(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:17 - Division on Amendment 130 - Ayes: 260 / Noes: 141 - Amendment 130 agreed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we return to the substantive consideration of Part 3 of the Bill and the nature restoration fund, with this first grouping considering amendments that relate to the underlying requirements of an environmental delivery plan.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the purpose of Part 3, we know that the status quo is not working. Environmental assessments and case-by-case negotiations of mitigation and compensation measures often slow down the delivery of much-needed housing and infrastructure. Meanwhile, the condition of our most important habitats and species has declined over a sustained period. By taking a more strategic approach to the restoration of protected sites and species, we can deliver improved environmental outcomes while reducing planning delays for the housing and infrastructure that our communities need.
The noble Lord asked me a question about the number of houses subject to nutrient neutrality that will be unlocked at Royal Assent. We are very clear that such environmental obligations can be discharged only where a robust and scrutinised EDP is in place. This is the right approach to ensure there is a credible plan that will deliver the better environmental outcomes that we need.
Amendment 130, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has captured the sympathy of some in this House who support the strategic approach of the NRF but are concerned about this approach being used where it is not appropriate. However, we have always been clear—and the legislation is explicit—that the Secretary of State can approve an EDP only where it is shown to materially outweigh the negative effect of development. This is not a throwaway judgment of a Secretary of State but must be a judgment based on an ecologically sound and robustly scrutinised EDP, with Natural England providing a statement as to whether they believe the EDP can meet this high bar. As the noble Baroness will know, the scientific basis of the evidence provided to the Secretary of State was clarified in a government amendment. A Secretary of State simply could not sign off an EDP that did not stack up—and if they ever did, then the Bill provides that such a decision could be challenged via a judicial review.
In capturing a range of environmental features that could be addressed through an EDP, the Government are not seeking to suggest that EDPs will come forward covering each of these features but simply that we should be able to bring forward EDPs where science supports the case and the evidence would allow the Secretary of State to approve the EDP in line with the overall improvement test. Where the science does not support it, an EDP could not be made, but to limit EDPs in the way the amendment suggests would be to close off the potential that EDPs offer to deliver more than the current system and help support the recovery of protected sites and species, rather than merely offsetting the impact of development.
I want also to respond to some of the noble Baroness’ questions. First, on the mitigation hierarchy, Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when it develops EDPs. It is an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. However, it is not always the case. 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 suboptimal outcomes, and only then, and where money could be spent far more effectively to achieve better outcomes for nature.
Secondly, the noble Baroness asked me about process. EDPs will not require additional assessment. Natural England will carry out assessments and surveys, and developers will no longer have to do that for the features in the EDP.
My noble friend Lady Young asked about the European conventions. The Bill does not repeal any existing legislation and will not weaken the UK’s continued support for and implementation of any of our international commitments. We are committed to the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement and its provisions which ensure that mutual high standards are protected. EDPs will ensure better environmental outcomes that go further than current legislation, which simply offsets harm. Money from the NRF is ring-fenced for nature under clauses in the Bill.
I am conscious that the NRF has not had the easiest genesis, but the Government have shown that they are listening, and the legislation demonstrates a real commitment to breaking from a status quo that has, at best, overseen the managed decline of our most valued protected sites and species. With this explanation, I hope the noble Baroness feels able not to move her amendment.
Amendment 201, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would provide the Secretary of State with broad powers to manage the effects of nutrients in water. This draws on the amendments tabled by the previous Government during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which were rightly defeated by this House.
While we share the noble Lord’s desire to address nutrient neutrality, we cannot simply rely on broad powers and the promise of action. The nature restoration fund creates a clear path to addressing this issue based on credible evidence, a robust and tested EDP and the legal guarantee that funding will be secured to ensure that conservation measures deliver environmental improvement. Granting the Secretary of State such a broad Henry VIII power would raise not only questions but serious risks as to how such a power could be used.
Amendment 122, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would provide the Secretary of State with a power to issue guidance relating to the making of an EDP and require Natural England or any other body carrying out functions under this part to comply with such guidance. I recognise the importance of the matters the noble Lord raises, including in respect of agricultural businesses, food security and land that communities really value. The Secretary of State is already able to make guidance on any matter relevant to the making of an EDP, which would naturally include the important matters raised in the amendment.
On the issue of compulsory purchase raised by the amendment, as it is ultimately for the Secretary of State to make an EDP and to authorise Natural England’s use of compulsory purchase powers, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way the EDP has been drafted, they may simply choose not to make the EDP. Similarly, if the Secretary of State is not satisfied with the way Natural England is proposing to exercise its compulsory purchase powers, they may simply choose not to authorise the exercise of the powers.
Amendment 129, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require EDPs to identify all environmental impacts from the development to which the EDP relates, on the environmental feature which is the subject of the EDP. As we have said throughout these sessions, EDPs are targeted plans to address specific impacts from development on identified environmental features. These are not a replacement for wider assessment or intervention but a way to allow specific impacts to be addressed through a more strategic approach. While Natural England will of course be alive to other impacts, the focus of the EDP must be on the specific impact, as it is only that impact and the associated environmental obligation that are being discharged through the EDP. We have been clear throughout that anything not covered by an EDP will be considered and addressed through the existing system. For that reason, it would simply add burden to an EDP to require Natural England to identify all impacts where the EDP itself is tasked with addressing only specific impacts.
Amendment 128, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would require an EDP to identify all environmental impacts that may be expected as a result of the development to which an EDP relates. As I mentioned in Committee and have just repeated, EDPs are targeted plans, and the Government are clear that an EDP will modify existing obligations only for identified impacts and where the EDP itself can demonstrate how the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the specific environmental feature. Any impacts not addressed—
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am afraid that the Minister has failed to understand that the amendments I have proposed, following the debate in Committee, are directed towards only the environmental feature, and the negative effects associated with that environmental feature, which is the subject of the EDP. She is suggesting that I am widening it out to other features. I am not; the amendments address only that feature.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry if I misunderstood, but that may be due to confusion around the wording. It seemed that the amendment was trying to widen that out. As I said, any impact not addressed through the EDP is subject to a separate assessment. Therefore, it would not need to form part of the EDP itself.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I have left Clause 55(1)(a) where the Government left it, which means that we are concerned only with the environmental feature which is the subject of the EDP. Her entire argument against my amendments is around the proposition that I am trying to widen it out to other things; I am not. I am simply saying that, if there is a negative effect associated with the environmental feature derived from that development, it should be identified in the EDP.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The very nature of the EDP would do that anyway, because the action taken by the EDP must materially outweigh the impact of the development. If that is what the noble Lord is trying to say, I can confirm that that is the purpose of the EDP in the first place. I will continue now.
As set out in the Member’s explanatory statement, Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Markham,
“seeks to encourage debate on the proportionality of conservation measures included in an EDP”.
In doing so, the amendment proposes that EDPs should consider the monetary value of the plants or animals the conservation measures would support, to ensure that conservation measures are proportionate. As the noble Lord will be aware from the debates to date, EDPs will be required to materially outweigh the negative effects that development would have on a relevant environmental feature, be it a feature of a protected site or a protected species. That may include multiple plant species of varying abundance. Similarly for protected species, an EDP would address these impacts at an appropriate population scale.
The scale of conservation measures required will be determined by the scale of impact from the development, with the levy rate being set to ensure that sufficient measures are delivered to meet the overall improvement test. In setting the regulations that will govern the nature restoration levy, the Secretary of State must aim to ensure that the levy does not render development economically unviable, but the levy must be sufficient to deliver the necessary conservation measures in line with the overall improvement test. That will ensure that the levy is set at a rate that delivers for both nature and development, with developers in all but exceptional circumstances being able to choose whether to use an EDP or whether to address these impacts and secure the necessary measures themselves under the existing system. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Finally, Amendment 203, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require the preparation of a report by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee on the consolidation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as they relate to planning. I appreciate that the dual systems of the habitats regulations, which cover habitat sites and include the HRA process, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which covers SSSIs, can appear complex. However, in practice, there are integrated processes which address and manage this complexity. These processes are well understood by practitioners, and while the Government will always look for opportunities to improve processes, the amendment risks creating uncertainty that may delay development and presupposes that consolidation is necessary and desirable. At this time, we do not consider that such a report is necessary, but even if it were, it would be a legal rather than ecological exercise, which would fall outside the JNCC’s area of expertise. Given this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for the introduction of her Amendment 130 and to those who spoke so convincingly in her support. I also thank the Minister for her response to these amendments, particularly the clarifications around the issues addressed by Amendment 122.
As I feared, the Government remain intransigent on the big issues and so our mind remains resolved. Should the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, choose to move Amendment 130 to a vote, our Benches will be in support. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 122.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I cannot call Amendment 127 because it has already been replaced by Amendment 121H.
“(2A) An environmental impact identified in an EDP may only affect nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to limit the application of an EDP to issues where approaches at a strategic landscape scale will be effective.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, and I thank the Minister for her response. However, I did not find her arguments reassuring, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Roborough
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra would require Natural England and the Secretary of State to base their judgements in respect of an Environmental Delivery Plan on the best available scientific evidence.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 131 and my other amendments in this group. Amendments 131, 137, 151 and 152 seek reassurance that Natural England will use the best available evidence when developing and approving EDPs, and that that will be confirmed by the Secretary of State. The reason for these amendments is that this has not always been clearly the case. That in turn is evidenced by the revised heather burning regulations that we will be debating tomorrow.
Amendment 156 would require that Natural England report each year on the performance of each EDP in that year. The Minister did not reassure the House in Committee that the reporting requirements for the nature restoration fund or individual EDPs were satisfactory. I am sure that each EDP will be reporting its performance internally annually. Can the Minister confirm that and, if so, why is there a reluctance to share that with the public?
Amendment 157 seeks to require the impact on the local community and economy to be assessed and reported on. In some of the more remote parts of our country we have seen rewilding schemes and similar undertaken which have undermined local economies and created distrust within local communities. It is critically important that there is this level of engagement with local communities. Requiring that ensures that their views are taken fully into account.
I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance here. Amendment 174 makes a simple substitution of “must” for “may”. Why would Natural England not be required to publish these conservation measures? Do we really think it will publish if doing so is merely voluntary? I hope the Government have made progress in addressing these concerns since Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is absolutely pointless voting for this, because Natural England cannot do the job it has at the moment. Unless it is better resourced and has better structure, it is completely pointless giving it any more jobs. However, I stand here in the throes of two very strong emotions. I signed 38 Conservative amendments—I have never done anything like that before. I committed to something that I thought that the Conservatives were going to do, and they did not do it. They let us all down: they decided not to try to take out Part 3. That is shameful. If you are in opposition, why do you not oppose? What they have just done is playing politics. This is why politicians have such a bad reputation.
My second emotion is fury, which I normally mostly reserve for the Government. Part 3 absolutely stinks, and there should be no effort to get it through this House. It is a terrible piece of legislation. It completely ignores the fact that we need nature. We depend on nature, and the Labour Government are so eco-ignorant that they completely avoid the plot.
Going back to the Conservatives, they are not to be trusted. If they cannot oppose the Government when they know the Government are wrong, why on earth are they sitting here? Why are they bothering? There are some noble Lords on this side—I use the word “noble” advisedly—who, if I had moved Amendment 123, having cosigned it, would have supported me. I am very touched by that, and I thank them. However, we are allowing these amendments to go through. We are trying to improve them, but it is like putting lipstick on a lamppost. I am not going to say “pig”—I like pigs. It is like trying to tart up something that does not need it because it should be thrown out. I ask noble Lords not to vote for this and not to trust the Tories on any amendment they put forward from now on. They are playing politics. They are not trying to do their best for Britain: they are just thinking about themselves.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, that was great fun. I hope the noble Baroness feels better for her confession of how many Conservative amendments she signed. It is a surprise to us all, I am sure.
I take a slightly different view. I do not know why we did not vote on Amendment 123; I wish we had, because I certainly would have supported it. I support all these attempts to improve the Bill. Why? Because the Government say that we should follow the science. They make great play of the evidence that should be underpinning all these EDPs. The amendments in this group, essentially, are about providing proper evidence, and surely that is not controversial. The best evidence is frequently referred to and proper reporting is required. I cannot understand why anybody would be against any of that.
I agree that Part 3 is a disaster, but we are trying to improve it. I do not know about lipstick on a lamp-post: I think we are just trying to improve it a bit, given what we have been given. I support these amendments, for what they are worth, and I think that castigating the Opposition does not really help greatly. They are trying as hard as they can to improve this.
Lord Lansley (Con)
May I just say—not least to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—that, as it happens, I support the view that it would be wrong to take out Part 3 at this stage? I say that for procedural reasons. If we took out Part 3, in effect, we would send it back to the other place without Part 3 in it and it would reinstate it. I fail to see at what point we would be able to do all the things that we have just been talking about and will go on to talk about, which is to revise Part 3 so that we can do our job, which is to take all the most harmful aspects of Part 3 out and put improvements in.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am so sorry—I do not know whether I am allowed to shout at the noble Lord again. What are they revising? Tell me what they are revising. They are not revising anything: they are intransigent. They refuse to listen, so why are we even trying?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying and I think Part 3 is so devastating, but I am not going to do a Second Reading speech, because I was pretty critical then. In respect of the amendments here, I particularly like Amendment 174. I also support the amendments on annual reporting.
On the best available scientific evidence, I think it is just worth considering this. I agree entirely that we have to have the scientific evidence, but one of the issues that Natural England has regularly been criticised for in terms of development is, for example, offshore wind farms. The Government are very clear they believe they are absolutely vital in terms of achieving net zero or, indeed, decarbonising electricity by 2030. It is the situation, however, that developers are then asked to do at least two seasons of what impact there will be on birds, and elements like that. One of the key reasons why so many projects get delayed is the extent of the evidence required in order to satisfy the decisions.
Having been a Secretary of State for Defra, and in charge of the R&D budget, I can assure noble Lords the House that every scientist will keep saying, “There’s a gap in the evidence” when they want more money. I am not complaining about that, but we need to make sure that we have appropriate evidence. We should not ignore the science, but to continue to try to say “the best available” means we could be here for a very long time. That may be the benefit that some people wish to achieve, but, while we definitely need proper scientific evidence, we have to balance what is ever going to be the best available.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, given what we said on Amendment 30, these Benches definitely support the principle that we should be basing decisions on the best available scientific evidence. In principle, we certainly support Amendment 131. It picks up on the point that was made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, and, indeed, at earlier stages by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that the best scientific evidence is not always just modelling: it is around actual evidence on the ground. We will move on later to amendments that talk about the necessity for the evidence base around the baseline that we have at the moment, and therefore, as I said, we support the idea in principle but we think, actually, that the framework for the consideration of that scientific evidence is actually as important.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 131, but before I do, I would like to address comments to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, because I am persuaded by the comments made by my noble friend Lord Lansley. We are not the elected House, the Government are entitled to bring their legislation through and I am persuaded that to have removed Part 3 entirely from the Bill would have emasculated it to the extent that it would have become mute.
I do think, however—and I only wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, had acknowledged this—that the thumping majority given to Amendment 130 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has meant that we have got the best of a bad job. Therefore, to suggest that the Conservatives and other Members of this House have somehow sat on their hands or perjured themselves or somehow maligned themselves is just not the way.
Turning to the substance of Amendment 130, of course we believe in the essential of having the best advice. I will not repeat the speech I gave in Committee, but noble Lords will remember that I was very exercised by the misleading way in which Natural England had wilfully misrepresented the science that it said supported its position but did not. Noble Lords will recall that it sent me a pamphlet with all sorts of scientific references at the bottom, which I read, and those scientific references totally refuted Natural England’s position.
All I will say on Amendment 131 is that getting the scientific evidence is one thing, but we have got to get the advice right as well. I feel there is a problem with this Bill, because it does not address the conflict of interest that Natural England is simultaneously the adviser, the regulator, the operator and the price setter. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said on the earlier group. If the Secretary of State is not persuaded, he is going to rely on advice given by Natural England, which in my view has not demonstrated that it meets the standard that you would expect.
I think the key thing is that we are about to place into statute an obvious conflict of interest between a regulator and an adviser. We should eliminate that by insisting on a separation of powers. We have a duty to avoid obvious conflicts of interest, but we are about to embed one in statute. I invite the Minister to reflect for a moment on whether it is right that Natural England is to be the judge, jury and executioner in its own court, and whether there might be some sort of device whereby the Secretary of State can take other advice into account rather than that of Natural England, because it is so conflicted and its track record is not good.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 131, 137, 151, 152, 156, 157 and 174, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, would add additional requirements to the preparation and reporting of EDPs. While the Government share the noble Lords’ desire to ensure that the EDP process is robust, I assure noble Lords that these matters are already captured through the drafting and are amplified by the Government’s amendments to Part 3. We have included an explicit provision requiring Natural England and the Secretary of State to take account of the best available scientific evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about evidence over time and some of the issues that occur—perhaps even conflicting evidence —but I hope that the best available scientific evidence, which is the phrase that is used here, will give the Secretary of State and Natural England the support they need to ensure that this is proportionate. It needs to be considered as the best available scientific evidence.
Regarding reporting, as well as the mid-point and end-point reports on each EDP, Natural England will publish annual reports across the NRF with a summary of its accounts, including setting out the total amount received in levy payments and the amount spent on conservation measures. This is on top of the individual monitoring that Natural England will put in place to monitor the delivery and impact of conservation measures. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on his points about Natural England.
In addition, these amendments would require Natural England to report on the impact of conservation measures on the local economy and the community. The Bill already requires public consultation that will provide the opportunity for people to raise such matters, which will be considered by the Secretary of State when making an EDP. While we share the noble Lord’s desire to support local communities, it would not be appropriate and would add a significant burden to require Natural England to report on how each conservation measure is affecting the local economy. The final limb of these amendments would make it mandatory for the levy regulations to cover various matters currently specified as those that the Secretary of State may cover. I assure noble Lords that this is unnecessary because, while we would not propose to mandate for them, we fully expect the Secretary of State to make provision in these areas. I hope that, with these explanations and assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to my amendments in this group. I must say I am not entirely happy, and I look forward to returning to this subject in later groups, particularly on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I understand entirely her sentiments and frustration, and I am most grateful that she signed my amendments. We on these Benches are committed to being a constructive Opposition and to working with the House in the most effective way possible to improve Part 3. Many of us object to this part of the Bill fervently in its current form, and we are looking for the best outcome for the country as a whole to release houses for building but at the same time to protect and enhance nature. The noble Baroness remains my friend, and I hope she will eventually forgive me. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent Natural England from including in an EDP network conservation measures where the affected site was not in England (or in English territorial waters or the English offshore region: see my amendment at page 92, line 31); in such a case, any conservation measures would have to benefit the affected site itself (but the conservation measures would have to be taken in England).
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
My Lords, we turn to a series of government amendments that ensure that the NRF properly manages any potential cross-border effects and operates as intended in relation to Ramsar sites, as well as in the marine context.
On our cross-border related amendments, I assure noble Lords that, while numerous, these are technical amendments that reflect our discussions with the devolved Administrations to address circumstances where an environmental feature of an EDP may relate to a protected site that is in Scotland or Wales.
I shall draw out the key amendments. Government Amendment 133 ensures that, where an EDP relates to a protected site that is not wholly in England, an EDP may not use network measures to address these impacts.
Government Amendment 136 simply defines “England” for the purpose of this clause as including its marine context. This is in line with the devolution settlements, as it would not be appropriate for a plan developed to address the impact of development in England to allow for potential impact on a site in Scotland or Wales, even where that would lead to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature.
In line with that close working and co-ordination, government Amendment 145 will require Natural England to seek the advice of the Natural Resource Body for Wales, whose operating name is Natural Resources Wales, and Scottish Natural Heritage, whose operating name is NatureScot, as well as the relevant devolved Ministers where the environmental feature in a draft EDP relates to a protected site in Wales or Scotland respectively. Government Amendment 149 specifies that for these purposes “Wales and Scotland” encompasses the territorial waters adjacent to Wales and Scotland, as is the case in respect of England in Part 3.
Ramsar sites are internationally significant wetlands that play a vital role in promoting biodiversity and climate resilience. Through the Bill, we are putting Ramsar protections on a legislative footing to ensure that the nature restoration fund can be used to address the negative effects of development on Ramsar sites. This will allow development to come forward more quickly, while securing better outcomes for nature, making building quicker and simpler. To date, these sites have been subject to the HRA process in the same way as habitat sites as a matter of policy, so in the vast majority of cases there will be very little change to how the HRA process is applied to these sites. However, these changes will place the existing policy protections for Ramsar sites on a statutory footing, providing clarity for developers where Ramsar and habitat sites overlap and where assessment requirements may otherwise diverge, as well as ensuring that we continue to meet our international obligations under the Ramsar Convention. These government amendments ensure that the nature restoration fund can operate as intended for Ramsar sites.
Previously, the Bill referred to Ramsar sites in England, which would have meant that, when assessing a plan or project in England, a competent authority would not have been subject to a statutory requirement to consider possible impacts on Ramsar sites in Wales and Scotland. That would have placed new obligations on competent authorities in Wales, which was not our policy intention. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is a helpful step forward in firming up the protections for our most precious wetlands.
Government Amendment 231 is technical in nature and has been drafted to ensure that the Bill is fully operable within the marine context. With marine conservation zones now treated as protected sites for the purposes of Part 3, it is necessary to make limited exceptions to certain provisions in the Marine and Coastal Access Act that are intended to restrict activities impacting these areas. This will, for example, ensure that Natural England can carry out conservation measures benefiting these important marine sites without risk of breaching existing legislative requirements. This will apply only to Natural England and other public authorities carrying out functions relating to the nature restoration fund in the marine context.
Finally, government Amendment 255 is a minor drafting correction to ensure the extent provisions reflect amendments made to Clause 46 in Committee. This amendment removes a stray reference to provisions of that clause which were left out in Committee. I therefore hope the House agrees to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
First, I would like to associate these Benches with the best wishes sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I hope she is better soon. One or two of us spotted her attempting to struggle in this morning. The Minister here has had to take up a whole raft of amendments on which she was not expecting to lead at the start of today. We thank her for picking this up.
This is a comprehensive suite of technical amendments, and we are wrapping our heads around it. As firm federalists, we obviously welcome the consultation across borders, particularly in Amendments 145 and 133, mandating specific consultation requirements on Natural England. Proper cross-border consultations are the baseline requirement for sensible environmental policy. We will watch with some care with regard to marine and coastal access. The required removal of existing environmental checks suggests to us that the EDP framework risks some kind of weakening of protection.
We welcome the suite of amendments to Schedule 6 to explicitly amend the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to treat Ramsar sites more like European sites, requiring an appropriate assessment for plans or projects situated wholly in England that are likely to have a significant effect on a Ramsar site. Extending statutory protections to these internationally important wetlands is a move towards a more robust nature safeguard. On the whole, we welcome this suite of amendments, but there are one or two that we will watch.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I too wish the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, a speedy recovery. We both endure long journeys on the west coast main line with Avanti, and that is enough to make any of us ill on any occasion.
As we have said throughout the passage of this Bill, Governments should not, as a rule, introduce amendments to their own legislation that are not in response to scrutiny of the Bill. We have been disappointed by the Government’s approach to this Bill and, as many noble Lords have said, there is a reason for our procedures in this House. Amendments should be debated in Committee, wherever possible, before the House is asked to make a decision on them on Report.
The amendments in this group mostly relate to circumstances touching on the devolved regions of the UK. We understand that these changes have been discussed with the devolved authorities and are content with them. The only area where we have particular concern is the government amendments in respect of protections for Ramsar sites. My noble friend set out the Official Opposition’s view in an earlier group, so I will briefly say that we do not think the Government are right to introduce Clause 90 and Schedule 6 through this Bill, as they will effectively block new homes rather than unlocking development.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, one of the amendments—which I now cannot find the number of—substitutes all Ramsar sites with “certain Ramsar sites”. Can the Minister clarify why certain Ramsar sites are being excluded whereas before all Ramsar sites were within the scope of the Bill?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I hope I can respond to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
The Government’s approach to placing Ramsar sites on a statutory footing has been welcomed by environmental groups as a pragmatic step to align protections across sites of international importance. Noble Lords will be aware of a recent Supreme Court judgment and some may wish to oppose this and continue with the existing approach of protecting Ramsar sites through policy. I know there has been an attempt by some to cast the Government as blocking development, but the reality is that no new planning applications will be affected by placing Ramsar sites on a statutory footing. Any outline or full planning permissions that have come forward since the imposition of nutrient neutrality in 2020 will have had to consider the impact of Ramsar sites from the outset, so for most developers this will actually be an advantage.
It also means that they can use an EDP to discharge obligations relating to Ramsar sites, which they could not without putting them on a statutory footing. We continue to support development that faces challenges in meeting the obligations. I highlight that the Government have invested £110 million to support local authorities to deliver local nutrient mitigation schemes, to allow housing to come forward in areas affected by nutrient neutrality. The NRF is an evolution of this support and will deliver on the Government’s manifesto pledge to address nutrient neutrality in a way that supports development, while driving the recovery of these internationally important wetland sites.
I am sorry, I have realised I have not answered the question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I will reply to her in writing on that, if that is okay.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful. Just for clarification, I now have the amendment in front of me. It is actually Amendment 210, which says
“leave out ‘Ramsar sites in England’ and insert ‘certain Ramsar sites’”.
What is worrying is that it goes on to say that to better understand the amendment we should look at the explanatory statement of the Government’s amendment to page 180—of the Bill? There is no page 180 of the amendments, so it is difficult to know which page 180 it refers to.
Lord Fuller
“(8A) Any conservation measures provided by a landholding within the scope of an EDP must be legally secured by an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”Member’s explanatory statement
These changes are proposed as a means to ensure the deliverability of conservation measures provided by an EDP and to provide a stronger enforceability route than alternatives like a HM Land Registry Charge, which does not have the same level of legal enforceability.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 134 seeks to ensure that the conservation measures envisaged by the Bill are actually delivered for the liability period. The premise of the Bill is that, for the EDPs, a sum of money is paid for a government-endorsed plan, which will last for 10 years on the understanding that compensatory conservation measures will be provided elsewhere. The problem is that on one hand the EDP lasts for 10 years, but on the other hand the obligations are for conservation measures to last for 30 years in the case of biodiversity net gain and 80 years in the case of nutrient neutrality. There is a clear disconnect here, and that undermines the value and enforceability unless it is cleared up, and the Bill should do that.
Let us say you are a developer. Let us say you are prepared to palm off your obligations to address nutrient neutrality to a provider. Let us say you pay Natural England or its affiliates a fee to assume those liabilities in your place for 80 years—the perpetuity period. That money you pay has to last for the practical delivery of the conservation measures for that entire period. It is quite an onerous commitment. Each year, the grass may need to be cut, ditches dredged, fences mended, and sampling and monitoring undertaken. What happens for the 70 years that follow the initial 10-year period, from years 11 to 80, after the EDP expires? I would have expected the Bill to have some hints, but it does not.
Moving on, how might those liabilities be valued? Without value nothing can be delivered. This is an actuarial problem. Obviously, the value will depend on the annual cost of providing the measures over 80 years, in the case of nutrient neutrality, discounted back to present value—and that price will partly depend on the opportunity cost of the money for the period linked to the long-term gilt rate. Any one-off set-up charges might include inspection fees and renewal fees, and the more frequent they are, the more expensive they will be. The valuation is important, because unless there is sufficiency, there can be no guarantees that the conservation measures a developer has purchased will actually be delivered. On all this, the Bill is silent.
Pricing aside, I spoke in Committee about the enforceability of the conservation measures contemplated by the EDP that the housebuilder has purchased. So I now want to focus on those who will deliver the conservation measures which have been paid for, and the enforceability of those measures. This is not something that can be left to Natural England to make up as it goes along, as it has done so far—working at a snail’s pace, chopping and changing as it goes. That is no way to address a generational requirement. It needs to be on the face of the Bill: any measures need to be secured for as long as it takes, in a structure that transcends the normal lifespan of a company or partnership.
Of course, there are ways of recognising these legal obligations, either in contract or by a charge or covenant at the Land Registry. All these are enforceable, but Land Registry claims in particular require the lottery of a court or tribunal case. I ask: who is going to be bothered in 75 years, in 2100, to litigate in court a fag-end of five years of a nutrient neutrality deal that may get off the ground next spring or, for that matter, in 25 years—that is, if the operator has not run out of money and gone bust in the meantime? It is important that the obligations to deliver these measures are recorded in a form that can go the distance and be enforced without the uncertainty of litigation.
Lord Lansley (Con)
If I may, I anticipate my noble friend Lord Roborough speaking to his Amendments 166 and 167. Before he does so, however, without reiterating the exchange that the Minister and I had about the way in which Clause 55(1)(a) and (b) should be used, by putting into Schedule 4 that the environmental impacts must be those identified in an environmental delivery plan, my noble friend deals with what would otherwise be a potentially serious problem. The Bill continues in Clause 55 to allow for the possibility of environmental impacts resulting from a development having a “negative effect” on a protected feature, but which are not to be included and identified in the EDP. My noble friend, in his Amendments 166 and 167, would rectify exactly that problem.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for moving his amendment in this group.
These amendments would make technical changes to how EDPs work practically. My Amendments 166 and 167 would ensure that only impacts addressed by the EDP may be disregarded for the purposes of the habitats regulations. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Lansley and am very grateful for his comments. We think that this is in line with the Government’s plans and seek to be constructive with these amendments. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not willing to accept these constructive and specific amendments?
Amendment 134 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller also seeks to strengthen the Government’s measures. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s reply.
Finally, my Amendment 135 is another that seeks clarity in the Bill. We are disappointed that the Government have not seen the merit of our case and would have preferred to see this clearly set out in law. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Fuller on his questions and comments about the timing of EDPs and how they can be effective within the specified 10-year period. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 134 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, which would require conservation measures delivered by a landholding to be secured solely through Section 106 agreements.
The noble Lord’s stated intention is to ensure that conservation measures are secured through a sufficiently enforceable mechanism. While we fully agree with the noble Lord that we need sufficient certainty to ensure that conservation measures are delivered, I hope to reassure him that his amendment is not necessary.
The NRF represents a shift towards a more strategic approach to dealing with the environmental impacts of development. Once an EDP is made, it will be for Natural England to secure the necessary conservation measures and ensure that they are in place, monitored and effective.
Some conservation measures may require Natural England to acquire land, but, where it does so, requiring it unilaterally to enter a Section 106 planning obligation would be inappropriate. Foremost, this would be an odd use of Section 106. Many conservation measures, such as in relation to wetlands, will not require planning permission. It is therefore unlikely that a Section 106 agreement between Natural England and the local planning authority would be needed.
What this amendment suggests is required is more likely to be a species of unilateral undertaking by Natural England—one that would unnecessarily restrict its latitude to deliver conservation measures flexibly. It would reduce the scope for Natural England to modify its approach where doing so would be within what the EDP approved and deliver more effectively for the environmental feature. Similarly, it could stop land being used for overlapping purposes.
Ultimately, it will be important that Natural England can implement whichever conservation measures it considers most effective while still being bound by the need for the measures to be sufficient to meet the overall improvement test—which this approach puts the focus on. In recognising the shift in approach under this model, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Amendment 135, which was previously tabled in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, relates to the use of planning conditions as conservation measures. In previous debates, I have been clear on the importance of planning conditions to ensure that developers take appropriate action to avoid impact in advance of other conservation measures being delivered. These conditions will form part of the draft EDP and be consulted on, which will ensure that developers are fully aware of any conditions that may be imposed if they choose to utilise an EDP.
I also re-emphasise that the Bill will allow Natural England to request that a condition be imposed only on a development coming under an EDP. The Bill simply will not allow Natural England to request planning conditions to be imposed on any development other than where that development wishes to rely on an EDP.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 166 and 167, also tabled by the Lord, Lord Roborough. These amendments were also considered in Committee, but I am very happy to further clarify our position. The amendments would amend Schedule 4, which sets out the effects that an EDP has on underlying environmental obligations, establishing that, where a developer has committed to pay the levy, the relevant obligation is suitably discharged.
“Environmental impact” is defined within the Bill as
“one or more ways in which
the negative effect
“is likely to be caused by the development”.
Therefore, the effect of Schedule 4 is already limited to those impacts. If a development has multiple environmental impacts but only one is covered by the EDP, those other impacts are not affected by Schedule 4 and must still be assessed through the existing system. That is to ensure that all impacts are considered and features sufficiently protected, while allowing a more strategic approach where it is appropriate. I trust that this provides noble Lords with sufficient reassurance, and that they will not press their amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
If “environmental impact” in Clause 55 embraces all the ways in which a development might impact negatively on an environmental feature, why does the clause go on to say:
“But an EDP need not identify all of the possible environmental impacts on an environmental feature”?
By definition, that means that there may be environmental impacts that are not identified in the EDP but which, under Schedule 4, may come to be disregarded for habitats purposes.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry, I thought that I had clarified that matter. If only one impact is covered by an EDP, the others are not affected by Schedule 4 and have to be assessed through the existing system. That is to ensure that all impacts are considered and that features are sufficiently protected while allowing the EDP to cover a more strategic approach.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I apologise; I shall not intervene again. Schedule 4 says that the environmental impacts can be disregarded, but the Minister is telling us that the environmental impacts identified in the EDP can be disregarded. We agree, and that is what my noble friend is seeking to introduce into the Bill.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall not press this amendment to a vote—we have a lot of business to do—but I am not convinced that the noble Baroness and, inter alia, Natural England as the advisers, have really understood the importance of getting this contractualised, of the enforceability and of considering what might happen not just this year or next but in 80 years and in the intervening period, given the changes of ownership, succession, bankruptcy, sale—who knows? Section 106 may not be perfect, and I accept the noble Baroness’s point about the unilateral undertaking —we are on Report and not at Third Reading. However, I think we should come back to this at Third Reading rather than just leaving it to Natural England.
I have been involved in this space for three and a half years as a person with significant interest in Norfolk Environmental Credits Ltd, the company established by all the planning authorities in Norfolk. We have had to dig deep, take the best advice and try to game all the scenarios to ensure that, ultimately, the promises made by those delivering these conservation measures can and will be delivered for the entirety of the period. The Bill is deficient because it does not seek and frame that enforceability.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
The noble Lord said at the beginning that he would not be pressing the amendment to a vote, so that should be sufficient, without needing to rehearse the debate yet again.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and shall wind up. The noble Baroness and I have a meeting next week, when I hope that we can develop this point further to see whether the Government may somehow address these concerns at Third Reading. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“England” includes—(a) the waters adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea, and(b) the English offshore region;“English offshore region” has the same meaning as in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (see section 322(1) of that Act);”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 92, line 9.
Lord Roborough
“(12) Where an environmental delivery plan identifies environmental features that are likely to be negatively affected by any invasive non-native species that is present at the site of the development, Natural England, or a body acting on behalf of Natural England, must take all reasonable steps to eradicate the invasive non-native species that has been identified at the site.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to protect all environmental features identified as at risk by invasive non-native species.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I raised amendments around the control of non-native invasive species in Committee. While the Government were encouragingly resolute in their policy of controlling invasive non-native species, I did not receive any reassurance that this might form any part of an environmental delivery plan. I reluctantly accept that requiring Natural England to remove these from any EDP within five years is a herculean task and likely impractical. Therefore, I have brought back a more targeted and realistic amendment on Report which I believe to be a perfectly reasonable request of an EDP—simply that where environmental features are likely to be negatively impacted by a non-native invasive species present at the site of a development, Natural England should be responsible for taking all reasonable steps to eradicate it.
I am sure that my amendment could be better drafted, and I am happy to hear from the Government whether they have a better suggestion. However, we on these Benches believe that not enough is being done to combat the spread of these invaders at the expense of our own flora and fauna.
In Committee, we discussed the rampaging grey squirrels and muntjac and the scourges of Japanese knotweed, Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed. There are so many more that I could mention. These flora and fauna displace our own native species and can also pass on diseases such as squirrel pox, which has had such a devastating impact on our own red squirrels. Would the Minister be prepared to go further, perhaps in guidance around the formation of EDPs, to ensure that those threats are dealt with?
I very much look forward to the introduction of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith’s amendment on swift bricks for a noble native species that deserves our help. I look forward to the debate and to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his guidance on this amendment in recent weeks. I shall speak in support of Amendment 245 and be brief, because I do not have to dwell on arguments that have been made repeatedly in both Houses and which are fundamentally very simple, as is the mechanism itself that is being pushed via this amendment.
I shall briefly recap on why this matters so much. As everyone knows, we are in the midst of a rapid and terrifying decline in the populations of all cavity-nesting birds, in particular the iconic swift. We know, because it is obvious, that a big part of why that is happening is that we are actively removing their homes. The way we build today means that things do not work in the same way: we do not have cavities, and there is no room for species that depend on the nooks and crannies that older buildings have. Even worse for those species, we are seeing the massive rollout of measures making life even more difficult—hopeless, in fact—for those cavity-nesting birds. I do not argue with the measures; I am a supporter of the Great British Insulation Scheme, which is a great thing. But with millions of older homes —around 50 million so far, I believe—being retrofitted and insulated, and cavities being sealed off, it is no wonder that four of our eight cavity-nesting bird species are now on the dreaded red list of critically endangered species.
Luckily, unlike with most of the problems we end up debating in this place, there is a very simple solution. The average two-bedroom brick house, according to Chat GPT—I have just asked it—uses around 20,000 red bricks. This amendment would simply require that one of those bricks has a hole in it. That single brick would cost around £20, would require zero expertise to install and no maintenance at all—and it works. Wherever these bricks have been installed, they attract swifts or similar birds. It is Gibraltar mandated, where legislation was passed 15 or 20 years ago that is very similar to the amendment we are proposing, and the swift population there, having been in steep decline, is now stable.
In previous debates that we have had on this issue, it was suggested that it should be a voluntary measure, but the numbers are obvious. Voluntary measures are great, and normally I would support them, but they have not worked in this case—and I do not think the numbers can be disputed. This needs to be included in building regulations. The good news is that swift bricks already qualify for inclusion, thanks to the swift brick British Standard, which includes all the possible and obvious exemptions.
Finally, I do not believe that any developer could or would make, or has ever made, the case that a measure like this would in any way hamper their work or deform the pricing of the houses they have on offer, as the numbers are just so small. The truth is that this does not even qualify as a nuisance for builders or developers. That is what all of us interested in this issue have been hearing from the developers themselves. For the swifts and their cousins this is critical and non-negotiable; without these bricks, they have no future in the United Kingdom.
I hope the Government will simply accept this measure. I remind them again that, in opposition, they were 100% supportive. They were wildly enthusiastic about my previous amendment—very vocally so—and in the opening months, at least, of this Government that enthusiasm absolutely remained in place. I felt that we were over the line; sadly not. But if even this tiny, nature-friendly measure is deemed nevertheless to be a step too far, then I really hope that noble Lords will join me in pushing it over the line via a Division when the time comes.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, this is Report, so I will indeed be brief. Yes, the case is well made for cavity-nesting bird bricks, and I shall just speak briefly to Amendment 138. Those who heard me in Committee will remember that I gave a bit of a treatise on ragwort. I have had endless Members come up to me and thank me for the learning they acquired; I have had only one offer to come and help me pull it out, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for that, in his absence.
It is not the non-native aspect that gives me a hard time. As I pointed out, roses and apples are non-natives; both come from central Asia. It is the invasive nature that is the problem, and I would love to see these EDPs and all the other acronyms have an element of responsibility for dealing with invasive and injurious weeds—injurious is the word in law—because under a lot of the current environmental schemes, you have a margin along a field which is entirely yellow with ragwort and is of very little environmental value, unless you happen to be a cinnabar moth.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to speak against Amendment 245. In so doing, I emphasise that I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and his superb work as Environment Minister in your Lordships’ House, as well as respect for the other signatories to this amendment. My opposition may be surprising if your Lordships recognise that I am an emeritus professor at the Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology at Oxford University —which is arguably the world’s leading ornithological research institute—as well as being a life member of the RSPB. So why am I against swift boxes? I am absolutely in favour of measures to halt the decline in swifts and in other species I will come to in a moment; my objection to this amendment is that it simply will not work.
The amendment refers to fitting swift bricks on houses or buildings over five metres tall. Let me describe the basis on which I suggest that this will not work. The Edward Grey Institute is home to the longest-running study of swift populations anywhere in the world: it has been running for 78 years. The first thing to say about this long-running study is that the swifts nest in the tower of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, which is not five metres tall but 58 metres tall. I will explain why that is important in a moment. I do not want noble Lords to think that this is my opinion alone. I consulted my colleague, Professor Christopher Perrins, who ran the swift study for many years and is a former director of the Edward Grey Institute. What he points out, and I agree, is that swifts are very specialised aerial feeders and flyers. They are superb flyers, and one consequence of their specialisation for flight is that in order to get into their nest, they need a very long, exposed flight path: like a jumbo jet landing at an airport, they need a long entry point. Equally important, when they leave the nest, they need a very large drop space in order to come out of the nest, drop and start flapping their wings to take off. That is why, when nesting in the tower of the university museum at Oxford, which is 58 metres tall, the swifts prefer to nest at the very top. Even boxes that are 15 or 20 metres from the top are not used by the swifts; only the ones at the very top.
This is a very well-intentioned idea, and I am all in favour of measures that will help reverse the decline in swift populations, but I do not think this is the right one. So what is the cause of the decline in swift populations in this country? We have to look at the fact that it is not just swifts, but other bird species that are aerial insect feeders: house martins, sand martins and swallows are all in steep decline. They all have very different nesting requirements. The swift is the only one that nests in a hole, as the swift brick amendment would suggest, or under eaves.
The real cause of the decline of these bird species is the decline in aerial insect populations. We all know, and it is an oft-repeated fact, that in the good old days when even I was young, if you drove down a country lane at night, your windscreen would be spattered with insect corpses. Now you drive down a country lane at night and your windscreen is completely clear. Yes, we should tackle the problem of declining aerial insectivores —swifts, house martins, sand martins and swallows—and declining insects, but swift boxes are really a bit player in this whole question. Although I support the intention of the amendment, I do not think it would deliver what is claimed and therefore, reluctantly, I do not support it.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I am a great admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I listened to what he said. I remember reading a book probably by one of his predecessors at Oxford, Swifts in a Tower by David Lack, which was a very interesting and useful piece of work. I understand exactly what the noble Lord is saying. There is not a simple answer; there is the matter of insects—it is not just the hirundines and swifts that we are talking about.
Swift bricks are well-intentioned things and, of course, would not be just for swifts. There are some other cavity nesting birds including house sparrows, which may not seem as exciting to people as swifts. They are in decline; I do not see many at all around in Uxbridge now.
As my noble friend Lord Goldsmith said, the Government seem to have done a reverse ferret or had a damascene conversion in reverse, but I am still hoping there may be another one. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has raised the point that we should be looking at all sorts of measures, and there may be an opportunity for the Government to look at higher buildings—perhaps not residential ones, but when new schools or hospitals are being built they could put in swift bricks; they can even be put under the tiles, I believe. I hope that by the time this amendment comes to a Division, if it does, or at Third Reading, there may be some thoughts about how we make this better. I think the Government would genuinely like to do it, but there are various things getting in the way. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has given them a perfect excuse, so I will take him aside and sort him out.
My noble friend Lord Goldsmith and many other noble friends and noble Lords have expressed their desire for something to be done, and this seems like a good way forward. It is something for us to digest.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I do not think anybody in this House does not want to achieve the objectives of this amendment and, indeed, others. We have to be realistic that our populations of native birds, and other flora and fauna, have been dropping for a long time. We, collectively, are partly responsible for this, because our involvement in land use and urbanisation naturally clashes with the requirements of birds such as swifts.
Without attempting to challenge in any way whatever the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, with his experience and background, nevertheless I feel that even if the swift population is not necessarily going to be dramatically affected or have its chances improved by this measure, other birds might find that they would be beneficiaries. I cannot see a downside to the proposal and, on balance, it is worth pursuing the amendment because if it does not affect swifts in some particular areas—their behaviour may obviously vary from one place to another —other birds would benefit.
It is surprising how many people are interested in this. In my own region, the Antrim area, a significant number of people are part of a swift group trying to help the native species recover. We should encourage that. I see no downside to the measure and I support it, albeit we have to accept the fact that no silver bullet will effect any one of these things; there is a combination of things. Their food source, insects, being fewer and farther between is always the biggest challenge for any native animal. But there is enough in this proposal to make it worth while, and I support it. I hope the House will do so.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park. It is a difficult thing to do in the wake of the very learned speech by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, but there are sometimes occasions when things do not work in theory but work in practice. In Gibraltar, where a similar measure has been introduced, the population of swifts has stabilised, as I understand it. In the Duchy of Cornwall estate, where this requirement is made of builders, the occupancy rate of the cavities created by the swift bricks is 97%, not in every case by swifts but by other cavity nesting birds.
While I perfectly accept that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, may be right—possibly there is something in the atmosphere in Oxford, I do not know—at the cost of the measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, it is worth an experiment and going ahead and making this requirement. I do not think it will happen, despite the good will of the builders, unless it is passed into law.
I am always against new and excessive regulation, but there are good and bad regulations. Good regulations impose a very small burden on economic actors and have a direct outcome that is intimately and obviously related to the regulatory measure. Of course, bad regulations tend to impose very high burdens and produce all sorts of unintended consequences. Granted, this measure may not produce the intended consequence to the full degree hoped for, but it is very hard to see what poor unintended consequences it could have, and the cost of introducing it would be very small.
Think, for those houses where it works, of the sheer joy of the children of those households in being able to look out of the window and see swifts not only nesting but flying to and fro, maybe even catching those insects in full sight of their bedrooms. It is a very pleasing thought. We should all support this, rally round and make the leap of faith that may be required but is fully justified in this case.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I did say not to trust any more amendments from this side, but this is one I will vote for if the noble Lord puts it to the House. It is worth repeating that there is no downside. Secondly, there are eight species that use these swift bricks, four of which are red-listed. So this is a much bigger issue than swifts—sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. It is for our native birds, and we should keep that in mind when we vote.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 138 tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough. Non-native invasive species are one of the top five pressures on biodiversity. It is extraordinary that despite there being a variety of government strategies under way, there is still, frankly, a lack of stuff really getting done. It is vital that as and when—or if—these EDPs get created, this must be tackled.
I recommend that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, speak to the Senior Deputy Speaker. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, when he was a Defra Minister, was obsessed by biosecurity and tackling these invasive species. He used to pull up not the Japanese one but the balsam stuff—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
So apparently he is a dab hand at that.
I co-signed one of the amendments, tabled by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith. I will certainly push for us to test the opinion of the House on that amendment on Monday night. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, but there is a risk of letting perfect be the enemy of good. There is no doubt that the lack of insects is a key factor in what is happening with habitats, but so is the lack of a place where the swifts can land and thrive. As has been pointed out, other species are also affected.
When I was at Defra, there was always a row with MHCLG about this. MHCLG regularly complained—obfuscated, frankly—about how an extra £20 to £30 would absolutely wipe out the housebuilding industry. Honestly, that is complete nonsense. Steve Reed supported swift bricks when he was the Environment Secretary; now that he is the Housing Secretary, I hope he can persuade the Treasury that it is okay to have swift bricks as standard, and I am sure that there are many other measures that people would like. This is simple and straightforward; let us save our swifts.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for tabling Amendment 138. I will be extremely brief and I will explain why in a second. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. We all need to be extremely mindful of invasive non-native species and the pressures they put on our beautiful, natural countryside.
Moving on swiftly—no joke intended—we support Amendment 245, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Amendments on swift bricks are a bit like buses: you wait ages and then two come along. We have another amendment in the next group. I am almost excited now in anticipation of the critique of Amendment 140 from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
We will develop our arguments on swift bricks, plus other measures, in the next set of amendments. As a slight precursor to that, I will say that we believe that the right way of doing things is to have a level playing field with developers and ensuring that everyone is asked to put in swift bricks. They cost 30 quid per brick, as I understand it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has already said, this is not going to break the bank of any developers, especially with their net profits. We will support this amendment if it moves to a vote, but we are also very keen to get to the next group. I apologise to the House that we did not manage to get these two sets of amendments in the same group, which would have been much more sensible.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for Amendment 138, which seeks to protect the environmental features of environmental delivery plans that are identified as being at risk from invasive non-native species. As he said, we have had some very interesting discussions in meetings outside the Chamber about the various non-native species that plague our lives.
As we outlined in Committee, the Government recognise the negative impacts of invasive non-native species on our native species and ecosystems, and we are committed to taking action. We are already delivering the GB invasive non-native species strategy and have established the GB Non-native Species Inspectorate, as well as recently consulting on five pathway action plans that would target action at key pathways through which invasive non-native species can be introduced and spread.
While I appreciate the noble Lord’s intentions in tabling this amendment, we do not believe that it is necessary or feasible. The NRF already allows invasive non-native species control as a conservation measure, where it would be relevant to the environmental feature concerned and would support the delivery of the overall improvement necessary under the EDP. However, control may not always be the best option: other conservation measures may represent better value for money, have greater environmental impact and be more appropriate, in line with the need to secure the overall improvement by the EDP end date.
The amendment would introduce a free-standing requirement to take action to eradicate invasive non-native species from a development site, even where this is not linked to the impact from development covered by the EDP. This would require developers to pay to address an issue unrelated to their development. Mandating action in this way could delay an EDP’s preparation and delivery, increase costs and inadvertently limit the ability to secure the best environmental outcomes. On that basis, it is more appropriate that control remains a potential conservation measure under EDPs, to be used at Natural England’s discretion where it represents the best option. With this explanation, I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
On Amendment 245, the Government are committed to driving nature’s recovery while delivering the homes and infrastructure we desperately need. We recognise the dramatic decline of the much-loved swift and of other nesting birds, and I have had many discussions on this subject with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. We are committed to supporting the rollout of swift bricks alongside new development. The only distinction between our position and the amendment before us is in the mechanism by which we seek to increase the use of this wildlife-friendly feature.
Incidentally, I had a meeting this week with Adam Jogee MP, who has a huge brick manufacturing plant in his constituency. I asked him whether he would speak to the people in that company to persuade them to produce swift bricks as well—so I am still on the case.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for his contribution on this topic and for setting out why he considers that swift bricks are an exceptional measure. We know that mandating swift bricks through building regulations is an issue of long-standing interest. I have debated it many times in this House. As we have laid out before, building regulations in the UK are designed to safeguard the health, safety and well-being of individuals in and around buildings. They were not designed to apply to the protection of wildlife, and expanding their scope to include interventions such as swift bricks would mark a significant shift in regulatory intent. This risks a number of unintended consequences, including diluting the purpose of the current regime, establishing overlapping policies and adding administrative pressure to a system that is already undergoing significant reform.
Furthermore, the process of updating building regulations is highly technical and complex. Introducing requirements that fall outside the current remit could slow down essential updates, divert resources, place additional burdens on registered building control approvers, complicate existing inspection, sanction and enforcement procedures, and fundamentally undermine the credibility of the system. We strongly believe that planning policy is the best way forward. The Government remain committed to consulting on a new requirement for swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings as part of our consultation on national planning policy, which we intend to launch this year.
I am very grateful for the fascinating intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, because he helped emphasise that there are wider issues to be considered here. I hope that, by consulting on this national planning policy, we will be able to get the best outcome for nature as part of the planning policy that we set out.
In June, we published updated planning practice guidance, which set out expectations for the use of these features and signposted to further resources, including the relevant British industry standard. These measures are further to the new policy we introduced last December, which explicitly stated that development proposals should enhance the natural environment
“by incorporating features which support priority or threatened species such as swifts”.
We expect these policies to be adhered to and enforced, with the rest of planning policy that we have addressed previously, as a material consideration in planning decisions. Local planning authorities possess a range of powers to ensure that the terms of planning permissions are complied with, and they are able to take enforcement action where the requirements of a planning permission are being breached.
To bolster planning departments, last autumn, we announced a £46 million package, which included funding for the recruitment and training of 300 planners. Through the Bill, we are enabling authorities to increase planning fees and strengthen service delivery. We have put some resources in to help with the enforcement as well.
As we have set out previously, progress is already under way. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has noted that we have not stood still since our earlier discussions on this topic.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I have a very brief question for the Minister. Am I not right in thinking that the building regulations have been used as a vehicle in relation to the Climate Change Act as well as in relation to the Environment Act, and therefore they go beyond the remit of simply safeguarding the well-being and health of individual occupants?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Those are complex, technical regulations around the construction of buildings which do not relate to the protection of species. As the noble Lord is aware, there are many species lobbying groups which might want to use building regulations for that purpose. The other thing is that building regulations cover a huge variety of different buildings—probably including the 58-foot tower that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to. If you imagine the number of species compared with the number of different sizes and shapes of buildings, we would end up with a very complex picture with building regulations if we were to go down this route.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response to this small group of amendments. Starting just briefly with the invasive non-native species, I think it was very encouraging to hear the Government’s commitment to controlling them and to hear the role that EDPs will take in managing them.
I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Goldsmith for introducing his amendment, and I pay tribute to all the work he has done for the environment and nature restoration, not least as my previous neighbour in Devon with the remarkable planting schemes he did there. As regards his amendment, given that we are returning to this subject in the next group, we can address that then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Grender
“Environmental infrastructure in new developments(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 (power to make building regulations) for the purpose of protecting and enhancing biodiversity.(2) Regulations made under this section must—(a) take account of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out in sections 1(2), 1(3)(c), 11 and 14 of the Environment Act 2021;(b) include measures to enable the provision in new developments of—(i) bird boxes;(ii) bat boxes;(iii) swift bricks;(iv) hedgehog highways;(v) biodiverse roofs and walls.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity in new developments.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, here we are again. The urgency of the nature crisis demands that we stop relying on—in our view—voluntary commitments and shift to mandatory ones or regulation. I am sorry that we are going back to a subject that we have already rehearsed quite a bit, but it is still important. My amendment also expands which kind of species we try to include within building regulations.
I thank the Minister for a meeting we had only yesterday where we tried to work through some of these issues. I have definitely heard, both yesterday and today, the concern she has about embedding some of these issues within building regulations, but I would still argue that making sure there is a level playing field and that developers have clarity of ask is still worth trying for, so I would like to explore it again.
Amendment 140—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for signing it—would require the Secretary of State to introduce building regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity within six months of the Act passing. These regulations should include specific measures such as swift bricks, bat boxes and hedgehog highways. The question asked is why building regulations are the appropriate mechanisms for features such as this, and the answer is clarity, consistency and enforceability. Relying on the fluidity of planning policy or non-statutory commitments leads to systemic failure in delivery. Surveys show that ecological features promised in planning approval, such as bat and bird boxes and hedgehog highways, are often—surprise, surprise—missing post-construction. Mandating their inclusion via building regulations would ensure that every new home contributes to halting the decline in species abundance, aligning with our legal duties under the Environment Act 2021.
Building regulations already incorporate mechanisms for exemptions, including where installation is impractical —this may be something that we could explore—such as near airports, where flexibility is retained. We must ensure that these proven, low-cost features are delivered universally, moving past discretion and local planning controls. It is notable that, for instance, some local authorities mandate this already, including some Labour ones. I am very happy to supply to the Minister the list of the Labour authorities that already do it. It would be great to make this a level playing field across all local authorities. That is what we are trying to achieve here.
I welcome with interest the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Any measure that encourages the creation of water bodies obviously needs to be subject to rigorous standards to ensure environmental gain. I look forward to hearing her words and the response to the amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, for putting her name to my amendment. I have in turn put my name to her Amendment 246. It aims to compel the Secretary of State to amend the National Planning Policy Framework to incorporate measures that reduce bird fatalities resulting from collisions with buildings, alongside issuing relevant guidance. We support this necessary move to strengthen design quality. This amendment addresses an avoidable cause of fatalities and would make a very useful contribution to combating the ongoing decline in bird species, which, as we have already heard on the last group, is so significant at the moment. It is very much aligned with the approach that we on these Benches would like to take of pursuing meaningful, preventive ecological outcomes, rather than allowing damage and scrambling for compensation afterwards, which we fear is a bit of a feature of some of the measures in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 203A, which is about permitted development for ponds. I listened in Committee to concerns that the original proposal I put in, for ponds the size of a hectare, could introduce other uses for something with such a permitted development right. That is why I have returned with a surface area of less than 0.25 hectares.
Your Lordships will know that the only way that Peers can adjust regulations is by putting primary legislation in place. But I encourage the Government to go through the statute book, think about the plan to achieve the Environment Act and how we are going to tackle the national biodiversity strategy plan, and make it as easy as possible for there to be thousands of new ponds around the country. That will help newts, amphibians, mammals, insects and plants—it is not always just about the fauna; the flora matter too. As a consequence, I am keen to hear positive noises from the Government before considering whether to test the opinion of the House next week.
On Amendment 140, there is a lot to be commended in what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said. This is about trying to make it as easy as possible for people, organisations and councils or whoever to do the right thing, because it is critical for the future of our planet.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, we should make our homes and houses and gardens as supportive to the lives of other species as is feasible, especially where the solutions are so low-cost. I was very happy to add my name to Amendment 140, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.
I refrained from wading into the swift box debate previously, but I consider this amendment to be swift box-plus, and I support it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Krebs about the behaviour of swifts—I have had the joy of filming them in the tower in Oxford. I also know that these boxes are heavily used by other species. Therefore, I support the use of swift bricks, nest boxes and anything that costs virtually nothing.
I recognise that the Government are not keen to change building regulations. I note that adding spaces is free and does not have to be under the name of nature. Perhaps we could change building regulations to add some spaces without specifically saying that it is for nature —for instance, leaving gaps under fences for hedgehog highways. We do not have to commercialise this; we can just say that leaving a gap is a good thing to do.
My Amendment 246, on bird-safe design, is supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and by the Animal Sentience Committee, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB. I have spoken about this in Committee, but I remind noble Lords that an estimated 30 million birds a year are killed by glass windows in the UK, and free or cheap solutions exist which can reduce these collisions by over 90%. Bird-safe design is already legislated for in many other jurisdictions, all based on good research done at major centres in the US and Europe.
I have spoken about bird-safe glass and how its patterned or UV coating can make it visible to birds. I want to make the additional point that these coatings, blinds or louvres, which we see often in glass office blocks, also help with thermal protection, so bird safety can easily be combined with net-zero building requirements, at no extra cost. That is just a little thought: the regulations that deal with one could also deal with the other.
I emphasise that most bird-safe design is free and does not get in the way of house or office building. For example, if a bird hits the office glass and falls into those little ventilation shafts or drainage grilles that you get at the bottom of big glass offices, they fall through the grille if it is too large and then come round in a space that they cannot get out of and can starve to death. Simply mandating that the grille size is smaller than 2 centimetres can stop birds getting stuck in them in the first place. These are the tiny things that can help. They are already specified in guidance in Canada, the US, Singapore and Switzerland. We have no such guidance here.
In Committee and in a helpful meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, the Government said that they were sympathetic to the principles but did not want to change building standards to encompass nature as well as humans. I have changed my amendment to specify an addition to the NPPF instead, as part of its updating. The NPPF already includes things such as swift bricks but does not address bird safety at all. This is a big surprise to people from other countries, where bird-safe building design is much higher profile. We have a duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 not to recklessly kill birds. Given that a simple and cheap change to building design could so dramatically reduce the number of birds being killed by our buildings, adding it to the NPPF and issuing a guidance booklet, as is done in so many other countries, is really necessary.
I very much hope to hear something positive from the Minister tonight. If the Government agree with the principles but have a different way that they would want to implement them then I am all ears, but this is the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I think that whatever their plans are should be in it. I reserve the right to ask the opinion of House next week if I am not satisfied with her answer.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I fully support Amendments 140 and 246.
I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, about having a level playing field. I remember organising a round table in No. 10 a few years ago with developers and builders who all said that they would love to do various environmental things but, “We’re not going to do it if somebody else doesn’t”. In that case, it was because it was a bit more expensive. It was very often to do with boilers and so on. The measures that we are talking about here are very low-cost. I can understand Governments being loath to implement this, but when everybody has to do it, everybody will be happy. There are extra things that could be put on, I am sure, and that is going to be a danger, but we must look at this very seriously.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and indeed everyone who has spoken in this group.
I will be very brief, starting with Amendment 246, to which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said, I have attached my name. I heard some expressions of shock around me when the noble Baroness said that there were 30 million bird strikes a year. That is 30 million deaths. This is from the British Trust for Ornithology. The estimate is 100 million bird strikes—the 30 million is the immediate deaths. Some of the strikes are where the birds suffer the fate the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, set out, where they get trapped and who knows what happens to them in the longer term. Flying at full speed into a window is not good for you, even if it does not kill you.
Around the world the figures on this are in the billions. We are as a species “care-less”—and yes, Hansard, I am putting a hyphen in there. We are not taking care. Yet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said, lots of countries are at least doing much better than us. We often hear Britain talked about as a nation of animal lovers and bird lovers. We have the twitchers out there chasing some rare species that has turned up. Surely we can take this modest measure of Amendment 246. The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, has listened to what the Government have said and adapted it accordingly. This is what we are supposed to do.
My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecomb has attached her name to Amendment 140. I had a much stronger amendment in Committee which I did not bring back because I was leaving all the small, modest ones that the Government could agree to for Report. I suggested that we should be building the entire fabric of buildings to care for nature. I spoke about a museum exhibit that is working in that direction. I have no doubt that we will have to get to that, but how bad will the state of nature be before we get to that point, and how hard will the recovery be?
I very much support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, but pick up on what she said about new ponds. We are seeing in some parts of the country, in a limited way, the restoration of “ghost ponds”, which can be up to 1,000 years old. If you carefully excavate them, knowing what you are doing and having done the lidar survey, you can get seeds that are 1,000 years old germinating in the original pond conditions when it has been restored. In East Anglia, there are 22 ponds where this has been done, and 136 species, all thought to be from historic seeds, have come up in those ponds. Making this a way in which we can let these ponds free is a win-win.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this group. On this side, we share the passion that has been expressed across the House for a biodiverse and environmentally rich country. The proposals brought forward here are all rightly focused on boosting habitats for species and promoting nature. We agree wholeheartedly with that objective, which is shared among noble Lords on all Benches. The Government will resist these amendments at this stage, but we hope that these constructive proposals will be considered carefully by Ministers and their officials ahead of the planned nature Bill, which we are told to expect later in the Parliament.
I will make a few short personal comments which are relevant to the Bill. In our little, deliberately overgrown garden up north, we have five hedgehogs—because we have five hedgehog houses. I spend a fortune on five-litre drums of mealworms. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, if he was in his place, “Provide the habitat and the food and you will get nature back”.
As far as bird strikes are concerned, on Amendment 246, some of the proposals there might seem expensive. However, I found that spending £5 on some stickers to put on the window glass stopped overnight 100% of bird strikes where birds were flying into the glass because of the reflection from the trees in the garden.
My final observation is that I despair every week, going back up north and finding yet another little garden being dug up and paved over. That removes the chance for the hedgehogs to get their slugs from the flowerbed and there is no grass for the blackbirds to dig up the worms from. These are personal observations, but they are relevant to the important amendments before us today.
I mentioned the nature Bill. Can the Minister give a timetable for the Government’s plans to introduce a nature Bill? When can we expect it to be introduced? Will there be an opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny on the planned Bill? I hope that the Minister can give us a little clarity on that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we recognise that many of our most precious species are in decline, and we are clear that we need to restore the health of our ecosystems.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her amendment, which seeks to enhance biodiversity in new development. However, as I set out previously, this is not about what we are doing but about the mechanism for doing it. That is where we have an issue. We do not believe that the use of building regulations is the best way of achieving our shared ambition, given that they are used primarily for human health and safety. As I have explained, expanding their scope to deliver unrelated environmental objectives risks weakening their clarity and efficacy and introducing delay and further complexity.
The planning system already sets out to support biodiversity and achieve nature recovery alongside the delivery of homes and infrastructure. Since 2024, subject to certain exceptions, biodiversity net gain has been mandatory for new planning permissions to achieve at least 10% net gain in biodiversity value. This is a significant step towards achieving our biodiversity targets set through the Environment Act. As we have set out previously, planning policy is clear that opportunities to improve biodiversity in development should be integrated as part of the design, including wildlife-friendly features. We will be consulting on a new requirement for integral nest boxes which can support a range of cavity-nesting birds, including swifts, starlings and house sparrows. Additionally, planning guidance such as the National Model Design Code and Natural England’s green infrastructure framework supports decision-makers to select design elements which suit individual proposals, including green roofs and walls, hedgehog highways—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman—bird bricks and bird and bat boxes. These can be used by local councils as a toolkit to set local design expectations. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, can withdraw her amendment.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling Amendment 203A. However, as mentioned in the previous debate on a similar amendment, the Government cannot support the introduction of a new permitted development right for ponds as an amendment to this Bill. We continue to recognise that ponds can deliver important biodiversity benefits, and we do want to encourage them in the right location. We also note the benefits of ponds for farmers in providing valuable sources of irrigation during dry periods. However, it remains the case that changes to permitted development rights are brought forward through secondary legislation as amendments to the general permitted development order. Such changes generally follow public consultation to ensure that the views of the public, including those who would benefit from the rights created, are taken into account. Consultation also allows for consideration of any potential impacts of the proposal and consideration of how these might be mitigated.
There are also existing permitted development rights which do enable the creation of ponds where appropriate. For example, under an agricultural permitted development right, farmers can create ponds and on-farm reservoirs, subject to certain limitations and conditions to manage and control their impacts. Home owners can also create new ponds in their gardens under householder permitted development rights, again subject to certain limitations and conditions. This amendment seeks to provide a national grant of planning permission for ponds across the whole of England, regardless of whether one would be appropriate in a particular location, such as on land used for public recreation or in an area where it could increase flood risks. To ensure that ponds are appropriately located, there are circumstances where a planning application is appropriate. We therefore cannot support the amendment. However, as always, we continue to keep permitted development rights under review. For these reasons, I would kindly ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Turning to Amendment 246, I recognise the desire to reduce bird fatalities that result from collisions with buildings, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, for meeting with me ahead of this debate to discuss her interest in ensuring that new buildings are designed to reduce bird fatalities. Amendment 246 seeks to ensure that buildings incorporate features to reduce bird fatalities, particularly through design and the use of bird-safe glass, by embedding bird safety within the National Planning Policy Framework. The NPPF is already clear that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment, and that opportunities to improve biodiversity in and around development should be integrated as part of the design.
When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the principle that, if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from the development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, as a last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused. Supporting guidance such as the National Model Design Code and Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Framework demonstrate how well-designed places can foster rich and varied biodiversity by facilitating habitats and movement corridors for wildlife. Local design codes allow local authorities to set their own rules for high-quality places. I am very happy to consider what more can be done to promote the kinds of features that can help species safety that the noble Baroness has outlined. However, amending the NPPF to state that all new and refurbished developments should incorporate measures to prevent bird fatalities, such as bird-safe glass, would extend the reach of planning considerably beyond the extent of current controls and would likely increase construction costs and design complexity, ultimately constraining the delivery of the housing and infrastructure we so desperately need.
In addition, while some types of development, such as large-scale commercial schemes, may warrant targeted intervention, a blanket requirement would not adequately reflect the risks to species across diverse building types and locations. Bird fatalities due to collisions with buildings are a genuine concern, but a measure such as this has the potential to drive up costs and building delays without delivering proportionate benefits for nature. In light of these considerations, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, will agree not to press her amendment.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who asked me a specific question about the nature Bill, he will know that that is the province of Defra, so I do not have an answer for him immediately. If it is future legislation that is not already planned for this Session, I doubt whether we will be able to answer his question as specifically as he wants, but I will endeavour to seek advice from Defra about when and if they intend to bring a Bill forward.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to this amendment. She says the policy is clear, and that may be the case, but the compulsion is not. Those developers who can get away with not doing this, as we all know, will attempt to do that. The swift brick will be back—I believe as early as Monday—but in the meantime, we will keep on working on this. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Roborough
“(4) 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.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents Natural England from including Compulsory Purchase Order costs within their budgeting for an EDP.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 141, but will speak only to my Amendment 170A, which is the important amendment of mine in this group. It seeks to ensure that developers are able to use the existing mitigation hierarchy in dealing with the impacts of their developments to the level that is practical, and only deal with the residual liability under the mitigation hierarchy through contributions to the nature restoration fund. This is important for developers and for protecting the nascent biodiversity net-gain market. It gives flexibility and continues to ensure that the private sector plays a role. We will return to that issue in future groups.
The Minister was reassuring at Second Reading, in Committee and in private meetings that this was the intention of the Bill. I wonder whether she can provide that reassurance today and indicate how this might work in practice. I look forward to my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Lansley introducing their own amendments—both of which are excellent—and I hope the Minister will listen carefully to both. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 69 in my name. We discussed the viability assessment processes in Committee, and Amendment 69 is essentially about encouraging early consultation with the development community. I should at this point, since it is relevant, say that I have a registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire development forums, but I emphasise again that the comments I make on the Bill are entirely my own views, rather than any developer’s.
Amendment 69 is really about the sequencing. In making an environmental delivery plan, there is a process of establishing not only the impacts to be mitigated, but the charging schedule. It is really important that, at that stage in making an EDP, the development community is included. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to ensure that it takes up the levy, which we will want it to do wherever possible, or indeed that the charging schedules are correctly structured in order to encourage that to happen, and to deliver effectively the objectives of the EDP.
As far as I can see, there are regulations in Clause 67; there is guidance in Clause 75, and the regulations in Clause 67 must be adhered to in the setting of a charging schedule under Clause 53. However, Clause 58 sets out a long list of those who should be consulted on a draft environmental development plan. It consists of a minimum of eight different kinds of public authorities, and then refers to many other public authorities. However, the only consultation that is required on a draft EDP is with public authorities. This is not good enough. The development community is going to undertake the development. The development community is going to pay the levy. The development community should be included in the consultation on a draft EDP.
Since our objective is that it is mostly a voluntary choice whether to go down the route of levy payments and an EDP, I am afraid that we run the risk of invalidating many of the objectives we are trying to achieve through the establishment of an EDP. I certainly do not plan to press Amendment 69, but I hope the Minister can reassure me on the use of the consultation on a draft EDP, and on the charging schedules in particular, by way of consultation with the development community.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 171A to Clause 69 seeks to create an additional methodology open to Natural England when deciding how best to determine charging schedules for contributions to the nature restoration fund—the NRF. Clause 69(5) sets out the methodologies that Natural England can use to determine what a developer would have to pay under a charging schedule towards the nature restoration fund. It has clearly been written by a planner, not by anyone interested in the environment. It provides that charges should be made with reference to the number of units constructed or the floor-space of the development, with reference to the expected values of the development, the planned uses of the building and even the rate of inflation, yet nowhere does it provide for a methodology to be based on the amount of damage being caused to the protected species covered by the EDP to which the charging schedule should actually relate. This makes no sense.
The purpose of Part 3 is essentially to create a mechanism whereby developers can pay financial compensation to the NRF in lieu of the damage their development might be causing to a protected feature or species, yet those features are not even afforded a mention in the long list of possible methods to calculate payments due. A charging schedule that has no correlation to the actual harm caused to a protected species is unlikely to be able to deliver an improved conservation status for that species. Nor is it fair on developers, since those who avoid protected species and cause no harm would still be obliged to make a payment under a charging schedule. My amendment creates the option—and it is no more than that; it adds to the numerous options already available—for the Government to address this weakness and align the payments due under a charging schedule with the protected species and features they are intended to restore. I look forward to the Government’s response.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. He is right that there is no way that Part 3 could have been crafted by anyone in Defra. It has absolutely been done by the local government department. That shows in almost every square inch of what we read.
I was asked to table Amendment 173A by the CLA. It is about ring-fencing the nature restoration levy. The risk at the moment is that the nature ring-fence applies only to the expenditure of levy income by Natural England. If funds are transferred away from Natural England or if the levy is collected and spent by another department or public body—both scenarios are actively permitted under this Bill—the ring-fence disappears. The overall design of Part 3 therefore allows levy cash to be collected by the Treasury and subsumed into wider government business as well as to be used to fund Natural England’s general functions. As compensation measures envisaged under EDPs are not legally required to be delivered, Part 3 creates a potentially substantial tax revenue stream for central government without any consultation or manifesto mandate if this ring-fence is not fixed.
I expect the Chancellor will not be reading my speech, but I can imagine that Treasury officials will be scrambling anywhere and everywhere to get money for a variety of purposes. It is as important for developers as it is for nature that this ring-fence is watertight and that nature compensation measures are funded and credible. If levy cash is instead appropriated for different purposes, the lack of funding for nature compensation would be a material consideration in planning that would allow the refusal of planning permissions. It is well known that hundreds of millions—billions—of pounds were collected under the apprenticeship levy and never applied to apprenticeships. We have to be mindful of the risks that could happen with this levy and whether nature will truly benefit.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I have spoken about the lifetime of the EDP and the enforceability of measures, but now we get to the price to be charged. I will amplify some of the points in Amendment 141. There are very large sums of money and long periods to be considered here. I do not really care whether MHCLG or Defra has drafted all this stuff as none of them really understands how to discount a cash flow. That is clear. If you are someone who has bought a house from the developer on the basis that the nutrient neutrality obligation has been washed away, hidden in the price of your new home is the market rate for mitigating a new dwelling-house, which in Norfolk is somewhere between £5,000 and £15,000. That is quite a sum.
In Committee, noble Lords, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, multiplied present prices paid by the number of mitigations in a scheme, got to multi-million pound sums and wondered what would happen to the profit. Well, if only. The profit really depends on the annualised cost of providing the measures, not in one year but over 80 years discounted back to the present value, and none of this understanding is in the Bill.
I know as part of Norfolk Environmental Credits, which I founded on behalf of the local councils, that notwithstanding that we have sold more than £10 million- worth of mitigations, the balance sheet value is zero because of the way that international accounting rules require us to discount the revenues against the costs over the whole period for 80 years. There is no corporation tax to be paid or profit to be booked, only risks and liabilities to be hedged, keeping our fingers crossed that inflation and interest are kept on top of until the last few years, possibly as far away as 75 years’ time, when we will all be dead and the money nearly exhausted unless, of course, the provider has not got his sums right, in which case he would have gone bust years previously. None of this is contemplated by the Bill.
We discussed this in Committee, but there is no more detail here on Report. I think it would be sensible for the Bill to contemplate some benchmark accounting standards to value the upfront cash contributions against the tail liabilities on a consistent basis. The reason is that if we do that and get a level playing field, we will get private operators innovating and competing on the same basis to drive costs down, while still maintaining the obligations. The Bill is silent on all this and, as a result, we will never get the leading private markets in nature mitigation going, which will be a missed economic opportunity for our nation.
What consideration have the Government given to providing a consistency of accounting approach, coupled with the enforceability I spoke of on the previous group? The Bill is long on aspiration but conspicuously silent on the legal, contractual, commercial ways of achieving these objectives. Without commercial contractability, we are never going to get delivery. It is bound to fail unless these things are belatedly considered at Third Reading, but it is very late in the day.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I will first address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which relate to the regulation-making powers governing the nature restoration levy. It is worth highlighting that the Bill provides the framework, but the detail of how the levy will operate will be brought forward through regulations laid under the affirmative procedure, giving both Houses of Parliament an opportunity to debate them.
Amendments 141 and 175 would preclude Natural England including the cost of purchasing land in the nature restoration levy and prevent Natural England spending levy income on land acquired by compulsory purchase. The nature restoration fund has been designed to work on a cost recovery basis. Given the potential for EDPs to address a wide range of different matters, there may be circumstances where the acquisition of land under CPO or by negotiation is required to deliver the most appropriate and cost-effective conservation measures. Ensuring that these costs are able to be covered by the levy will support Natural England to deliver against the overall improvement test for an EDP. While I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns around the use of compulsory purchase, allowing for these powers is crucial to ensure that there is certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, land can be acquired to deliver conservation measures and these costs are recoverable. Consultation on each EDP will provide the opportunity to scrutinise the measures to be covered by the levy and, as an additional safeguard, compulsory purchase powers can be used only with the approval of the Secretary of State. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.
Limiting the ability of Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure as proposed by Amendment 176 would constrain Natural England’s ability to plan for the most efficient conservation measures and prepare for unforeseen circumstances, including deploying any necessary back-up measures. This amendment would also undermine the ability of EDPs to cover the costs of ongoing maintenance and upkeep of conservation measures.
Amendment 177 seeks to ensure that regulations will include provisions about the return of any money that is no longer needed for delivering an EDP to the parties that appeared in that EDP. As mentioned in Committee, the scope of the regulation-making powers in Clause 71 is already sufficient to allow for the appropriate management of any unspent funds, as well as allowing for any necessary refund procedures.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, can I ask him in plain English to clarify a couple of questions? First, am I right to understand that unspent levy money paid by a developer will not be returned to them but will just be kept by Natural England to spend as it sees fit? Secondly, could there be a situation where a developer paid the levy and then was compulsorily purchased and his or her own money was then used to buy the land off them under compulsory purchase? That seems somewhat inequitable to me.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I will write to the noble Lord on those two issues, if that is possible.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I cannot say that I heard satisfactory answers to many of the amendments in this group. I certainly do not feel satisfied that there will be a way for a developer to make a partial contribution to the NRF and to do what he can on his own site. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her Amendment 130, which would basically resolve this problem, as it would many others in this part of the Bill.
The point from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, about the charging schedules was extremely well made. I think the House is well aware that this is a planning Bill and this section of it relates to Defra. It is encouraging that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, informed the House the other day that this part of the Bill would be governed by the Secretary of State for Defra, which gives some optimism that the charging schedule might relate to nature when it is laid. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roborough
“(ja) any farmer who farms land which is wholly or partly within the development area,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to consult with farmers who will be impacted by an EDP after the EDP is prepared.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. In Committee, the Minister suggested that farmers, fishermen and landowners likely to be impacted by an EDP would have a chance to be consulted but only through the public consultation exercise. I still do not believe that is enough. Many public and private bodies are listed as statutory consultees, but not those people who are going to be most directly impacted by the EDP. I do not intend to push these amendments to a vote, but I hope the Minister can give some reassurance that guidance will require that those interested parties are proactively consulted by mail or similar to ensure that they are aware of the proposals, and that their views are sought.
Amendment 178A in my name, supported by my noble friend Lord Caithness, would ensure that farmers were given adequate opportunity to participate in EDPs as suppliers. It would also require a guidance document to be published so that farmers knew how to provide these services to Natural England. The Minister made encouraging comments in Committee and at Second Reading about the role of farmers and the wider private sector in providing these services, and meetings have been reassuring about how public sector procurement rules will help. However, I do not believe that is enough. The Bill makes no mention of the private sector being engaged in this, and I believe it needs to be reflected in the Bill. In fact, the amendment that I prefer in this group is Amendment 182A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and I look forward to listening to his introduction of it. I beg to move.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 182A, but, first, I want to support the other amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 178A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.
As the Minister is aware, the majority of farmers are keen to engage in delivering environmental benefits and are increasingly collaborating geographically on landscape schemes. It would be entirely appropriate to use this expertise to deliver environmental services, building on existing commitments. Who is better qualified to provide value for money than those with local knowledge and an existing track record of delivering environmental goods?
Let me enlarge on the reasoning for tabling Amendment 182A—and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Cromwell, for their support for it. The amendment seeks to amend Clause 76 on the administration, implementation and monitoring of EDPs. I thank Ministers for their helpful letter of 13 October. I read it a number of times before deciding whether to table the amendment. Was I satisfied that the assurances given in the letter, that they would expect Natural England to preferentially adopt competitive procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, were adequate?
I concluded that this requirement should be in the Bill and not just advisory. Let me try to explain why I am concerned. The purpose of the Bill, as we have heard a number of times, is to speed up the planning and development process to enable the Government to deliver their housing ambitions and critical infrastructure plans. There is, however, a deep cynicism and suspicion that to throw Natural England into the mix, into the planning and development process, will absolutely not speed it up.
I am afraid I do not share the confidence of the Minister. It is not a criticism of Natural England, but the involvement of an arm’s-length public body, any public body, will, due to its culture and accountability, lead to layers of bureaucracy that did not exist before, as the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, stated earlier. The spades might start digging a few days earlier, but there will certainly be a delay in the delivery of the EDPs. It is inevitable.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, most responsible developers have now established relationships with consultants, ecologists and contractors who understand the current obligations and requirements in regard to local nature strategies, biodiversity net gain, et cetera. That may not have been the case a few years ago, but it definitely is today. Why disrupt a model that has been established and is now working well? This amendment will almost certainly guarantee that the process will speed up, because those involved in market solutions will be determined to prove that they have a solution before Natural England gets its sticky hands on the development, imposes a levy and increases the costs involved.
I have another, broader concern that has been referenced before. The Government and Natural England have tried to reassure us that Natural England will be adequately resourced to carry out this additional function. It will be able to siphon off the levy, which of course will add to development costs. I will be very surprised indeed, in view of the very serious pressure on the public purse, if the Chancellor does not bear down on expenditure in her Autumn Budget, including arm’s-length public bodies.
This amendment is an attempt to improve the Bill by insisting that Natural England allows and indeed encourages private market solutions to prove that they have a solution to deliver the conservation and ecological measures necessary before NE takes it in-house, with all the bureaucracy that will then entail. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but may wish to take this amendment further.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 182A, which has just been so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and have very little to add, other than to say that I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 178A, as he does.
Implementation and monitoring of this very ambitious project need a proper, open tender process, for two basic reasons: value for money and the fact that the private sector locally, including farmers, is going to know the land, the systems and the available resources far better than the rather uncharitably described “sticky fingers” of Natural England—but then I suggested earlier that it might “run amok”, so perhaps I should not be too bold. Natural England’s engagement in direct delivery, if it can actually deliver it, which is a question mark, should surely be the last resort, and it will almost certainly be considerably more expensive. I thoroughly support my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in his amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will talk briefly in support of Amendment 182A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. This Bill should be shaping how private operators will address the market for mitigation; instead, we have Natural England becoming a monopoly supplier of mitigations in a drive to nationalise nature and, in so doing, potentially drive out private initiative.
In an earlier group, I touched very briefly on the distinction between permitting and licensing. In my view, licensing is the way to go, because it prevents the derivative secondary markets that enrich the speculators at the expense of delivering the outcome. We cannot afford to create by way of permitting a new milk quota disaster—for those with long memories—where the mitigation industry just became a collateralised asset class that had everything to do with speculation and nothing to do with nature recovery.
That is not an argument against private involvement, but it is an argument for channelling and regulating a fast-developing industry where we have global leadership, the encouragement of which will enrich our economy. We just need to avoid the Wild West I have seen emerging among some chancers who are taking the money and spending it on Ferraris rather than laying it down to provide mitigations for the entire liability period.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I will first address the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which seek to amplify the role of farmers in providing nature services in respect of Part 3 of the Bill, as well as probe the consultation requirements for EDPs for specific groups, including farmers, landowners and fishing businesses.
I begin by reiterating that Natural England will, of course, work with local landowners, private providers and farmers in the delivery of conservation measures under EDPs. The Bill has therefore been drafted to enable delegation and partnership working with third parties. This may apply both to the development of EDPs, including ecological surveys and impact assessment, and to the undertaking and monitoring of conservation measures. EDPs represent an opportunity for growth in nature services markets and revenue diversification for farming and land management businesses.
As committed to in Committee, the Government will publish guidance for Natural England regarding the role of the private sector in EDPs. This will be clear that open and competitive procurement of goods and services is typically the best way to secure value for money and innovation. We will expect Natural England to preferentially adopt competition procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, recognising that in some instances direct delivery will be necessary. While I applaud the noble Lord for acting as a champion for the interests of farmers, I hope this explanation provides sufficient assurance that there is a clear role for farmers and landowners in making the NRF a success.
Regarding the noble Lord’s amendments relating to consultation requirements with specific groups, as he will be aware, every EDP will be subject to statutory public consultation to ensure that everyone with an interest in an EDP has the opportunity to comment. These responses will be shared with the Secretary of State when they are considering whether to make an EDP. This consultation can run for no fewer than 28 days and can be extended through regulation. We understand that different sectors will have specific interests in EDPs, depending on their content, as each EDP will vary based on location and the issues it addresses.
Of course, we recognise that farmers and the fishing industry are particularly important sectors, and their views should be heard. However, given the large number of farming and fishing businesses that we have, it would not be practical, or helpful, to legally require Natural England to contact each one directly and personally during the formal public consultation. Nor can Natural England require any private business to respond to a consultation. We believe the Bill strikes the right balance—ensuring public consultation and engagement with the responses from landowners and businesses forming part of the Secretary of State’s consideration of each EDP. With this explanation, I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.
I turn finally to Amendment 182A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, which seeks to introduce a requirement for Natural England to pay another person to deliver conservation measures and the related monitoring measures that are required within an EDP. As I have set out previously, we are clear that Natural England will work with third parties and private providers when delivering conservation measures and associated activities under the NRF such as monitoring. As I have set out, we agree with the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that private markets and other expert organisations can support the roll out of the nature restoration fund through delivering conservation measures. However, while we expect Natural England to adopt competitive procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, there may be some instances where direct delivery will be necessary and appropriate. We would not wish for the legislation to remove this option where it would deliver better value for money, better environmental outcomes or both. With this explanation, I hope the noble lord will not move his amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for sticking to his brief, but I think there was not enough there to satisfy certainly these Benches—enabling private sector engagement, instead of requiring it, and not being willing to have it written on the face of the Bill are not reassuring. Direct delivery in certain unspecified circumstances does not seem to us to be a guarantee of private sector engagement in these EDPs. The noble Lord helpfully mentioned the guidance that would be delivered. We discussed this in Committee and the noble Baroness the Minister, who is in her place, indicated that she would provide that draft guidance when it was available. I very much look forward to that.
While I am very happy to withdraw my amendment for now, I should make it very clear that, if the noble Lord, Lord Curry, does decide to divide on this, he will have the support of our Benches.
“(ja) if an environmental feature identified in the draft EDP is a protected feature of a protected site that is wholly or partly in Wales, the Natural Resources Body for Wales and the Welsh Ministers,(jb) if an environmental feature identified in the draft EDP is a protected feature of a protected site that is wholly or partly in Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Ministers,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to consult its counterpart in Wales or Scotland and either the Welsh or Scottish Ministers where a draft EDP covers development (in England) which is likely to have an impact on a protected site in Wales or Scotland or in the waters adjacent to those countries (see also my amendment at page 95, line 11).
Baroness Parminter
“(5A) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish draft regulations to make provision for—(a) how the mitigation hierarchy will be applied in preparing and applying an EDP,(b) a procedure by which the scientific evidence for including an environmental feature in an EDP will be assessed, taking account of the precautionary principle,(c) an assessment of the baseline condition of any environmental features that are habitats or species for each development application under an environmental delivery plan,(d) a list of irreplaceable habitats which cannot be an environmental feature in an EDP, and(e) the circumstances in which conservation actions must be taken before development takes place under an EDP.”
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 148 is an attempt to try and make the much-vaunted win-win for nature and the economy a reality. Kicking off, I thank my co-sponsors for supporting this amendment and indeed the Minister and her team for the various meetings where I have tried to persuade her of the merits of this case.
I would contend that this amendment provides a very pragmatic approach. We are taking the Government at their word; they have said that:
“Natural England will always consider the environmental principles when preparing an EDP”.—[Official Report, 17/9/25; col. 2249.]
That in itself is welcome, but it is just words and there is no clarity in the Bill about how the scientific evidence will be assessed, nor how the environmental impacts will be considered. That is why this amendment calls for these important environmental principles to be put in regulations. We are not saying they have to go on the face of the Bill, but we have asked for regulations to give people the confidence about the environmental safeguards that we want to see, and which our dwindling wildlife needs, if we are to meet our own legally binding environmental targets.
The first of those environmental principles, and the most important by some degree, is that of the mitigation hierarchy: in the first instance, one seeks to avoid damage; if that cannot be satisfied, then one reduces; and then, only if all other avenues have been explored, one moves to compensation. The Government have, despite repeated requests, not given any further clarity on the guidance note which said there is a
“continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of EDPs”.
As I say, we have not seen anything clearer than that, and we know that a guidance note, in itself, is not sufficient.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said:
“the mitigation hierarchy is expressed through this model, with government amendments underlining the continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of EDPs”.—[Official Report, 17/9/25; cols. 2239-2240.]
Again, that is all well and good, but it is not on the face of the Bill. We are quite clear that the mitigation hierarchy is so important that how it will be applied needs to be spelled out in regulations. This would not stop the Government going ahead with their new approach for these EDPs; it would just require them to be able to prove that all the steps have been gone through, during the process of drawing up an EDP, to make it absolutely clear that in terms of conservations outcomes this is the best route to go down.
Equally, these regulations would spell out how the precautionary principle would be used in assessing the scientific evidence, because we cannot face the prospect of an EDP that allows damage which could not be repaired by mitigation elsewhere.
As mentioned in our earlier debate on Amendment 130, the regulations would also set out the assessment for the baseline conditions, giving people the confidence that the quality of the information is the best available and not just from impact modelling.
Again, we are taking the Government at their word. In Committee, the Minister said unequivocally that irreplaceable habitats would not be included in an EDP; through these regulations, then, let us put that in the make-up of the EDP. Let us be clear: there are other regulations—including on biodiversity net gain, which were introduced by the previous Government—which spell out that irreplaceable habitats will not be included within the scope of those provisions.
Finally, again taking the Government at their word in Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talked about how there will be circumstances in which conservation actions must be taken before development can take place—great, but we need that spelled out. The regulations would be the means to do that.
As I say, we are trying to be helpful to the Government, not only because we need those environmental safeguards for the Government to meet their environmental targets but because these EDPs are a completely new process. We have got to give businesses the confidence that, if they say, “Yes, we will go with these EDPs”, there is certainty that they will not be challenged. As it stands at the moment, there is no clarity about the scientific evidence or assessment of the environmental impacts. I am deeply worried that, unless this amendment is accepted, there will be far more challenges to the Government in their approach, which will not deliver the certainty for developers and will not deliver the houses and infrastructure that the country needs. I offer this amendment to the Government as a helpful approach to deliver for the environment and to get us building houses with the certainty we need as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 236A. I need to apologise to the House; the amendment is deficient in its drafting. I did not realise that in time to withdraw it but, as a consequence, I am happy for the Front Benches to completely ignore Amendment 236A. That said, I support Amendment 148 and if the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, puts it to a vote, I will support her.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
I rise briefly, because I spoke already on these matters on Amendment 130. All the concerns that I had about the scientific evidence and its basis are covered very nicely in this amendment. I would support the noble Baroness if she decided to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 148 and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for introducing it so clearly. It is quite a modest little amendment because all it asks is that, within six months, the Government publish draft regulations that would address a number of issues that have been of concern to several folks around the House, as well as external audiences. It is about a set of important issues that can give assurance that the Bill will definitely deliver, both for the environment and for development.
The Government have already given a bit of clarification on the requirements laid out in this amendment, with some very useful but limited government amendments being tabled after the Commons stages of the Bill. We have had assurances that irreplaceable habitats would be unlikely to meet the overall improvement test. We have had assurances that the environmental principles are already captured through drafting and various government amendments. We have had reference to the Secretary of State meeting the environmental principles policy statement as an alternative to the mitigation hierarchy. However, there were also other downsides in the comments made by the Minister in Committee.
For example, on whether measures need to be put in place in particular circumstances before a site is developed, I was rather concerned that it was said that that might be the case in instances where habitats or species are rare or fragile. You would think that if habitats or species are that rare or that fragile, we probably ought to be using the mitigation hierarchy to avoid doing damage to those really important areas. The Minister was clear that the Government would not require developers to use the mitigation hierarchy to do that very important thing: to try to avoid damage to the most important sites and to direct development to sites of rather less importance. That is fundamental if the Bill is to deliver both for the environment and for development.
The Minister very kindly had a drop-in session on EDPs, during which I asked whether we might see guidance and draft secondary legislation before Third Reading. Actually, I asked whether we would see it before Report, but I got a stout rebuttal at that point. It is really important that if there is a need for clarity, as I believe there is on the sorts of issues that are in Amendment 148, we see as much as possible of what will be in the guidance before we have to finally press the button on the Bill, because at the moment we are buying a bit of a pig in a poke.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 148. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has said, it is a modest but sensible little amendment with broad support, as we have seen tonight from all sides of the House. It deals with many of the concerns raised by Members from all Benches, including covering a number of amendments that we on these Benches have tabled.
I see no need to speak at length. I know there is some suggestion that this could be an adequate solution to the ills of Part 3. I am afraid it does not go far enough in that regard, but it could be part of the solution. That is why I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that if she intends to move it to a vote, the Official Opposition will support her. If she does not wish to vote on it tonight, we will need to return to this at Third Reading and discuss it further.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 148, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations dealing with various matters within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I am incredibly grateful to the noble Baroness for her continued engagement with Part 3 and welcome the opportunity to revisit the important matters raised by her amendment.
As set out in the recent all-Peers letter on the NRF, the Government are confident that each of the matters raised in this amendment is appropriately addressed in the legislation and that the safeguards in the Bill are sufficiently robust to guard against the misuse of this new approach. However, we recognise the particular desire for the Government to set out in greater detail how the mitigation hierarchy will inform the preparation of EDPs. I am happy to commit to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, to determine the best way for the mitigation hierarchy to be considered in the preparation of an EDP. To be clear: this includes my undertaking, if necessary, to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading.
I have already spoken about the mitigation hierarchy at some length in previous debates, so I will not repeat all those points, but I again draw Peers’ attention to the recent all-Peers letter, which sets out how the elements of the mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the legislation. The hierarchy starts by saying that development should avoid or reduce impacts wherever possible. Natural England is already able to achieve this by requiring that conditions are imposed on any development that relies on an EDP. These standard conditions will be a form of conservation measure under Clause 55.
At the other end of the hierarchy, harm should be compensated for only as a last resort. This too is incorporated into Part 3. Network conservation measures are a form of compensation measure, in old money. The Bill makes it clear that these can be used only where Natural England considers that they would make greater environmental improvement than measures delivered at the site being impacted. It is inherent in this that Natural England must prefer conservation measures, which would previously have been called mitigation measures, to compensation measures. Both these structures are reinforced by the existing legal obligation, under the Environment Act 2021, for the Secretary of State to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy, which will also apply when making an EDP. This will itself encourage compliance with the mitigation hierarchy through the prevention and “rectification at source” principles.
As I have said, I welcome the opportunity to work with the noble Baroness to ensure that there is clarity as to how this framework will be deployed in practice. In respect of the other limbs of her amendment, the Government’s amendments clarify that Natural England and the Secretary of State will need to have regard to the best available scientific evidence. This approach to evidence feeds into the consideration of any baselining that Natural England will have to do to appropriately model the impact of development on a relevant environmental feature.
The noble Baroness’s amendment also speaks to the position in respect of irreplaceable habitats. This returns us to the overall improvement test, which simply would not allow an EDP to be made if it would lead to irreversible or irreparable harm, as this would fail to secure the overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature required under the test. Where an environmental feature is irreplaceable, an EDP could not allow for this feature to be lost, as that would fail to materially outweigh the impact of the development.
I am therefore confident that putting a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations on these matters is unnecessary, but I recognise that the Government will want to carefully consider areas where it would be useful to provide further guidance to Natural England as part of the implementation of the NRF. I therefore hope the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, feels able to withdraw her amendment. I will not speak to Amendment 236A, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, suggested.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate to show that there is consensus on the importance of this issue and the need for the Bill, as it stands, to be amended to address what I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, regarded as a teeny-tiny issue but which could have really significant impacts, both for the environment and in certainty for the business community. We on these Benches always seek to be constructive, and I thank the Minister most heartily for her offer to have further discussions between now and Third Reading to progress matters. I hope very much that we can make progress on this before Third Reading. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
“(8) In this section, the references to Wales and Scotland include the waters adjacent to them up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 94, line 25.
Lord Roborough
“(8) If the Secretary of State decides not to make an EDP, the Secretary of State must seek to return any land obtained under a Compulsory Purchase Order for the purposes of the EDP to the original owner.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to seek to return any land obtained under a Compulsory Purchase Order where the Secretary of State has decided not to make the connected Environmental Delivery Plan.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to my other amendments in this group. The purpose of the amendments is to impose further discipline on Natural England in the exercise of its CPO powers relating to EDPs and potentially to remove them.
Amendments 153 and 160 seek to impose enhanced Crichel Down rules on Natural England in regard to any land that is acquired by Natural England for an EDP under a CPO or the threat of a CPO. The intention of the amendments is that, if the land is not required for an EDP, or if the EDP is revoked or expires, the land is returned to the previous owner. In practice, I would expect that the previous owner should pay the lower of market value or the net value after expenses and tax that was realised on the initial sale. This is slightly different to the Crichel Down rules, which require the offer of the land back at market value, should the land be about to be offered for sale, and is therefore a greater protection to the original owner. I hope that the Minister can offer encouragement on these points.
Amendment 189A would modify the requirement that Natural England’s compulsory purchase powers be subject to Secretary of State approval. The amendment would have the force of requiring Natural England to share with the Secretary of State all documentation and communication relevant to the decision, as well as allowing the landowner impacted to make a written submission of their own case. The amendment would place on Natural England a greater requirement for diligence in the exercise of these powers and allow private landowners, who may feel the injustice of the compulsory purchase, to state their case.
Amendment 190 seeks to protect gardens and allotments from the compulsory purchase powers available to Natural England. In the Bill, it appears that Natural England explicitly does have the power to CPO such property. In meetings and in Committee, the Minister stated that that would be very unlikely ever to happen. In that case, why does this power need to be included in the Bill?
Should the Minister be minded to adopt these suggestions, our Amendment 191, which removes Natural England’s CPO power for EDPs entirely, may not be necessary. But, if we were not to get satisfaction, we would be very inclined to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I just want to refer to Amendment 190. Often when we are tabling legislation, people say, “Well, that’ll never happen”, but it does in a different way.
I remember a coastal path in parts of Yorkshire where Natural England had a writ for it to go through gardens. Understandably, the homeowners were very upset. Finally, at my insistence, Natural England did change the path, because I said the regulations would never be laid. There is an element here of why I understand why my noble friend Lord Roborough has tabled this amendment, and I hope that the Government will give him sufficient assurance.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 190 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, to which I have added my name.
Amendment 190 raises an important issue about the use of compulsory purchase orders in relation to environmental delivery plans. It seeks to prevent land that is part of a home or garden from being subject to such an order. This is a reasonable and proportionate safeguard, recognising the sensitivities that come with any proposal to acquire private property and the importance of ensuring that powers of this kind are used only where it is truly necessary for the public good.
This question sits within a much wider context of how we support land management and environmental delivery. Post Brexit and post the CAP, Governments of both colours have tried and often struggled to deliver mechanisms that provide public and private funding for farmers to deliver public goods. The number one priority of the National Farmers’ Union has always been that such schemes should be open to all farmers, allowing them to continue vital environmental projects as part of profitable, resilient businesses.
Moving on to the intentions behind Clause 83 and the desire to ensure that environmental delivery plans can be delivered effectively, there remains a need for greater clarity from the Government on how these compulsory purchase orders would operate in practice. I would particularly welcome assurances on the safeguards that will apply, the circumstances in which such powers might be used and whether the Government believe that there are sufficient limits to prevent their overreach.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I will begin with Amendment 191. This seeks to remove Clause 83, which provides Natural England with powers to compulsorily purchase land to carry out functions under Part 3.
To secure a win-win for nature and the economy, Natural England needs to have the necessary powers to bring forward the conservation measures needed to secure environmental protection while enabling Britain to get building. I know that the availability of compulsory purchase powers is a concern for some in this House, which is why the Government have taken a suitably cautious approach to the provision of such powers under Part 3. But we are clear that CPOs should be available to Natural England, subject to approval from the Secretary of State, where they are needed to secure land that is necessary to deliver conservation measures required under an EDP.
This is not, as some would portray it, a power grab for Natural England, but part of a package of measures in the Bill that will ensure that the necessary conservation measures will be delivered. While the Secretary of State would approve the use of such powers only where they were truly necessary, we believe that they need to be available to ensure that important conservation measures are not prevented from coming forward. On this environmental basis, I hope the noble Lord can see why such powers are necessary and will agree not to press his amendment.
Amendments 153 and 160 from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order under two situations. The first situation would require land to be returned where Natural England has used CPO to purchase land that is then not required as the Secretary of State has subsequently chosen not to make an EDP. I assure the noble Lord that this situation will never arise, as Natural England is unable to use these powers before an EDP has been made by the Secretary of State.
The second situation seeks for land to be returned in the event that an EDP is revoked. It is important to recognise that, in the unlikely event that an EDP is revoked, the Secretary of State is required to take proportionate action to ensure that the impact of development that has come forward under the EDP is materially outweighed, in line with the overall improvement test.
It is not the case that, where an EDP is revoked, conservation measures can then be discontinued. Where an EDP is revoked, it will be because the Secretary of State no longer considers that it would meet the overall improvement test. It would therefore be environmentally reckless to require the land to be returned in this scenario, given the ongoing need to outweigh the impact of development. To do so would risk removing vital conservation measures and increasing the need for remedial action that would need to be funded by the taxpayer.
Amendment 190 would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers for land that is part of a private dwelling. I assure noble Lords that the powers being granted to Natural England are not a licence to turn private gardens into nature reserves. As I have set out previously, these powers are there to provide certainty that, where necessary, Natural England can purchase land in this way.
However, we recognise that CPO is a significant tool. That is why it is ultimately a decision for the Secretary of State whether the public benefits of the CPO outweigh the interference with individual property rights and whether there is a compelling public interest in making the CPO. This important safeguard ensures that the use of these powers comes with appropriate oversight. Noble Lords will be aware of existing protections around private dwellings granted by the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 252, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained through compulsory purchase orders where the value of the work carried out exceeded the price of the original contract offered to the landowner. To secure the successful delivery of the new strategic approach, we must ensure that Natural England has sufficient powers and resources to deliver the necessary conservation measures.
We expect Natural England to consider using compulsory purchase powers only once other options to acquire the land have been exhausted. Where land is acquired by compulsory purchase, this will be subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight—including authorisation by the Secretary of State—and the landowner will receive compensation, in line with the existing approach.
The price paid to the landowner if the land is compulsorily acquired is not linked to the value of any contract proposed by Natural England prior to a CPO being taken forward, but will reflect the fair market value of the land. This approach to valuation is common across different CPO powers and is not specific to EDPs. When land is acquired by this route, Natural England will use the land to deliver conservation measures required under the EDP. The cost of these measures may vary for a number of reasons, and it is conceivable that Natural England may be able to use the land to deliver a range of conservation measures linked to different EDPs. As well as undermining the ability of EDPs to meet the overall improvement test, requiring land to be returned in this situation would expose taxpayers and developers to increased costs and would require Natural England to monitor the value of contracts associated with the land for potentially up to 100 years, with land being returned, potentially at increased value, at any point over that period.
I recognise that the use of compulsory purchase powers is an issue close to the heart of many noble Lords. However, I trust that noble Lords can recognise the need for these targeted powers and can appreciate the safeguards established through the Bill.
Finally, Amendment 189A would require the Secretary of State to permit a landowner to make written representations before any decision on whether to approve a compulsory purchase is made. As part of this amendment, Natural England would be required to inform landowners that this option is available and provide all parties with the necessary information.
I can reassure the noble Lord that the important protections in his amendment already apply in the Bill. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 specifies that the provisions of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 apply to compulsory purchases made by Natural England under Clause 83. Sections 12 and 13A of that Act include provision for the notification of affected landowners as well as the ability of objectors to submit representations to the confirming authority, in this case the Secretary of State, either in writing or via a hearing.
With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for her reply to my amendments. I did not detect much movement, although I thought it was very helpful to have the answer on Amendment 189A, which is a significant protection to a landowner who has been CPO-ed. I did not detect much of an answer on the Crichel Down rules as such, and whether it was possible to improve on those as they relate to a CPO for an EDP. Perhaps the Minister can reflect on that over the next few groups and offer something before we get to Amendment 191. I am still minded to test the opinion of the House on that, but any clarification could be helpful. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.