by making a number of technical amendments to ensure the operability of the new powers. That includes protections in respect of the use of CPO powers where the use of them may affect those carrying out statutory functions.
Finally, the package of amendments removes certain terms that are a hangover from outdated regulations and makes adjustments to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 to allow for powers of entry where notice has been given. As the Committee has already heard, the Government have taken a cautious approach to extending compulsory purchase powers but are clear that they need to be available in the context of the nature restoration fund to ensure that there is sufficient certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, compulsory purchase can be used to ensure conservation measures are delivered.
I turn now to amendment 150, tabled by the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), which would restrict Natural England from utilising compulsory purchase powers for land that forms part of a dwelling or private garden. If I heard the shadow Minister correctly, it is a probing amendment, but I am more than happy to provide him with some further detail on the Government’s position. We agree that it will be crucial for the use of compulsory purchase powers to be appropriately constrained. That is why we have made sure that the current clauses provide that these powers can be used only where attempts to acquire land by negotiation have failed and there is a compelling case in the public interest for use of the compulsory purchase powers.
That is supported by the further safeguard that the use of the powers will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State, which will include considering whether the public interest benefits of the acquisition justify interfering with the private rights of those affected. It is highly improbable that conservation measures in private gardens could form an ecologically essential component of an environmental delivery plan. I do not say it would be impossible, but it is highly improbable.
Any restriction, however, of the use of the power where land contains an occupied dwelling or forms part of a private garden would be an unusual restriction on CPO powers, and would introduce unnecessary risks of complexity and delay when they are exercised. Any private dwellings will already benefit from additional protections, as I am sure the shadow Minister will know, under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. For that reason, and the existing safeguards within the Bill itself, I hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw the right hon. Lady’s amendment.
Finally, I turn to new clause 107, which would provide for circumstances where Natural England must return land that has been compulsorily purchased. In providing Natural England with new powers to acquire land through compulsory purchase, the Government have been at pains to ensure that the powers operate with effective safeguards, as I have said, and are in line with the wider approach to compulsory purchase. As raised elsewhere in the debate, we are clear about the need to ensure that Natural England can, where appropriate, use such powers to secure land to deliver conservation measures.
The new clause would undermine the efficacy of the proposed targeted powers by requiring land to be returned, at a loss to the taxpayer, where Natural England had to spend more money on conservation measures than the original contract price offered to the landowner. That would leave a hole not only in the public purse but in the environmental delivery plan in question, which would need to secure additional land to implement additional conservation measures that would have been secured on land now returned to the original owner.
We share the desire of the shadow Minister to see the effective use of the powers—that is why the safeguards are in place—but I hope that, with that explanation, he will withdraw the amendment.
Paul Holmes
We are satisfied with and appreciate the Minister’s response, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Compulsory acquisition of land under Part 3: supplementary provisions
Amendments made: 112, in schedule 5, page 148, line 36, at end insert—
“5A (1) Paragraph 3(2) does not apply to—
(a) any right vested in statutory undertakers for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking,
(b) any apparatus belonging to statutory undertakers for that purpose,
(c) any right conferred by, or in accordance with, the electronic communications code on the operator of an electronic communications code network, or
(d) any electronic communications apparatus kept installed for the purposes of any such network.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) ‘statutory undertakers’ means persons who are, or are deemed to be, statutory undertakers for the purposes of any provision of Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and ‘undertaking’ is to be read in accordance with section 262 of that Act (meaning of ‘statutory undertakers’).”
This amendment secures that the things mentioned in the inserted paragraph 5A are not affected by paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 5, which would otherwise provide for their extinguishment or acquisition when land is compulsorily acquired under clause 72.
Amendment 113, in schedule 5, page 152, line 10, leave out “or restrictive covenant”.
This amendment and amendment 114 remove erroneous references to a restrictive covenant from paragraph 11 of Schedule 5. Paragraph 11 relates only to the compulsory acquisition of a new right over land under clause 72.
Amendment 114, in schedule 5, page 152, line 14, leave out “or enforcing that covenant”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 113.
Amendment 115, in schedule 5, page 152, line 14, after “sections” insert
“11A (powers of entry: further notices of entry), 11B (counter-notice requiring possession to be taken on specified date),”.
This amendment secures that the modification of section 11 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 made by paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 affects sections 11A and 11B of that Act, as well as sections 12 and 13.
Amendment 116, in schedule 5, page 152, line 29, at end insert—
“New rights: application of the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981
13A The Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 (‘CP(VD)A 1981’) applies to the compulsory acquisition of new rights under section 72—
(a) with the modifications specified in paragraph 13B; and
(b) with such other modifications as may be necessary.
13B (1) The modifications of CP(VD)A 1981 referred to in paragraph 13A(a) are as follows.
(2) References to CPA 1965 are, in appropriate contexts, to be read (according to the requirements of the particular context) as referring to, or as including references to—
(a) the right acquired or to be acquired; or
(b) the land over which the right is, or is to be, exercisable.
(3) References to CPA 1965 are to be read as references to that Act as it applies to the compulsory acquisition of a right under section 72.
(4) Section 8(1) (vesting, and right to enter and take possession) is to be read as securing that—
(a) a general vesting declaration in respect of any right vests the right in the acquiring authority on the vesting date; and
(b) as from the vesting date, the acquiring authority has power, exercisable in the same circumstances and subject to the same conditions, to enter land for the purpose of exercising that right as if the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) and (b) of section 8(1) had arisen.
(5) Section 9(2) (right of entry under section 8(1) not exercisable in respect of land subject to certain tenancies unless notice has been served on occupiers of the land) is to be read as requiring a notice served by the appropriate authority under that provision to refer to the authority’s intention to enter land specified in the notice in order to exercise the right.
(6) In section 10(1) (acquiring authority’s liability on vesting of the land), the reference to the acquiring authority’s taking possession of the land under section 11 of CPA 1965 is to be read as a reference to the authority’s exercising the power to enter the land under that provision as modified by paragraph 11 of this Schedule.
(7) Schedule A1 (counter-notice requiring purchase of land not in general vesting declaration) is to be read as if—
(a) in paragraph 1(1), for ‘part only of’ there were substituted ‘only the acquisition of a right over’;
(b) paragraph 1(2) were omitted;
(c) references to the land proposed to be acquired were (subject to paragraph (e) below) to the right proposed to be acquired;
(d) references to the additional land were to the house, building or factory over which the right is proposed to be exercisable;
(e) in paragraphs 14 and 15, references to the severance of land proposed to be acquired were to the acquisition of the right; and
(f) in paragraph 15, after ‘in addition to’ there were inserted ‘or in substitution for’.”
This amendment secures that the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981 applies in relation to the compulsory acquisition of a new right over land under clause 72, subject (a) to the specific modifications in paragraph 13B (designed to secure that certain provisions of that Act work correctly in relation to that case and (b) any other modifications necessary to secure that result.
Amendment 117, in schedule 5, page 152, line 32, leave out
“with the necessary modifications, in”
and insert “—
(a) with the modification specified in paragraph 15, and
(b) with such other modifications as are necessary,
in”.
Paragraph 14 of Schedule 5 secures that the enactments relating to compensation for the compulsory purchase of land apply to the acquisition of new rights over land under clause 72 with the modifications necessary to make them work correctly in relation to that case. The amendment makes clear that the modifications include the particular modification of the Land Compensation Act 1961 set out in the new paragraphs 15 inserted by Amendment 118.
Amendment 118, in schedule 5, page 152, line 35, at end insert—
“15 Section 5A (relevant valuation date) of the Land Compensation Act 1961 is to be read as if for subsections (5A) and (5B) there were substituted—
‘(5A) If—
(a) the acquiring authority enters on land for the purpose of exercising a right in pursuance of a notice of entry under section 11(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 (as modified by paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025),
(b) the acquiring authority is subsequently required by a determination under paragraph 13 of Schedule 2A to the 1965 Act (as substituted by paragraph 9 of Schedule 5 to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025) to acquire an interest in the land, and
(c) the acquiring authority enters on and takes possession of that land,
the authority is deemed for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) to have entered on that land when it entered on that land for the purpose of exercising that right.
(5B) If—
(a) a right over land is the subject of a general vesting declaration,
(b) by virtue of paragraph 11(2) or 16(2) of Schedule A1 to the Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Act 1981, the declaration has effect as if it included an interest in the land, and
(c) the vesting date for the right is different from the vesting date for the interest in the land,
the first of the vesting dates is deemed for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) to be the vesting date for the whole of the land.’”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This amendment sets out a modification of section 5A of the Land Compensation Act 1961 as it applies in relation to the compulsory acquisition of new rights over land under clause 72. The amendments ensure that section 5A works correctly in relation to its application to the acquisition of such new rights.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 73 and 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 75
Duty of co-operation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 76 stand part.
Government amendments 103 and 104.
Amendment 121, in schedule 6, page 157, line 34, leave out paragraph 41.
Government amendments 105 to 111.
Schedule 6.
Clause 77 stand part.
Government amendments 99 and 100.
Clause 78 stand part.
Government new clause 73—Application to the Crown.
Matthew Pennycook
Environmental delivery plans will, by their very nature, cross administrative boundaries and require input from a wide range of actors from across the system, be they local authorities, regulators or other public bodies. It is vital that Natural England can rely on their support and input to develop and implement environmental delivery plans.
Clause 75 will establish a stand-alone duty to co-operate in respect of environmental delivery plans to ensure that relevant public bodies and public authorities engage and co-operate with Natural England. The duty will require such public bodies in England to provide reasonable assistance to Natural England and have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State about how the duty needs to be complied with. Of course, we recognise that such bodies will want to proactively engage on such matters, but a legislative duty will provide reassurance to local communities, environmental groups and developers that all parts of the system will work together to ensure that the plans can be put in place and properly implemented. The clause provides an important safeguard to ensure that all parts of the public sector work together to design and deliver EDPs.
Clause 76 relates to Ramsar sites, which I am sure hon. Members are aware are wetlands of international importance designated under the convention on wetlands. In England alone, these amount to over 300,000 hectares of land. To date, in England, these sites have been given the protection of the habitats regulations assessment process, through policy as set out in the national planning policy framework and in Government guidance, rather than through legislation.
To support the effective operation of the nature restoration fund work, we propose to place protections for Ramsar sites on a legislative footing, with clause 76 providing for Ramsar sites to be treated in the same way as European sites under the habitats regulations assessment process. Obligations relating to Ramsar sites will therefore have a legal basis, allowing environmental delivery plans and payments into the nature restoration fund to cover the impact of development on Ramsar sites. That is important, given the importance of the sites, and will mean that, going forward, such sites of global importance can benefit from the environmental uplift secured through an environmental delivery plan.
In order to ensure the operability of the nature restoration fund, schedule 6 makes various necessary amendments to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Part 1 of the schedule places the protection of Ramsar sites, the country’s most important wetlands, on a statutory footing. That will apply the statutory protections of the habitats regulations assessment process to Ramsar sites, mirroring existing policy requirements set out in the national planning policy framework and national guidance. That approach will not only strengthen protections but ensure that Ramsar sites can be adequately covered by EDPs.
Part 2 of schedule 6 makes various minor and consequential amendments to the Acts I have mentioned. In respect of the Protection of Badgers Act, those are to allow for the granting of a deemed licence, which can cover the activities necessary to allow development and to implement an EDP. The amendments also provide for greater alignment with licences granted in respect of other species. This part makes further amendments to provisions on wildlife licensing, again to ensure workability with an EDP.
Part 2 of schedule 6 also excludes the preparation of EDPs and the implementation of conservation measures from the requirement to produce a strategic environmental assessment and the requirement to conduct an assessment under part 6 of the habitats regulations. Similarly, the schedule excludes the application of regulation 9 to the exercise of those functions. That approach reflects the fact that we have embedded the requirements in the process of the environmental delivery plan itself. For example, EDPs will consider alternatives, conduct robust public consultation, and carry out appropriate monitoring and reporting. By their very nature, EDPs will result in better outcomes for nature, but will do so by adopting a different approach, as we have discussed at length.
Amendment 121 will be set out in more detail by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. It seeks to remove the Government’s consequential amendments to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The Government recognise that badgers are an iconic British species and have already started immediate action to bring an end to the badger cull by the end of this Parliament. Our consequential amendments to the Act under schedule 6 to the Bill will ensure that the nature restoration fund is operable for badgers. As part of the fund, we are ensuring that any licences granted as part of an environmental delivery plan in respect of badgers will be in line with licences granted under the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Without the changes, environmental delivery plans could not be put in place to address the impact of development on badgers.
In developing the new model, it is vital that Natural England is empowered to achieve the best possible environmental outcomes. That is why schedule 6 also gives Natural England the necessary range of tools to undertake conservation measures that support badgers. We will be guided by the evidence and Natural England’s expertise on which species are best suited to strategic approaches and how to apply the new tools. At this stage, however, we need to ensure that the legislation remains capable of supporting badgers. Given that explanation, I hope the hon. Member will not move amendment 121.
I turn now to clause 77. In establishing the new system, the Government have been mindful of the appropriate role for Parliament in scrutinising regulations made in respect of the nature restoration fund. In drafting this clause, we sought to secure the appropriate parliamentary procedure for the making of regulations under this part of the Bill, which must be made by statutory instrument. As with all Bills, we have tailored the approach to reflect the significance of the regulations, with the most important being subject to additional scrutiny through the affirmative procedure.
With that in mind, regulations relating to the nature restoration levy, regulations relating to the designation of a delivery body other than Natural England, and regulations making consequential amendments that amend an Act of Parliament will need to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Any other statutory instruments containing regulations that are made under this part will go through the negative procedure. They will therefore become law unless there is an objection by either House of Parliament in the form of a resolution to annul. We think that strikes the right balance and makes the best and most appropriate use of parliamentary time. For that reason, I commend clause 77 to the Committee.
Finally in this group, I turn to clause 78. In establishing the nature restoration fund, the legislation relies on a number of terms and phrases that define the core features and operation of the model. This clause acts as a reference list, bringing together the various definitions used in this part of the Bill. This clause is designed to assist the House and the public to navigate the clauses. Following introduction, we have sought to address minor issues in the drafting to ensure the effective operation of the statute book and to address any minor errors. Government amendments 103 to 111 make minor but necessary technical changes. I therefore commend clause 78 and the relevant Government amendments to the Committee.
Gideon Amos
I rise to speak to our amendment 121. Our primary concern is that the Bill’s proposed amendments to the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 will, for the first time, introduce permission to kill badgers, in addition to the power to interfere with their setts. Badgers are a much-loved British species of wild animal, and one that humans have not so far managed to make an endangered species. That could change with the Bill’s broadening of the legislation. It is a significant change in the law, from a power to interfere with badger setts to a power to kill badgers—the word in the Bill is “kill”—where there is an “overriding public interest”.
In our view, “overriding public interest” is not a clear justification. There are other legal tests: for example, the test of
“imperative reasons of overriding public interest”
appears in the habitats regulations, and the test of a
“compelling case in the public interest”
appears in compulsory purchase legislation. The “overriding public interest” does not seem, to us, a clear test; it is in the eye of the beholder and could be justified by any particular development. If the provision is not going to be used to make development quicker, it is difficult to understand why it is needed, since current legislation provides for interference with badger setts. Such interference can, in any event, lead to the death of badgers.
I am tempted to say that this is not a black and white issue, but perhaps we cannot say that about badgers—I thought I would get that in before someone else did. Our concern is that the Bill would significantly weaken the legal safeguards. In this country, we have provisions to protect wild animals from being killed, and we Liberal Democrats do not understand why badgers are now to become an exception to that. Laws to prevent killing wild animals are an important part of our legislative system. Making badgers an exception is not something that we are able to support.
We also believe that the provision is unnecessary. Under the 1992 Act, a licence can already be obtained to
“interfere with any badger sett…for the purpose of any development”.
In this context, “interfere” means:
“As a registered user you can interfere with badger setts under this licence to carry out development work or stop badgers causing serious damage”
by “monitoring setts”, “evicting and excluding badgers” and “destroying setts”. I do not understand why that is not sufficient for a developer, and why they need to go out and kill them. It would seem more challenging and problematic to try to find badgers to shoot them, when all those powers already exist. In all the numerous development projects in which I have been involved—over more years working in planning and development than I care to remember—it has been possible to relocate and remove badgers. None of the applicants I represented, or any of those I listened to as a planning inspector, complained that they were not able to go out and kill badgers, or that they were allowed only to move and interfere with their setts. We therefore do not understand why it is necessary to introduce this power to kill badgers.
Paragraph 41 of schedule 6 also contains a provision to allow badgers to be killed to preserve “public health or safety”. Again, it is unclear why that is necessary, given that the current legislation already allows badgers to be killed
“for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease”.
If that power already exists, why do we need the new power? It seems unnecessary, and a distraction from the main purpose of the paragraph, which is to allow the killing of badgers for the purposes of development. For all those reasons, we do not feel that it is justified to introduce the power to kill badgers, which are, as the Minister himself said, a much loved British species.
David Simmonds
I had not quite appreciated quite how ill the Minister’s intentions were in respect of our black and white furry friends. It is clear that they have been singled out by the Minister for extra special hostile treatment in the Bill. That raises a more general point, which we referenced earlier in relation to our intentions to introduce debates on biodiversity net gain. As important as badgers are, we know that our countryside is home to hedgehogs, dormice and all manner of protected species of flora and fauna. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire spoke eloquently on the mitigation hierarchy earlier on, and we must ensure that appropriate protection arrangements are in place in that hierarchy. I know that the Minister will write to me on the powers in the Wildlife and Countryside Act and how they might be relevant in this context. We look forward to that.
I would like to address two points that arise from clause 75. The first is that, under an earlier clause, the Secretary of State acquires the power to designate another person to undertake the functions of Natural England; this clause makes specific reference to the duty to “co-operate with Natural England”, but it does not specify what happens when a third party may have been appointed. That would have relevance where there may be a conflict, perhaps in planning terms, between the appointed party’s intentions to undertake work in the delivery of an EDP and, for example, a local authority or other public body that is having to consider, under its duties and responsibilities, an application for the delivery of those in its area. It is important to be clear whether third parties that have been appointed are covered by the clause.
The second point relates to how that interacts with a situation in which the public body covered by the duty is opposed to the development that gives rise to the need for the EDP in the first place. It reminds me of my personal experience of the example of Heathrow airport. What happens if a local authority says, “In discharging our duty in respect of air quality, we are obligated to oppose this development in any way we possibly can”, but is then advised by the Government, “However, you are obligated to co-operate through the EDP in order to enable that development to go ahead”? Clearly, that is not something that our constituents would expect to happen. The clause would introduce a degree of moral hazard in any major infrastructure project. How will the Minister address those two issues?
The Chair
I can see Members looking for the reference to the killing of badgers. It is in schedule 6 on page 157.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak in support of amendment 121, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I will not repeat all the arguments that he made so powerfully in favour of it. It is clear that the amendment would mete out unnecessarily hostile treatment to badgers, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner pointed out. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say to explain why the provision is needed, because it seems clear from the arguments that have already been made that it is not required.
Matthew Pennycook
I did address this in some detail—the intention behind these clauses has obviously passed hon. Members by—but I would just like to make very clear, for the Guardian article that will no doubt appear tomorrow, that I have no particular animus against badgers in whatever form. However, we need these amendments to the Protection of Badgers Act to ensure operability under the nature restoration fund. They bring badger licences granted as part of an EDP in line with licences granted under the habitats regulations and the Wildlife and Countryside Act. In essence, all we are trying to do is to ensure that the licensing approach is relevant across all relevant species. I am happy to write to Members with more detail. I really do think, and I say this with all sincerity, that their concerns in this area are unfounded. I am happy to set out more detail in respect of badgers specifically.
Gideon Amos
I understand that interference with badgers is sometimes necessary for development or perhaps for environmental measures, but can the Minister explain why the existing powers are not sufficient? These are powers that enable interference with a badger sett, which may indeed mean the badgers are killed, and the sett to be destroyed. All those powers are there. Why is it necessary to have the additional power to kill them?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member is right that those powers are there. The reason the new clauses are required is to ensure the operability under the nature restoration fund. To provide him with a little more detail, which I hope might be helpful, in respect of the Protection of Badgers Act the new clauses extend which prohibited activities may be covered by a licence to cover what will be needed for an EDP.
The new clauses also provide for a greater alignment between licences granted under the existing Protection of Badgers Act and those granted in respect of other species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. EDPs will set the terms of a licence, but we need these new clauses to ensure operability under the nature restoration fund. As I said, I am more than happy to write to hon. Members to reassure them on this point, but I do think their concerns are somewhat unfounded and I do not think the interpretation they are placing on the Government is correct.
Lewis Cocking
As Broxbourne’s emblem is a badger, I would like the Minister to write to me so I can have some more reassurance that these powers will not be used unnecessarily.
Matthew Pennycook
It is late in the day, Mrs Hobhouse, and people are running away with themselves in various respects, but I do want to provide members of the Committee with as much reassurance on this point as we can provide as the Government. I will be able to set out the reasons I think their concerns are unfounded and why I think the interpretation they have put on these new clauses is not accurate, and why, for reasons of operability, we need to ensure they are in place. As part of that, I also commit to write to the shadow Minister on the specific and fairly technical series of questions he has put to us about public bodies in respect of clause 75. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6
Amendments relating to Part 3
Amendments made: 103, in schedule 6, page 156, line 35, leave out
“, as it applies in England and Wales,”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 101.
Amendment 104, in schedule 6, page 156, line 35, at end insert
“(see also section 95(1A) (extent of this paragraph is England and Wales only)).”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 101.
Amendment proposed: 121, in schedule 6, page 157, line 34, leave out paragraph 41.—(Gideon Amos.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.